Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Gerald Werner
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Assistant Law Director: David Ferrell
Zoning Data Coordinator: Joni Poindexter
APPEAL #1805 - Buckeye Surveying, Bruce Conery, 2223 Fulton Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44709 agent for Holly A. Cosgwell, property owner, 4770 Amherst Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4770 Beatty St., which is 18.39 acres on the east side of Amherst Rd. approximately 225 ft. south of Beatty St., Sect. 29NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R. (Continued from 9/26/02)
Mr. Deremer stated that this appeal is continued from September 26, 2002.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Bruce Conery with reasons being to develop a residential development while preserving the pond and park like character of the property.
The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan labeled Scenic Ridge preliminary plat (revised), September 13, 2002, and comments from Herb Shreiner, Deputy Chief of the Jackson Township Fire Department. Mr. Deremer stated that there is also an old plan in the file but it would not be used due to replacing it with the revised plan.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Galen Oaks Jr., 8874 Blossom Cir. NW.
Mr. Oaks stated that he is a partner of the Scenic Ridge Development. Mr. Oaks stated that the plan would blend in very nice with the existing properties in Audubon Ridge and will fill the need for similar type housing.
Mr. Oaks stated that they like the way it fits in well with the comparable development to the south of Audubon Ridge, phases one through seven. They also liked the fact that with the PRD they are able to preserve some of the natural beauty of the existing property. Mr. Oaks stated that there are a chain of three small ponds that are located in the center of the property surrounded by beautiful ornamental trees and large 100-year old oak trees. Mr. Oaks stated that they would like to work around these and make them a focus point of the development. Mr. Oaks stated that he likes the way the streets are laid out and feels the 90 degree bends will discourage the roads from being used as a short cut off of Amherst Rd. and will reduce the traffic flow through Scenic Ridge as well as through Audubon Ridge.
Mr. Oaks stated that he held a meeting with the residents, which many attended, after learning that there were some concerns regarding the development. Mr. Oaks stated that concessions were made based on some of the residents concerns.
Mr. Oaks stated that the residents felt that the lots on the west side of Ranier Ave. were minimal in size and to narrow, being 80 ft. wide. They decided to eliminate one lot and now the narrowest lot is 90 ft. wide.
Mr. Oaks stated that there was a short lot line of 104 ft. between the end of Woodpoint Cir. and the property line in the Highlands. This would mean that the houses would sit fairly close to the property line and most of the trees would have to be removed. The residents asked if they would consider reducing the number of lots to increase the buffer zone between the two developments. Mr. Oaks stated that they reduced the lots and shortened the circle so the shortest lot line is now 131 ft.
Mr. Oaks stated that the shortest and most cost effective way to bring sewer to the property would be to run it directly along the east property line between the development and the Highlands, which would mean destroying a 30 ft. wide strip of trees. They asked the engineers to consider another alternative. With the cooperation of the one of the home owners on Beatty St., Mr. Wolf, he has agreed to provide an easement so they can bring the sewer off the corner of his backyard and get the sewer into the development further west and not have to bring it along the property line between the two developments of Scenic Ridge and Highlands.
Mr. Oaks stated that the plan meets and exceeds the requirements of the Planned Residential Development but more importantly it meets the true spirit and purpose of the PRD.
Mr. Deremer swore in Rich Largent, 1225 North Main St. NW of Hettler Engineering Services.
Mr. Largent stated that the total site is about 18 acres and would have custom-built single family homes with 34 lots. Mr. Largent stated that Ranier Ave. is an existing street that stubs to the southern portion of their property and it will continue north all the way, turning left, and then connecting onto Amherst Ave.
Mr. Largent stated that the proposed intersection onto Amherst meets the site distance requirements per ODOT. There is 3.61 acres of open space or 20% of the project area.
Mr. Largent stated that the minimum project area is 10 acres and they have 18.39 acres. The density with 34 lots is about 1.98 units per acre, which requires 20% open space. Mr. Largent stated that they tried to keep the land in its natural state and continuous in one mass.
Mr. Largent stated that there are 16 lots that have direct visibility or contact with the open space and 400 ft. of right of way that fronts the green space.
Mr. Largent stated that the developers would own and maintain the open space until after most of the lots are sold. Then a homeowners association would be set up to maintain and own the open space.
Mr. Largent stated that they did a search for the average sale price over the last two years of the adjoining areas. Mr. Largent stated that the property values to the east, which is the Highlands at Audubon, range from $400,000 and up. The property values to the north on Beatty St. are around $110,000 for an average home of 1,648 sq. ft. To the south the average sale price for a 2,463-sq. ft. home is $241,000.
Mr. Largent stated that average lot size that they are proposing is just over 15,000 sq. ft., which is almost double what is required by the PRD and is also over the minimum lot size in an R-1 district.
Mr. Largent stated that once the lots are sold they are proposing homes to be in the $230,000 plus price range.
Mr. Deremer stated that exhibit #1 is the colored 11 x 17” property value analysis and exhibit #2 is the notice of subdivision action from Stark County Regional Planning, meeting date of October 8, 2002.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he had reviewed the plan in detail regarding the physical requirements for the PRD.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the plan meets all of the specific design requirements for the PRD. The Site Plan Review Committee also reviewed the plan and their comments were submitted to Regional Planning and those comments were incorporated into Regional Planning’s conditional approval. Mr. Phillippi stated the plan actually exceeds the requirements for the PRD.
Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Largent had mentioned that the open space is 3.61 acres and as he looks at the revised preliminary plat dated 10/10/02, he sees a parcel that says open space 3.61 acres, which is just below the existing pond. He also sees another parcel #1616374, 10 acres that is to the south of the existing pond, and asked what this refers to.
Mr. Largent stated that there are actually two pieces of property and the two combined together equal the 18 acres.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is correct that the radius of the cul-de-sacs of 50 ft.
Mr. Largent stated this is correct.
Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Largent what guarantee there is that the homeowners association would maintain the open space.
Mr. Largent stated that he does not know if he can answer that question. He is not sure what the developers long term plans are in that sense, but one of the items listed in the zoning requirements is that the open space should be preserved in its natural condition. Mr. Largent asked Mr. Dodson if he is concerned that the area would get over grown.
Mr. Dodson stated yes, and it would be ignored.
Mr. Largent stated that from a legal standpoint, he is not sure what can and cannot be done with it once it is turned over to the homeowners association.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed the general criteria and conditions for the Planned Residential Development and Mr. Largent answered as follows:
Section 431.6(U)
1) The design will be in the general character
of the vicinity. It will be designed and built per the Stark County
regulations. It is the developer’s intent for it to be maintained
and look just like Audubon Ridge. They are all detached single family
residents.
2) On of the major things that does not
make it hazardous is that Ranier Ave. was intended to go through, which
is what they are doing. They have gone to great lengths at the intersection
of Amherst to make sure it is not hazardous and is in safe condition.
Ranier was stubbed at the property so it was intended to eventually go
through.
3) This is a great addition to Jackson
Township and will not be detrimental to the properties in the vicinity.
4) The highway and streets are all approved
per Stark County standards and approved by the Stark County Engineer and
there will be a through access way for police and fire protection.
The sewer will be in accordance with the Sanitary Sewer Department, and
for the storm sewer the site basically goes in two directions. There
is an existing storm sewer that runs through the Highlands and is stubbed
to their property, which they will utilize for part of the property, and
then the pond and culvert under Amherst will be utilized for other parts.
5) Will comply with all of State, County,
and Township regulations.
6) Amherst is a collector street and Ranier
will continue through and tie into the collector street.
7) It will not interfere with traffic
on surrounding streets or highways.
8) Yes
9) Yes
10) Yes
11) Yes
The board had no further questions.
Mr. Deremer swore in Lynette White, 8565 Yorkshire NW.
Ms. White stated that she is interested in becoming a property owner in the proposed development and believes this is a wonderful option for residents and would like to see it proceed.
Mr. Deremer swore in Galen Oaks Sr.
Mr. Oaks stated that he is another partner in the project and has been developing in Jackson Township since the early 1960’s. Mr. Oaks stated that this will be a very nice development and not everyone is interested in 20,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Oaks stated that the developers would maintain the open space until the homeowners take over. Mr. Oaks stated that new homeowners usually maintain their property and he would appreciate the boards support on the project.
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 Doug Zahler, 4670 Amherst Rd. NW.
Mr. Zahler stated that his 5-3/8 acre tract would be the most affected by the development. Mr. Zahler stated that the R-R district is because of the lot sizes. Mr. Zahler stated that the zoning book points out that the R-R district tends to prevent excessive demands on the sewerage and water systems, streets, schools, and other community facilities. The proposed Scenic Ridge development is the direct opposite of what an R-R district is.
Mr. Zahler stated that the schools are seriously over crowded and it’s a sure fact that the over crowding will get steadily worse. The property taxes are on a relentless upward spiral because of the school problem and the road and infrastructure are totally inadequate for the rapidly increasing population. The traffic adjustments are only made after the fact. High-density developments such as Scenic Ridge, proposed for traditionally low-density areas, penalize the long-standing adjacent homeowners who choose to live in an R-R setting years ago. Mr. Zahler stated that very little of the remaining green space is being preserved and many ponds and streams are becoming clogged with muck and slit from uncontrolled runoff from new developments.
Mr. Zahler asked the board to deny the request.
Mr. Deremer swore in Ms. Maureen Zahler, 4670 Amherst NW.
Ms. Zahler stated that the development is not in agreement with section 401.1B, purpose of an R-R district. Mr. Zahler stated that it is possible that the PRD is against the Ohio Revised Code and asked the board to prove that the development is legal within the State of Ohio.
Ms. Zahler stated that the development would have an impact on her property values, house systems, present drainage patterns of the property, and the surrounding area. Ms. Zahler stated that it will affect the desirability of her property by eliminating all the adjacent green space and the homes are lower priced as compared the area.
Ms. Zahler stated that to the east is very large groundhog colony. When the building starts the groundhogs will probably move into the adjoining properties and may cause tunneling into the underground utility lines.
Ms. Zahler stated that the increased density will destroy the semi-suburban character of the property and there will be increased noise from the Ranier extension and will also create a cut through from Amherst to Audubon and she does not think stop signs will eliminate the cut through.
Ms. Zahler stated that she understands that there are proposed changes to the zoning code. Ms. Zahler asked the board to postpone their decision until all the revisions are made to the zoning code and if it doesn’t fit the criteria, she doesn’t know how the township can approve it.
Mr. Deremer swore in Ted Thielens, 8355 Blue Heron Cir. NW.
Mr. Thielens stated that he was not able to attend the meeting held by the developers but he appreciates their attempt to take the residents concerns into consideration.
Mr. Thielens stated that the original plan
included four lots that were contiguous to his property and in looking
at the revisions it is now three lots. Mr. Thielens stated that the
major reason he purchased his lot was because of the zoning. Mr.
Thielens stated that he is not against development, but thinks it very
important to maintain the zoning as it exists as rural residential.
Mr. Thielens stated that he is concerned
with the drainage and has seen a change since Audubon Ridge was built.
He is also concerned with the sewer lines and what the final plan will
be. Mr. Thielens stated that he would request that the board delay
the decision until all the final details of their request can be fully
considered.
Mr. Deremer swore in Patty Houck, 8437 Noble Loon NW.
Ms. Houck stated that her lot is #173. Ms. Houck gave the board nine photos of different homes in the area. Ms. Houck stated that the first photo is a picture of her home. When looking at the average value of the proposed homes, they are $241,000 and this is almost $100,000 less than her home is. Ms. Houck stated that she bought her home because it was zoned R-1 with R-R behind it and she doesn’t want her home values to depreciate.
Mr. Deremer stated that the photos would be marked as exhibit OE#1 through OE#9.
Mr. Deremer swore in Linda Oleyar, 8397 Noble Loon NW.
Ms. Oleyar stated that the reason she built her home where she did is because of the style of homes in the neighborhood and she doesn’t understand why different zoning would be allowed.
Mr. Deremer swore in Dan Poole, 8486 Noble Loon NW.
Mr. Poole stated that he feels the proposal is being pushed through before the Zoning Commission has a chance to deal with the issues that are being proposed with them. Mr. Poole stated that he doesn’t really object to the plan, but he hasn’t heard anything about zoning restrictions as far as if motor homes, sheds, etc. would be permitted. Mr. Poole stated that he would like to know more because he thinks it’s being pushed through to get it done.
Mr. Deremer stated for clarification purposes, this appeal was filed under the current resolution so the board is bound to go by the current resolution. Even if delayed it would not matter if the regulations change because the code that is followed is the code that was in effect when the appeal was filed.
Mr. Poole stated that the open space has been the real issue with the PRD’s.
Mr. Deremer stated that this was the concept when it was inserted into the resolution.
Mr. Poole asked who would maintain the open space.
Mr. Deremer stated that this was testified to.
Mr. Poole stated that he is not in complete opposition because he thinks it will be developed, but he doesn’t want to see it hurried up and only half a job done.
Mr. Deremer swore in Virginia Maciejewski, 8465 Noble Loon NW.
Ms. Maciejewski stated that her only questions is that, if this would pass under a PRD and this is only a proposal, do they have to adhere to this or can they change the plan.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this is general development plan and if approved the plan would have to be substantially adhered to when filing the final development plan. If there is any increase in the number of lots or decrease in the open space then it would have to go back for another approval for a revision to the board.
Mr. Deremer swore in Lynn Balash, 8504 Noble Loon NW.
Ms. Balash stated that she has lived at her residents for two years and before that they lived off of High Mill Ave. in an allotment for 21 years. One of things that bothered her was that some of her neighbors had boats, sheds, and old cars stored on their property and it made her house values go down. Ms. Balash stated that she is not against the allotment but is concerned that the value of her home will go down because of the types of homes that are going to be built. Ms. Balash asked the board to vote against the request.
Ms. Balash gave the board a photo of her home, which was marked as exhibit OE#10.
Ms. Maciejewski stated that when the developer held a meeting with the residents they said that they would adhere to the restriction that are on their property. She would like the developer to put that on record and that there would be no condos.
Mr. Deremer stated that the developer already said that all the homes would be single family detached.
Mr. Deremer swore in Jim Hill, 8523 Noble Loon NW.
Mr. Hill stated that his lot is #169. He is not against the development and thinks it could be a beautiful allotment if they adhere to the restriction that are place in the Noble Loon development. Mr. Hill gave the board a photo of his home which was marked as exhibit OE#11.
Mr. Deremer swore in Craig Keith, 8360 Condor Cir. NW.
Mr. Keith stated that his lot is #18 in the Highlands. Mr. Keith stated that he has a great view out the back of his home with a lot of trees and it is a great place to live. Mr. Keith stated that his concerns were based on two things that the developer talked about. The sewer in the original design would have run through the Highlands and come up through the second cul-de-sac and a good bit of trees would have had to be removed. He was also concerned about the depth of the lots in the original plan at the back of Wooded Point Cir. Mr. Keith stated that he feels the developer has addressed both of his concerns.
No one else in the audience spoke against this appeal.
Mr. Oaks Jr. stated that their restrictions would be no less restrictive then what he considers the median restrictions at Audubon Ridge phase five development. Mr. Oaks stated that they would not build any condos or villas and would not have any postage stamp lots with cookie cutter houses.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Oaks to describe some of the restrictions that are in place.
Mr. Oaks stated that they do not allow
RV’s to be parked, storage sheds, grazed geese or these types of things.
Mr. Oaks stated that the restrictions would be written out and submitted
because they have to be recorded. The developer would hold the residents
accountable for them until it is turned over to the homeowners association.
Then the homeowners association would hold them accountable.
Mr. Largent stated regarding drainage,
once developed the water will go into the sewers in the road and into the
pipes underground. This will greatly reduce the amount of runoff
on the roads.
Mr. Poole asked how the restrictions are enforced.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the homeowners association has the responsibility of owning and maintaining the open space. If for some reason the property would become a nuisance, then the township has the right to take care of it. If this would happen then the township would charge a fee to the homeowners association. Mr. Phillippi stated that the township does not enforce any type of deed restriction other then the township regulations.
Mr. Largent stated that there would be a fee charged for each homeowner and the fees would be used to maintain the property.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. McDonnell stated that some people have indicated that they thought this was a different zoning, but it isn’t. There are specific provisions and requirements for a PRD within an R-R district that gives the board the authority to grant a request. This is not rezoning. It is use of property in an R-R district that has been approved by the trustees. There were some remarks about the board delaying the decision and seeing what happens with the Zoning Commission making revisions in the ordinance. The board could do that but it wouldn’t make a difference because the application was made under the current resolution. They are bound to consider it and judge it by the resolution that is in effect when the application was made.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he knows there are concerns about property values, fences, sheds, boats, etc. The applicant has indicated that he is going to impose his own deed restrictions. There are specific detailed requirements regarding setbacks, sizes of lots, open space, and density that the applicant is required to meet. Mr. McDonnell stated that these have been met and in some instances exceeded the requirements. Mr. McDonnell stated that he is in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Werner stated that he can see both sides but the believes the applicant has made a great effort to comply with the neighbor’s concerns and he has no problems with this appeal.
The board had no further comments.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1805 as submitted and testified to.
Mr. Werner 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 appeal #1805 has been approved.
APPEAL #1802 - Fred Tobin, Managing Member for Pine Ridge Group, Ltd, property owner, 7694 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 7/26/02 regarding the grading of open space “A” Aberdeen Glen No. 1, Sect. 34SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R/PRD.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Fred Tobin with reasons being as stated by the applicant; “The property in its present condition looks very natural as the grade from the eastern part of the open space flows into the building lots. We have created saleable building lots which allow our future owners to better utilize the open space for both views and recreation”.
The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a letter dated July 1, 2002 from John Phillippi to Fred Tobin regarding open space “A” grading, a letter dated July 26, 2002 from John Phillippi to Fred Tobin regarding Aberdeen Glen No. 1 PRD, a letter dated July 12, 2002 from Fred Tobin to John Phillippi regarding Aberdeen Glen No. 1 PRD, a grading plan marked sheet 13 of 15, six sheets containing a total of 11 computerized photos on the property in question, and a full size plan marked erosion/sediment control plan dated August 9, 2001.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Fred Tobin, 7694 Strausser St. NW.
Mr. Tobin stated that this is a Planned Residential Development and the houses are priced from $160,000 to $875,000 and they have built 26 new homes this year alone. Mr. Tobin stated that the issue is the grading on the open space. Mr. Tobin read the definition of open space as written in section 401.1(A) of the zoning resolution.
Mr. Tobin stated that it is not economical for him to tell a builder that he needs to go in and haul away 50 to 70 loads of material and put up a 10 to 20 ft. retaining wall in the back yard. This is what would they would have had to do if they did not adjust the lots.
Mr. Tobin stated that the purpose of the common open space is to conserve land in its natural state as a natural resource for the environmental benefits including wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife habitat and to set aside open areas for recreational benefit. Mr. Tobin stated that if there was a 10 to 20 rise behind the buildings, there would be no way to get to the open space other then going around.
Mr. Tobin stated that they did not take out any trees but did take a big knob out of the hill and created a situation of grading contours so they now have buildable lots. Mr. Tobin stated that the topsoil was stripped and stockpiled and when they were done with the grading all of the topsoil was replaced and seeded.
Mr. Tobin presented photos to the board. Exhibit AE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are photos taken of the open space from lots 5 through 10. Exhibit AE 9 is a photo taken from the Torrey Pines area. Exhibit AE10 is a map with the Torrey Pines area highlighted in yellow.
Mr. Tobin stated that the Jackson Township’s Legal Department reviewed the homeowner’s association documents and Mr. Phillippi approved them in a letter dated September 10, 2001.
Mr. Tobin stated that exhibit AE11 is a
letter address to himself from Patrick Long of Wagler Homes dated October
9, 2002. Mr. Tobin read the letter into the record.
Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Phillippi if a conditional
use permit would have been required if there was mining of underlining
sand and gravel.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it is not required when it is being done in conjunction with an approved development plan for construction on a site.
Mr. Dodson stated that the letter dated July 26, 2002 indicates final grades are a substantial departure from both the grading plan as submitted, as well as the pre-existing contour of the open space and asked Mr. Tobin if he agrees with this.
Mr. Tobin stated that he would say that they are different, but he doesn’t know if he would say they are substantially different. Mr. Tobin stated that he would like to have Barb Bennett speak to the board regarding the grading.
Mr. Deremer swore in Barb Bennett of Hammontree and Associates, 5233 Stoneham Rd., North Canton, Ohio.
Ms. Bennett submitted a handout to the board that consisted of five pages. Ms. Bennett stated that the first sheet is the general development plan and has the open space area “A” highlighted in green. Page two is a blow up of the same general development plan. The contours that are shown are from the county topographic map information. Ms. Bennett stated that she has highlighted the contours of 1060, 1070, and 1050 and one can see that they would be cut into the roadways on the general development plan. Ms. Bennett stated that on lots nine and ten, it is highlighted in pink to show that there is a twenty-six foot fall through that lot area of 144 ft. That transposes to an 18% grade or a 5.6 to 1 ratio. Ms. Bennett stated that the open space is a lot flatter then what there is if going through the lots. All of the open space prior to development was grassy weeds and very little, if any, trees.
Ms. Bennett stated that page three is the erosion/sediment control plan and shows the grading. Ms. Bennett stated that she has highlighted the note in the right hand corner that states, “the proposed lot grading to be adjusted in field by contractor/developer as needed. Proposed lot grading on this plan should be used as a guide only”.
Ms. Bennett stated that page four is a blow up of the previous plan. Highlighted in pink shows where there was a 24-ft. fall from the top of the proposed grade down to the elevation 1054, which is lot #10. This is a 40% grade, which transposes to a 2-1/2 to 1 ratio. Ms. Bennett stated that this was to preserve as much open space in its natural state as possible.
Ms. Bennett stated that page five is an actual topographical survey that the surveyors picked up about a month ago and she has highlighted the contour lines of 1070 and 1060. Highlighted in pink shows that there is a 22-ft. fall across the open space and the contour lines are somewhat even to show that it is a gradual slope. Ms. Bennett stated that it also shows that there is a 6-ft. fall across lots nine and ten or a 4.2% grade.
Ms. Bennett stated that if page five is compared to page two, the second sheet shows predevelopment conditions. If following the 1070 contour on the south side of the Sterling property, it shows that they basically have not touched the grading in that area. At the southwest corner of the Sterling property, it shows that grading has not been touched in that area. Ms. Bennett stated if looking at the west side of the Sterling property, it shows the differences in the grading and how the 1070 and 1060 contours are closer to the Sterling property.
Ms. Bennett stated that the finished product does conform to the general development plan and the allocation of open space, lots, and the roads is as shown on the general development plan. Ms. Bennett stated that the design intent was to leave as much of the open space in its natural state and not grade it. Ms. Bennett stated that she found there was a practical difficulty in the existing topographic features and this is why the area was flattened out in the open space area and did not exactly follow the final development plan or final grading plan.
Mr. Deremer stated in looking at page three and page four, which were supposeably submitted with the final development plan, it looks like the contour lines were straightened out. Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Bennett if this was their proposed adjustment.
Ms. Bennett stated that it was their attempt to show the proposed grading for the final plan.
Mr. Deremer asked if basically the only lots affected at that time where lots nine and ten.
Ms. Bennett stated that actually there is a whole slug of contour lines between 1070 and 1060 that were not drawn in and would also wrap around to lots seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Bennett if there was a natural barrier removed between the next parcel by grading the property as it currently exists.
Ms. Bennett stated that she does not think this was affected. There were not any trees in the area so she does not think this existed. Ms. Bennett stated that in her opinion they did not remove a natural barrier.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the erosion/sediment control plan with the note on it, page three, is the plan that was submitted with the final development plan.
Ms. Bennett stated yes.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mike Watkins, 1722 1st St, Massillon, Ohio.
Mr. Watkins stated that his company performed the work in question. They did the initial grading operations and after they were done he met with Mr. Tobin on the site. When standing on the road grade, it was clear that there was going to be a problem with the house grading. Mr. Watkins stated that he told Mr. Tobin that the houses would sit a lot higher if it was left in the original condition of the grading plan. Mr. Watkins stated they determined that it would be to everyone’s benefit to lower the grading on all the lots and utilize that fill on site for other operations.
Mr. Watkins stated that it is common practice in subdivisions that the lot grading is not an after thought but something where you grade the roads, get an initial perspective of what things are going to look like, and then grade the lots accordingly.
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 Fred Sterling, 3481 Perry Dr. NW.
Mr. Sterling stated that he feels the decision of the Zoning Administrator is correct. The open space requirements are laid out in section 401.17 of the zoning resolution. The site map of the development clearly showed only minor grading through a portion of the open space in question. At a meeting with the site plan review committee on January 23, 2001, Mr. Tobin’s engineer stated that no grading would be performed in the open space adjacent to his property.
Mr. Sterling stated that the original site plan was clearly workable and was only deviated from to mine gravel for the economic benefit of the developer. Mr. Sterling stated that he brought up the deviation from the plan to Mr. Tobin prior to the final grading and before it was seeded and there was no action taken.
Mr. Sterling stated that if this had been done according to the plan, then the slope would be no greater then the slope that they intentionally did in the adjacent development. Mr. Sterling stated that the appeal states that the area looks very natural and created saleable lots but there is nothing in the zoning plan about saleable lots.
Mr. Sterling stated that he requests that the board to consider the facts and deny the appeal.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Tobin stated that there is no question that they cut the hill down. As far as Mr. Sperling’s view, he can’t see in that direction anyhow because there are trees next to his house. Mr. Tobin stated that Mr. Sperling is seeing less of the house roots then he would have seen before if they hadn’t cut it down like they did.
Mr. Tobin stated that the board needed to very carefully look at the photos because there is a lot of the area that was not touched.
Mr. Tobin presented exhibit AE12 showing what Mr. Sterling looks at from his house to the west.
Mr. McDonnell asked how big the hill was that was taken down.
Ms. Tobin stated that Ms. Bennett could answer this.
Ms. Bennett stated that the back of the lots was cut down about 20 ft. In the original topography there was about a 26-ft. fall from the back of the lots to the front of the lots and now there’s only about a 6-ft. fall. The top of the hill adjoining the Sterling property is at the same elevation so they matched that existing elevation. Ms. Bennett stated that the highpoint of the hill is basically on the Sterling property at his house so it’s the same height difference, but at a different ratio.
Mr. Deremer stated that the set of pages one through five presented by Ms. Bennett would be marked at exhibit AE13 and exhibit AE14 is the last set of photos that were submitted by Mr. Tobin.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if the map for the final development plan was submitted with the note on it.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes.
The board had no further questions.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. McDonnell stated that to him the deciding factor is that on the final plan that was approved by the township was a note that said, “the proposed grading to be adjusted in field by contractor/developer as needed and proposed lot grading on the plan should be used as a guide only”. Mr. McDonnell stated that the topography was not cast in stone and the township was aware of it and it was approved. So the developer did what he was authorized to do.
Mr. Werner stated that there was testimony that some changes could be made as they continued on. From looking at the topographic maps of the changes before and after, he definitely sees a change in improving the topography of those lots. Mr. Werner stated that he believes it is an improvement verses staying with the original plan. Mr. Werner stated that he has no problem with this appeal.
Mr. Giulitto stated that he concurs with the other board members and believes the dirt was moved to better enhance the lots for safety.
Mr. Deremer stated that in reviewing the page four of exhibit AE13, the original plan showed on lots nine and ten to be roughly an elevation of 1050 at the street and go all the way back to almost 1054 near the rear of the lot. It would have only been a 4-ft. grade difference at that point and then they would have jumped 6 ft. at the actual portion of the lot in a relatively short amount of time. Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees that there was a change, but does not feel it is a substantial grade from what the original proposal was for the final development plan.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1802 and overrule the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Werner 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 appeal #1802 is approved and the decision of the Zoning Administrator is overruled.
APPEAL #1793 - Craig Conley, Attorney, 220 Market Ave. S., Suite 604, Canton, OH 44702, agent for Richard Snee, property owner, of 5335 Strausser St. NW, North Canton, OH 44720 appeals the decision of the Zoning Administrator as provided for in Art. VIII Sect. 803.1 of the zoning resolution in letter dated 6/21/02 & 7/9/02 regarding a violation of the use of the property for Earth & Wood Products, 5335 Strausser St. NW, Sect. 2SE & SW Jackson Twp. (Continued from 8/8/02 & 9/12/02)
(SEE OFFICAL TRANSCRIPT FOR APPEAL #1793)
Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Phillippi has withdrawn his stop order; therefore, the board did not take any action on appeal #1793.
Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from August 8, 2002.
Mr. Werner made a motion to approve the minutes of August 8, 2002.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from September 12, 2002.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the minutes from September 12, 2002.
Mr. Werner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Werner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary