Members present:                                                            Ted Deremer
                                                                                               Edward McDonnell
                                                                                               Richard Dodson
                                                                                              John Juergensen
Alternate member:                                                            Eric Oldroyd

Absent:                                                                              Jim Giulitto

Zoning Coordinator:                                                      Lori Foutz

APPEAL #2045 – Dennis Buzzelli, 136 Spruce Drive NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owner, request a variance for a 26 ft. front yard setback for principal use where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required per Art. IV, Section 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 136 Spruce Drive, North Canton, Section 3NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Dennis Buzzelli and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan of the proposed addition, a mortgage survey prepared by Campbell & Associates, and a map of Willowdale Lake showing each lot number.  Also in the file was an aerial view map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dennis Buzzelli, 136 Spruce Drive, Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal.  Mr. Buzzelli stated they would like to add an addition to the front of the house.  The existing house is 45 ft. from the road.  The layout of the house, and where the septic tank is located, it makes it difficult to add the addition any where else on the property.  The house faces east and on the north side is an unattached double car garage.  The back of the house has the septic tank and the lake side of the house is a bedroom, which does not allow access to the home.  He stated that Willowdale Lake Association approved the plans.  It is not uncommon in Willowdale Lake to have homes built closer than 40 ft. to the road.

Mr. Deremer asked if his lot is corner lot.

Mr. Buzzelli stated yes it is.  It is combined with lot #135 and 136.

Mr. Deremer clarified the garage is in the way to build on the north side.  The west side is the septic tank.

Mr. Buzzelli stated that is correct.

Mr. Dodson clarified the board at Willowdale Lake approved the plans.

Mr. Buzzelli staed yes they have.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the width size of both lots is 80 feet wide.

Mr. Buzzelli stated yes, they are both 40 feet wide.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the addition is for.

Mr. Buzzelli stated it is for a master bedroom.

Mr. Oldroyd asked how much distance is between the detached garage and house.

Mr. Buzzelli stated approximately 15 feet.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. Dodson stated Willowdale Lake is an unusual area in Jackson Township.  The addition has been approved by the Board of Trustees at Willowdale Lake.  He does not have a problem approving the request.

Mr. McDonnell stated the board has to find a practical difficulty.  The applicant has two lots and is still 20 ft. less than the normal requirement in the township.  The narrowness of the lot and the location of the septic tank create a practical difficulty.  He does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal 2045 as filed.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
 
APPEAL #2046 – Robert Wilson, 151 Wilbur Dr NW, North Canton, OH 44720, applicant, Dressler Properties, 4942 Higbee Ave NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, request a variance to the height requirement for a principal building not to exceed 40 ft. where 35 ft. is required and for no buffering of 30 ft. along SE & SW property lines where buffering is required per Art. IV, Section 411.7 & 411.9 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at parcel #1623451 Munson St, Section 25NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-1 and B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Robert Wilson and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan, prepared by Cooper & Associates, of the proposed building and a drawing of the north elevation.  Also in the file was an aerial view map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jack Hawk, partner to Robert Wilson, and Mr. Bryan Ashman, Cooper & Associates, to speak on behalf of the appeal.  Mr. Hawk stated he will speak concerning the variance for the height restriction and Mr. Ashman will speak concerning the buffering.

Mr. Hawk stated this property straddles two zoning districts, a B-1 and B-3.  This is a 3-story building designed for Brown Mackie College.  He stated that a 35 feet height restriction for a 3 story building is tough to do.  The first floor has a 9-10 ft. ceiling.  Typically the first floor is the highest floor, and the floors get smaller as they go up.  He stated if you have a 9 ft. ceiling with 2 ft. of structure it leaves no mechanical space.    Under the current zoning for a B-3 district, there is an 80 ft. height restriction, but they are not asking or need to go that high.  Zoning also allows an additional 15 feet of parapet wall.  They need 40 feet for the classrooms.  The building will be a steel structure.  There is a sprinkler system inside to fight fires.

Mr. Juergensen asked what the practical difficulty is with the land.

Mr. Hawk stated they would have to go with a two story structure which would affect the parking spaces.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the total height of the building would be.

Mr. Hawk stated it would be 47 feet 8 inches high including the parapet.  The top of the roof is 39’8.  that is a 4 ft. 8 inch variance from the code.  He is allowed to have a 15 foot parapet according the zoning regulation. The 47 ft. 8 is only in the center of the building.  That portion is higher due to mechanical units they are trying to hide.

Mr. McDonnell asked since this is a split zone if any thought was given to construct the building on the B-3 zoned area.  They would not need a variance if they did this.

Mr. Hawk asked to defer that question to Mr. Ashman.

Mr. Oldroyd clarified if they were forced to a 2-story building the footprint of the building would change.

Mr. Hawk stated the applicant requires 50,000 square feet.  There is a ratio of exterior to interior and they need a specific amount of natural daylight for the classrooms.   They will have a lot of internal space if they have to shrink this down to a 2-story building, plus will need to eliminate some of the parking spaces that are required.

Mr. Deremer questioned Mr. Hawk in regards to his previous testimony concerning the elevation of the building.  According to the drawing of the elevation presented into file, the first floor is 12’8”, the second floor is 13’2”, and the third floor is 13’8”.  The floors actually get larger as they go up not smaller as testified.

Mr. Hawk stated this building may be in reverse that it typical for a 3-story building.  Typically the first floor is the highest floor.  In this case the duct work is probably coming down from the roof.  He also stated his partner is the one working on this project and he is just filling in for him.

Mr. Ashman stated he is representing Dressler Properties.  He stated the reason they did not locate the building further north, onto the B-3 zoned district and eliminate the variance is due to soil issues.  There were wetlands on this property that were removed; however it made the soil compressible.   They do not have the foundations necessary to put in this type of building.  They decided to bring the building back into the B-1 district and request the variance.  A previous plan was submitted with a complete buffer around the property surrounding rural residential district.  They are now asking for a variance for no landscaping in the areas shown on the site plan due to overhead power lines that run east to west.  There is a 60 ft. easement, 30 ft. each side, for the power company to provide maintenance to these lines.  He presented to the board a letter from AEP, owner of the power lines, stating the easement for these lines.  This letter was marked as Exhibit #1, and states they are requiring a 30 ft. gap in the landscaping buffer for maintenance both on the east and west side.  Mr. Ashman stated they are trying to meet their requirements.  They will still install the full amount of bushes necessary, just not planting them in the 30 ft. zone.  They are also leaving out the landscaping 4 ft. earth mound.  The buffer is to protect the residents from commercial properties.   He submitted a picture taken from the southeast corner of the property, Exhibit #2, showing the property line and existing vegetation.  There is a considerable amount of vegetation that already exists.  The adjacent neighbor’s property goes up about 6 ft. and is densely covered with brush, so the loss of 30 feet landscaping will not be detrimental.  He stated the visibility is almost nothing in this area and AEP would have to clear the brush to get their equipment in.  Also, a piece of this residential property is attached to a business district which has no frontage; therefore, nothing will ever be developed on this property.  He stated the residential property to the west; Mr. Reicosky’s property would not be able to support a residential type of development due to bad soil.  A structure on this type of soil would have to be put on piling and this is not done for residential homes, only commercial buildings.  If a commercial developer bought the property and rezoned it to commercial, the buffer would not be required.  Mr. Ashman stated again in his closing remarks, the only reason they are asking for the no buffering variance is to meet AEP requirements for the power lines.

Mr. Oldroyd referred to the letter from AEP, Exhibit #1.  He stated item #1 states the 4 ft. mound with shrubbery on top is acceptable within the easement.  The drawings submitted show a 4 ft. mound.  Why do they not want to put them in if AEP states they are acceptable?

Mr. Ashman stated they are referring to their easement on the south side of the property in item #1.  In Item #2 they are addressing the crossings at their easements.  They are requiring a 30 ft. opening or gap in the landscaping for their trucks to get through for maintenance.

Mr. Deremer asked how wide the actual easement is.

Mr. Ashman stated the easement is 60 ft. in width.  It is 30 ft. from either side of the wires.

Mr. Deremer referred to Exhibit #1, item #3 in the letter stating it is 35 ft.

Mr. Ashman stated it is 30 ft. from the wires, so the wires must be 5 ft. from the pole.

Mr. Deremer asked if any thought was given to a fence with a gate.

Mr. Ashman stated they would not accept a fence.

Mr. Richard Reicosky, 4228 Reicosky Lane, Canton, spoke in opposition of the appeal.  Mr. Reicosky is concerned they are going to redirect the natural flow of water drainage.  He stated the 4 ft. mound is going to keep the water off the parking areas but cause other drainage problems.  He would like the drainage to be installed correctly so this new site does not cause any drainage issues on his property.

Ms. Penny Laubacher, 4980 Waynesburg Dr, Canton, OH, spoke in opposition of the appeal.  She would like to know who gave them permission to take soil samples from her fathers’ land.  His land was good until all this water started sitting around.  She stated they are the ones that killed the pine trees and it is their fault the land went bad.  Who gives him the right to say the soil is no good and no on would buy it.

Ms. Maria Coss, 2725 List Ave, Massillon, spoke in opposition of the appeal.  She showed an aerial map dating back to 1985 showing the property and drive access at that time.  She also showed the board an updated aerial map showing the drainage.

Mr. Deremer asked for a copy of the aerial for the file.

Ms. Coss stated she would submit a copy for the file at a later date.

Mr. Ashman stated he would reply to the questions, however, he does not feel the concerns brought up have any impact on the decision the board is making for the variance.  All of these concerns were brought up and addressed during the meeting for the conditional use permit.  He stated again the access drive easement is a legal issue.  The documents submitted during the conditional use permit will have to be addressed through the legal channels.  He apologized to Ms. Laubacher concerning the comment concerning the land being no good.  He stated he was referring to the soil and the fact the soil is compressible.  He stated he is not aware of any soil borings being taken from this property.  All his analysis is from information from Mr. Reicosky, soils reports, and based upon personal experience.  A residential development would not be able to build roads and homes for a subdivision.  A commercial developer may put buildings on piling.   Mr. Ashman reviewed the drainage flow again, which was presented at the conditional use permit meeting.   He stated the 4 ft. mounds have nothing to do with the drainage; it is for the landscaping required by zoning.

Mr. McDonnell the topographical features on the south side of the building is currently causing the water to drain to the west.  When this is developed, it will be graded and will drain to the detention pond on the north side of the property.

Mr. Ashman stated that is correct.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. McDonnell stated the board is required to find a practical difficulty.  He feels based on the soil borings the B-3 area has a compressibility problem which forces them to build in the B-1 area.  He feels the practical difficuly issue has been met.  He also feels the spirt of the zoing regulation will not be violated.  Esthetically the 40 ft. height is less disruptive to the surrounding areas then the 80 ft.

Mr. Juergensen stated he concurs with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal 2046 for the height requirement.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-no.

Mr. Juergensen stated the testimony within the easement creates a practical difficulty.  He stated he agrees homes will not ever be built in this area.

Mr. Dodson stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen.

Mr. McDonnell stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen and Mr. Dodson.  He stated the power line easement applies to all of the properties, not just this property.  For the board to not grant this variance would be holding this property to a higher standard than the other surrounding properties.  He stated the buffer yard has no applicability to the drainage; it is just a visual buffering.  He reminded everyone the board put a requirement on the applicant during the conditional use permit concerning the drainage and the impact on adjacent property owners.  He stated part of the criteria for the conditional use permit is the drainage must be approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.  He also stated if the board approves the variance he would like the motion to read no landscaping within the buffer yard as shown in the schematic submitted.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated he would be in favor of the variance as requested.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the portion of the appeal regarding no landscaping will be required in the buffer yard for 30 ft.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2047 – F.G. Ayers Inc, 1565 Massillon Rd, Akron, OH 44312, applicant, Touchdown Properties Ltd, 8877 Strausser St, Massillon, OH 44646, property owners, request a variance for a 33 ft. front yard setback for principal use where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required per Art. IV, Section 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcel # 1602272, High Mill Avenue, Section 19SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Cheryl Schmidt and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan of the proposed building and a boundary survey plat.  Also in the file was an aerial view map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Fred Ayers, 1565 Massillon Rd, Massillon, was sworn in to speak on behalf of the application.  Mr. Ayers stated he checked the property and thought they could meet the zoning requirements.  They then met with the allotment committee to meet their requirements.  It was suggested by the allotment committee they move the house forward to sit as close to the road as both houses on either side.  If they meet the 40 ft. front setback the house will sit behind the homes on each side.  Another advantage to pulling the house forward is it will give more distance from the lake.  Mr. Ayers stated he would be able to meet the regulations without moving the house forward.

Mr. Juergensen asked how far the house would be from the lake.

Mr. Ayers stated the property actually goes into the water a couple of feet.  He does not know the exact measurement.

Mr. Deremer stated it appears the house is moved south on the lot.  If they would move the house back it would pinched on the left side.

Mr. Ayers stated that is correct.  There is a major storm pipe on the property that should not be changed.  It is gathering storm water and empting into the lake.

Mr. McDonnell asked the square footage of the house.

Mr. Ayers stated around 2,000 square feet and it meets the allotment square footage of the house.  The allotment committee has agreed on the design.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficulty is to move the house forward.

Mr. Ayers stated it makes it better positioning on the lot and the homes on each side.  It was proposed by the allotment committee.

Mr. Wendal Draman, 5185 Highmill Ave, NW, was sworn in to speak on behalf of the application.  Mr. Draman stated he was one of the parties that met with the field supervisor.  He used an overhead view of the property to review with the board.  The drainage is a depression that has a steel plate that is 5 ft by 10 ft. and they are not sure what it is for.  The field supervisor is going to investigate and find out what they can do with it, as far as building over it or around it.  The front corner of his house is 60 ft. from the center of Highmill.  All of the homes are set back the same distance.  If they do not get the variance, the home will be 70 ft. from Highmill and 12 ft. from the property line.  If they move it forward it will give more room on the lot.  The allotment committee would like to get the property built and does not have a problem with the variance.

Mr. Juergensen asked if his concern is more with the side and front facing the street or the back of the home facing the lake.

Mr. Draman stated he would like to keep the homes all in line in the front.

Mr. Deremer asked if the house was pushed back 7 more feet if it would affect his view from the lake.

Mr. Draman stated it would not.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Draman if he knew how far the property to the north side sits from the street.

Mr. Draman stated it is approximately the same distance as his house, which is 60 ft. from the center of the road.

Ms. Kelly Kubit, 124 Peshiug Ave, speaking on behalf of her mother, Sue Gizzi, 5230 High Mill Ave, spoke in opposition of the appeal.  Ms. Kubit stated the drainage tube is there because of drainage under this home and approximately 5 other neighbors.  If they close up this drainage they may have flooding problems.  She feels the home should not be any closer to the street then necessary because it is not safe due to the traffic flow on this street.  She also stated her mother is home bound due to a disability and having a home on this lot would block her view of the lake.

Mr. Ayers stated the land slopes towards the lake.  They are not touching the drainage on the property.  He stated he was informed by the president of the allotment committee that drainage runs under the lake and drops into the creek beyond the lake.

Mr. Draman stated there is no intention of blocking or plugging this drainage area.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. Dodson stated the 33 ft. is a minimal variance.  He agrees it is a good idea to have the homes in line and does not feel this will violate the spirit of the zoning resolution.

Mr. Oldroyd stated he also feels this is a minimal variance.  The distance on this lot from the road to the lake is relatively narrow and they are building an average size home.  He does not have a problem with the variance.

Mr. Deremer stated a previous appeal for a 20-25 ft front setback was turned down on this lot.  He feels they meet the practical difficulty due to the drainage on the north side of the property.  They are taking advantage of the widest part of the property by keeping the house on the south side and also staying in line with adjacent properties.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal 2047 as filed.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #2048 – Lisa Dillon, 6054 Fulton Drive NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, request a variance to allow lot split of 1 lot into 4 lots, 1 being 19,297 sq. ft. and 3 being 19,500 sq. ft. where 20,000 sq. ft. is required per Art. IV, Section 401.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6054 Fulton Drive, Section 22SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Lisa Dillon and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan of the proposed lot split, prepared by Hammontree & Associates, showing the acreage of the 4 parcels.  Also in the file was an aerial view map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Ms. Lisa Dillon, 6054 Fulton Drive, was sworn in to speak on behalf of the application.  Ms. Dillon stated she would like to divide land.  She stated sewer and water is available for each lot.

Mr. Deremer asked what size lots they will end up.

Ms. Dillon stated they are .448 acre tracts.

Mr. Dodson asked if there is any reason she can not split into 3 lots.

Ms. Dillon answered that there is no reason.

Mr. Dodson asked if it was just strictly more economical for her to want to split into 4 lots.

Ms. Dillon answered yes.

Mr. Oldroyd referred to parcel #3 with the storm water catch basin.  He asked if would be buildable by this catch basin.

Ms. Dillon stated there is a 10 ft. easement on both sides.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it is a ditch or if it was underground.

Ms. Dillon stated it is a ditch.

Mr. Juergensen asked if anyone would be able to build a house on this parcel.

Mr. Oldroyd asked how much room is available on the lot after you take off for the easement.

Ms. Dillon stated she had no idea. She also stated there is concern in the neighborhood about this area being Lake Cable and they are restricted from putting up new houses.  She presented documention to show they have split other lots in this area and build houses marked as Exhibit #1, showing Lake Cable Farmlets in 1928,  and #2 showing division of parcel #25, and Exhibit #3 showing the drainage easement.

Mr. McDonnell asked her to share with the board how she came up with 4 lots instead of 3.

Ms. Dillon stated she took it to Hammontree & Associates.  All of the sketches stated 200 x 400 and they thought they could make 4 lots.  The diagrams were wrong and Hammontree & Associates advised her to try and get a variance.

Mr. McDonnell stated parcel 3 concerns him with the drainage easement.  It appears to be somewhere around the 70 ft. frontage.  That lot is almost guaranteed a variance will be needed to build on it.  If the board would approve this lot split, they would be creating the practical difficulty for this lot.

Mr. Juergensen asked if she made Hammontree & Associates aware of this.

Ms. Dillon stated she told them what she wanted to do.

Mr. McDonnell stated in his opinion she may be creating an unsellable lot.

Ms. Dillon stated if she divides the lots she would like someone to be able to build on this lot.

Mr. Mike Cvengros, 4800 Fleetwood Drive, spoke in opposition of the appeal.  Mr. Cvengros stated there are deed restrictions on Lake Cable farmlets.  He will fight to keep the deed restrictions.  He also stated there is a gas right of way on the property.  He feels the board should look at these areas and not allow them to split up the land.

Mr. McDonnell clarified this piece of property has a deed restriction.

Mr. Cvengros stated his neighbors told him there is.

Mr. McDonnell stated for his information the board has no authority to enforce deed restrictions or take into consideration.  He stated this falls under the court system.

Mr. Cvengros stated he understood but wanted to make them aware of it.

Ms. Dillon stated she has done major improvements to this lot.  She said no one seemed to care before and now that it could be build able people are opposed.  She doesn’t think 3 houses are a problem but she does understand the issue with parcel #3.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. Dodson stated the deed restriction does not concern the board.  He does not feel the practical difficulty was met.  Splitting into 4 lots for economic purposes is not a practical difficulty.  He cannot support approving the appeal.

Mr. Juergensen stated he agrees with Mr. Dodson the applicant does not have a practical difficulty.  He feels she would be better off splitting into 3 lots, especially since the one lot may not be build able.

Mr. Oldroyd stated he shares the same concerns.  He feels if they would approve they are creating another problem in the future.

Mr. Deremer referred to the information submitted to the applicant from East Ohio Gas.  There is a 10” and 18” transmission line that is not active and a 20”, 30” and another 20” transmission line that is active.  There are 3 transmission lines within the easement that are active.  This does not show on the Hammontree drawing, however, it starts at the drainage and moves southwest to center of parcel #4.  He is concerned this lot may not be build able due to the gas line.  He stated there are possibly 2 lots that may not be build able.  He does not feel it would be feasible to approve the appeal.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to deny appeal 2048.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-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 August 24, 2006.  All members were present.  Mr. Juergensen recused himself from appeal 2036 and Mr. Deremer recused himself from appeal 2042.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from August 24, 2006, meeting as written.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, except for appeal 2036, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes, except for appeal 2042.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion for adjournment.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.  All were in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator