Members present:                                                             Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
                                                                                            John Juergensen

Absent member:                                                                Edward McDonnell

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1939 – Harris/Day Architects, Inc., Matthew Sutter, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for New Plan Excel Realty Trust Inc., property owner, 22054 Farmington Rd., Farmington, MI 48336 requests a variance for a 42 ft. front yard setback for principal building where 50 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4215-4501 Whipple Ave. NW, Sect. 25NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Matthew Sutter and stated that there is a letter in the file dated October 7, 2004 that was faxed to the zoning department from Matthew Sutter which states they are withdrawing their application and will be resubmitting at a later date for a 36 ft. front yard setback.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to accept the letter of withdrawal.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1941 – Randy Gonzalez, property owner, 6929 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 14 ft. (north) right side yard setback where 25 ft. is required for a side yard setback when adjacent to a street per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6929 Frank Ave. NW, Sect. 11SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Randy Gonzalez and the reasons for the request.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed addition and an aerial view of the property.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Randy Gonzalez, 6929 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he would like to add an addition to his house; however, due to the house being located on a corner lot the setback is 25 ft.  The house sits approximately 32 ft. from the blacktop along Bob O Link, and he does not believe the street would ever be widened.

Mr. Deremer asked what the side setback would be if the side yard did not have street frontage.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he thinks it would be 15 ft., but because it is a corner lot the required setback is 25 ft.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that his nephew built a duplex directly across the street from him, his son is going to build a house next to that and his mother and sister live in a duplex next to that, so he doesn’t have any complaints from the neighbors.  Mr. Gonzalez stated that the addition will serve as a buffer for the residents behind him in cutting down on the noise from the traffic on Frank Rd.

Mr. Deremer asked if the addition could be built on the property without violating zoning although it may not be practical.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that it would not be practical because he added an addition a few years ago that was built at an angle so the regulations weren’t violated.  Mr. Gonzalez stated that the purpose of the addition is so they won’t have to go up and down steps as they get older and part of the addition will have a bathroom and a laundry room.

Mr. Dodson asked in looking at the size of the garage, although it may not be practical, could the addition fit on the other side of the house, because it appears it would physically fit on the lot without violating zoning.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he thinks he would run into a rear requirement.

Mr. Dodson asked what year the home was built.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he had the home built in 1994.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Gonzalez if he thought Bob O Link would be expanded into three or four lanes.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he thinks there is a very remote chance because the neighborhood is approximately 30 years old and Bob O Link runs into a “T”.

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

Mr. Deremer stated for some reason the side road was built with a 60 ft. right of way, which seems somewhat wide for a standard subdivision.  The addition is 624 sq. ft. and would fit on the lot without violating the zoning resolution.  Mr. Deremer stated based on the fact that they are not overbuilding the lot and the neighborhood that they are located in, he believes that it would be a good variance to award.

Mr. Dodson stated that he would have problem if the setback were off of Frank Ave. because there is a good chance that Frank could be expanded, but he doesn’t think that will happen with Bob O Link.  The addition will actually be 30 ft. off the pavement, so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Giulitto concurred with the other board members.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1941 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1940 – Michael Mahaffey, property owner, 5414 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance to add an additional 510 sq. ft. to an existing accessory building where 120 sq. ft. is permitted for a total of 1,590 sq. ft. where the maximum square footage for accessory buildings on one acre or less is 1,200 sq. ft. per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5414 Frank Ave. NW, Sect. 24NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Michael Mahaffey and the reason for the appeal.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, nine photos marked as exhibits, and a letter from the applicant to the adjoining neighbor’s that has seven signatures approving the addition.  Mr. Deremer stated that the letter would remain in the file but would not be read into the record due to not being swore testimony.  The file also contained a layout of the parcel in question and a site plan of the proposed addition.

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

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

Mr. Barth stated that he is a friend of Mr. Mahaffey and a license professional engineer, surveyor, and realtor.  Mr. Barth stated that the request is for additional square footage that is above what is permitted within the zoning regulations.  The addition would be added to the back of the existing structure and no other variance would be required because the addition will meet all the required setbacks.

Mr. Barth stated that Frank Rd. is extremely busy.  The driveway is at the crest of the hill just past Stark State College so the site distance is very poor in both directions.  With the variance they will be able to put the boat & trailer inside the building and allow the cars to turn around in the drive and exit forward onto Frank Rd. as opposed to having to back out onto Frank Rd.  Mr. Barth stated that the existing 10 x 12 ft. shed would be removed from the property.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Barth to review the photos that are in the file.

Mr. Barth explained the exhibits as follows:
Exhibit #1 shows a photo of the boat and trailer.
Exhibit #2 shows the driveway and the corner of the house.
Exhibit #3 shows the boat in the driveway.
Exhibit #4 shows another view of the boat in the driveway looking east.
Exhibit #5 shows a different view of the boat in the driveway.
Exhibit #6 shows the shed that will be removed.
Exhibit #7 shows the front of the existing garage.
Exhibit #8 & 9 shows two different views of the shed to be removed.

Mr. Deremer asked if the addition would extend any further to the property line than the existing shed.

Mr. Barth stated no.  The addition would be about one foot from where the existing shed is located and would not be seen from the road.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are trading a 510 sq. ft. addition for 120 ft. that is being removed.

Mr. Barth stated yes.  They are really asking for 390 ft. over what is permitted.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the practical difficulty would be the traffic flow and by building the addition it would be safer when entering and exiting onto Frank Rd.

Mr. Barth stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Barth if the vehicles currently back out onto Frank Rd.

Mr. Barth stated yes, because there is no room to turn around.

Mr. Deremer asked if the lot size is almost ¾ of the acre.
Mr. Barth stated that it is about ½ an acre.

Mr. Juergensen asked what is to the east of the property.

Mr. Barth stated that there is a residential home to the east of the property.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Mack Rose, 5405 Frank Rd. NW.

Mr. Rose stated that Mr. Mahaffey has a beautiful home and is a very good neighbor.  Mr. Mahaffey has a very large boat that he would like to keep in the garage and the addition will not interfere with any of the neighbors.  Mr. Rose stated that the addition will enhance the neighborhood and he gives his blessing.

Mr. Deremer asked if the boat currently sits outside at all times.

Mr. Mack stated yes.

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

Mr. Juergensen stated that he does not think the variance is substantial given the size of the property and it won’t affect the character of the neighborhood and the spirit and intent of the zoning code will not be offended in any way, so he is in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Giulitto concurred with Mr. Juergensen and stated that it would be safer for the property owner by not having to back out onto Frank Rd.  Mr. Giulitto stated that he thinks it will enhance the looks of the neighborhood, so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that the lot is a standard size lot of ½ an acre.  They will be removing the 10 x 12 ft. shed so the total request is actually a 20% increase.  He doesn’t see that as violating the resolution to an extreme.  Mr. Deremer stated that the addition fits on the lot without any other variance or impacting the neighbors, so he is in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1940 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held August 26, 2004.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held August 26, 2004.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held September 9, 2004.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held September 9, 2004.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary