Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                John Juergensen
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto – absent for appeal #2000
Alternate member:                                                                Eric Oldroyd

Zoning Inspector:                                                                  Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:                                                             Lori Foutz

Jim Giulitto was not present for Appeal #2000.  Eric Oldroyd was a voting member for Appeal #2000.

APPEAL #2000 – Wayne Homes, 3859 Eastern Rd, Norton, OH 44203, applicant for Darryl Autrey, property owner, 2871 Thackerary Ave NW, Massillon, OH  44646, requests a variance for a 37 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 4599 Louise Dr, NW Canton, OH, Sect. 26NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Darryl Autrey, and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.  Also in the file was a site plan of the parcel showing the setbacks from all sides.

Mr. Deremer swore in Darryl Autrey, and Bill Bentley as representatives for the application.

Mr. Bentley stated that they are asking for the 37 ft. front yard setback because of the slope on the property.  When Mr. Autrey bought the lot and they roped off the home, it appeared to fit.  Once the lot was elevated, is when they discovered due to the setbacks and slope of the lot the porch was going to be over the setback.  They need to get the house on the property with the porch.

Mr. Deremer asked if the steepness was in the rear of the lot.

Mr. Bentley stated that it slopes from rear to front, however he does not know the degree of the slope.  The way the house was measured out, before removing the trees, it looked like it would fit fine.  There is a swale in the back of the house going to the adjacent property.  They could not encroach within 25 ft. to that property and keep the proper elevation around the house to provide water shed from around the house.  That is what is holding them towards the frontage.

Mr. Deremer asked if the house above is the property he is referring too.

Mr. Bentley stated yes, all the run off would come to this property.

Mr. Deremer stated that he noticed the lot has an odd shape.

Mr. Bentley stated that is correct, and it did cause a little problem fitting the house on the lot.  The other problem was that it was a completely wooded lot when purchased and initially measured off.  It wasn’t until the lot was cleared and they did more measuring when they realized they needed the 37 ft. frontage.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the property is higher or lower in the rear.

Mr. Bentley stated that the property in the rear is high.

Mr. McDonnell questioned if this is a new house, and if the address had already been established.

Mr. Bentley stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it is a corner lot and he assumes that there is a reason why they cannot designate the other street as the front.

Mr. Autrey stated that house numbering told him that the house must face Louise.

Mr. McDonnell asked the reason they could not move the house closer to Edwin to meet the setbacks.

Mr. Bentley stated that if they move towards Edwin, the lot then starts to slope drastically downhill towards Edwin.  If they keep moving that way, they would have to continue to excavate deeper and make the condition in the back more severe than it already is.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Bentley knew the difference in height from the left to the right side of the house.

Mr. Bentley stated anywhere from 15 to 20 feet.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the porch was 24x22.

Mr. Bentley stated that the porch is 6 feet from the front of the house.

Mr. Juergensen asked if he could make it 3 feet shorter?

Mr. Bentley stated that it would be too small of a porch.

Mr. Juergensen clarified if the porch was not there, they would be able to meet the setback.

Mr. Bentley stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the porch would be raised.

Mr. Bentley stated yes, it would be 28 inches with a foundation.

Mr. Deremer asked if this was a standard Wayne Home.

Mr. Bentley stated yes it is.  Typically there would be a stoop at the front door, but he added the porch. The depth would be the same, the width is different.

Mr. Oldroyd clarified that the layout of the land, the steepness and control of the erosion water is the main reason the house cannot be moved.

Mr. Bentley stated that yes that is correct.  The level of the house foundation, the bank going up to the elevation is probably 10-12 feet, it’s like a wall.

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 stated that he noticed that the width of the house is only 26 feet if they don’t add the porch.  He feels the 3 ft. is doable and he is in favor of granting the variance.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he concurs with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #2000 as requested.

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 advised Mr. Autrey and Mr. Bentley that the variance request has been approved.

APPEAL #2001 – Andrew & Shirley Udeck, property owners, 5810 Island Drive, NW, Canton, OH  44718 requests a variance for a 25 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5810 Island Drive NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Andrew Udeck, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan with the proposed building, an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels

Mr. Deremer swore in Andrew Udeck, 5810 Island Drive NW, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Udeck stated that presently the garage is within the house.  The fumes from the lawnmowers sometime seep in the house.  He would like to add a double garage.  He wants to continue with the look of the house.  He has also talked to everyone on the circle, and parcel # 696 and # 695 and they all agree that it would be a good idea to have the garage.  There would still be room in the driveway for two cars.

Mr. Deremer clarified that his address is Island Drive.

Mr. Udeck stated yes, even though his driveway comes off of Lakemere Circle.

Mr. Dodson asked if the new garage could be closer to Island Drive.

Mr. Udeck answered No.

Mr. Dodson asked if he moved the garage back the required 40 feet, how that would affect his home.

Mr. Udeck answered that he can not move the garage back 40 feet because the lot begins to narrow and he would be too close to his neighbors pin.  He would like to make it look the same on the front of his house.

Mr. Deremer asked if his sketch was correct showing the garage 48 feet from the street.

Mr. Udeck stated that no it was not correct, it should show 27 feet.

Ms. MaryBeth Cappell-Bovee, 6286 Doral Drive, Canton, OH 44718, Lot 697, was sworn in to speak in favor of the application.  She stated that she drove by the home and thinks the addition would look nice.

No one else spoke in favor or opposition of the application.  Mr. Deremer closed the meeting to public input and deliberated among the board members.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they are required to find a practical difficulty to approve a variance.  That practical difficulty has to be peculiar to the land, and in this case the lot is irregular shaped and is very narrow on that side.  Due to the dwelling of the house they are restricted where the garage can go.  The addition will not extend any closer to the lot line then the house currently does.  This is not uncommon in the Lake Cable area.  The practical difficulty has been met and the spirit of the resolution will be met.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.  He also stated that he feels that since there is not much room to work with on the Lakemere Circle side of the property, which creates a hardship.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he concurs with Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Deremer.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2001 as requested.

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. & Mrs. Udeck that their request has been approved

APPEAL #2002 – Gregory & Sandra Lewton, property owners, 5727 Channel Drive NW, Canton, OH  44718 requests a variance for a 30 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5727 Channel Drive NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Gregory Lewton, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a mortgage location survey by Campbell & Associates with the proposed building.  The file also contained an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Gregory Lewton, 5727 Channel Drive, NW, Canton, OH 44718 to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Lewton stated that he wants to build a garage and it will encroach into the setback about 10 feet.  It will come straight off the house and you will enter from the driveway.

Mr. Deremer clarified that the garage will be 24x30 in size.

Mr. Lewton stated yes.  Mr. Lewton also stated that the majority of the houses in his neighborhood do not have basements, so the garage space will help.  The existing garage will be for storage.

Mr. Deremer stated that it looks like he is close to the lake, looks like about 40 feet back.

Mr. Lewton stated that the front is about 54 feet back to the existing garage now.   With the new garage it will be 40 feet back from the lake.  The lake is on both sides of his property.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he knew how far the garage on the house to the left extended to the road.

Mr. Lewton stated approximately 35 feet.

Mr. McDonnell asked how about the house to the east.

Mr. Lewton stated that house sits about 53 feet.

Mr. McDonnell asked why they can’t move the garage to the west, then to the north, to meet the setbacks.

Mr. Lewton stated that there are bedrooms in that area with windows.  According to the code you have to have windows in bedrooms for escape.

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. Giulitto stated that as far as the lay of the land and the fact that moving the garage west would obstruct the windows, that he does not have a problem granting the variance.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he concurs with Mr. Giulitto.

Mr. Juergensen added that they did receive testimony that this garage will be no closer to the road then the house to the left.  He also agrees with Mr. Giulitto and Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2002 be approved as submitted.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated to the board that they have a Conclusion of Fact to review on Appeal #1993.  Upon the hearing the Board determined that the variance as requested would permit a 25 ft. front yard setback wehre 40 ft. is required and a 5 ft. right and left side yard setback where 10 ft. if required for a principal building.  The board determined that the applicant had demonstrated a practical difficulty and therefore was granted the variance as requested for a 25ft. front yard setback and a 5 ft. left and right side yard setback for principal building.

Mr. McDonnell moved to adopt the Conclusion of Fact for Appeal #1993 for submission to the Court of Common Pleas.

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 25, 2005.  All members were present except for Mr. Giulitto and Mr. Oldroyd.  We added the modification approval made by Mr. Dodson concerning appeal # 1995.  Also, the misspelling of Mr. Juergensen’s name was corrected.

Mr. Juergensen moved to approve the minutes of August 25, 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 September 8, 2005.  All members were present except for Mr. Giulitto.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from September 8, 2005.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator