Members present:
Ted Deremer-Absent for appeal #1882
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen-Alternate
Absent Member:
Gerald Werner
Zoning Data Coordinator:
Joni Poindexter
APPEAL #1882 – Charles Wayne Hildreth, property owner, 5228 Konen Ave NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 13 ft. south (right) side yard setback where a 25 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5228 Konen NW, Sect. 22NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Charles Hildreth with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The 2 car garage will extend beyond the 25 ft. setback required by zoning. The structure will extend 12 ft. beyond the required setback for the property line to the right of the house”. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the garage, a layout showing the design of the proposed addition labeled #PB2-14510, and eleven photos that were marked as exhibits one through eleven.
Mr. McDonnell asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Charles Wayne Hildreth, 5228 Konen Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718.
Mr. Hildreth stated that currently there is a garage on the right side of the house with a flat area of land beside it. He would like to add a two bay garage onto the existing garage. Mr. Hildreth stated that there is a 25 ft. south side yard setback because the house sits on a corner lot. If looking at the property from Yost St., it is sitting on a plateau surrounded by several trees.
Mr. Hildreth explained what each photo
exhibit represented in reference to the property.
Exhibit #1 is a view of the front corner
of the house.
Exhibit #2 is a view of the front side
of the house.
Exhibit #3 is a side view of the house
showing where the addition would be located.
Exhibit #4 is a back corner view of the
house showing where the addition would be located.
Exhibit #5 is a view from the back yard.
Exhibit #6 is a back corner view from
Yost.
Exhibit #7 is a side view from Yost.
Exhibit #8 is a view from the intersection
of Konen & Yost.
Exhibit #9 is a view from the corner of
the yard.
Exhibit #10 is a view from the driveway.
Exhibit #11 is a different view from the
driveway.
Mr. Giulitto asked if the existing trees on the bank would stay.
Mr. Hildreth stated that the trees along the bank would remain, but there is a tree where the proposed addition would be located that would be removed along with two other trees for excavating purposes.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the property
currently sits on top of the hill and asked how steep the grade is on the
right side of the property from Yost.
Mr. Hildreth stated that the elevation
is probably eight or nine feet.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the current grade would remain as is.
Mr. Hildreth stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficulty is that would allow the variance.
Mr. Hildreth stated that he would like to store two extra vehicles in the proposed garage and if built at the proposed location they could use the existing driveway for easy access.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the garage would physically fit somewhere else on the property, although it may not be practical, without requiring a variance.
Mr. Hildreth stated yes. It could go in the back yard.
Mr. Dodson asked if there is any reason why the garage could not be put directly behind the existing garage.
Mr. Hildreth stated that structurally there is no reason if the bays opened to the side but he would have to dig an access down to Yost for a second driveway or loop the existing driveway around.
Mr. McDonnell asked if south side of Yost is developed.
Mr. Hildreth stated yes.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to pubic input.
Mr. Dodson stated esthetically the proposed location makes sense but the board has an obligation to find a practical difficulty, which there may be one and he is just not seeing it.
Mr. McDonnell stated that this is a corner lot so the side yard setback is 25 ft. If it wasn’t a corner lot then the setback would only be 10 ft. The lot is heavily wooded and the woods will stay. Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes part of the reason for the 25 ft. setback is for site distance but this will not alter anything that is already there. Mr. McDonnell stated that the practical difficulty could be that they are required to have a 25 ft. setback but the addition of the garage isn’t going to change anything or interfere with anything as far as the traffic pattern of the street.
Mr. Dodson stated that it would also prevent another driveway from going onto Yost, which is a good thing.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the appeal and in his mind the practical difficulty is having a 25 ft. setback when the neighbors have a 10 ft. setback and it is not going to affect anything.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1882 as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, and Mr. McDonnell-yes.
APPEAL #1880 - Todd Westover, 58 W. Exchange St., Akron, Ohio 44256 agent for Ron Marhofer, property owner, 1350 Main St., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44221 requests revisions to a previously approved conditional use permit, appeal #1347 approved July 21, 1994, to add an 84 x 42 sq. ft. addition to the building. Property located at 5617 Whipple Ave. NW, Sect. 13SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition, and a memo from John Phillippi, Zoning Administrator, to the Board of Zoning Appeals dated October 23, 2003 regarding appeal #1880 and #1881.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Todd Westover, 58 W. Exchange St., Akron, Ohio 44256.
Mr. Westover stated that the shaded area on the site plan is where they would like to extend their service bay area for additional automotive repair. The addition complies with all the current setbacks and the only reason they are in front of the board is because the business is under a conditional use permit and any change requires approval from the board. Mr. Westover stated that the building would be made of block and cannot be seen from Whipple Avenue because it is in the back of the building.
Mr. Westover stated that they have submitted their request to Regional Planning, which will be reviewed at their meeting on November 3, 2003.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anything has changed other than adding onto the existing building.
Mr. Westover stated no.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any change in the lighting, loudspeakers, driveways, trash receptacles, or surface drainage.
Mr. Westover state no.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the hours of operation would change or if any more asphalt would be added.
Mr. Westover stated no. The building will actually take up some of the asphalt area.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the requirements for the previous conditional use permit have been met and there are no changes except for adding onto the existing building so he does not have a problem with this appeal.
Mr. Dodson concurred with Mr. McDonnell’s comments.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1880 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.
APPEAL #1881 - Jeff Adams, agent for Scheetz Building Corporation, property owner, both of 4850 Shuffel Dr. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a child day care facility where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 1.816 acres on the northwest corner of Eastlake & Frank Ave., Sect. 14NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jeff Adams with reasons being a conditional use permit is required for a child day care facility. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, a site plan labeled sheet one of two project #03152 dated April 4, 2003, a utility plan labeled sheet two of two project #03152 dated April 4, 2003, a landscaping plan labeled “L-1” project #0319 with a revision date of July 12, 2003, and a memo from John Phillippi, Zoning Administrator to the Board of Appeal dated October 23, 2003 regarding appeal #1880 and #1881.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in John Scheetz, 7384 Braucher St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720.
Mr. Scheetz stated that they are asking for a conditional use permit for a 5,211 sq. ft. portion of the building located at 6199 Frank Ave. to be used for a child day care facility. Mr. Scheetz stated that the footprint of the building, landscaping, and driveways would not change; however, there would be a 2,700 sq. ft. fenced in area located on the north side of building to house any outside activities. The portion to be used for the child day care would be 5,211 sq. ft., which is a little less from what the original drawing had shown when it was submitted because they took out a common area for maintenance, 5,300 sq. ft. would be use for the previously approved adult day care and the rest of the building would be used for office space.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the office space would be related to the child or adult day care.
Mr. Scheetz stated no. It is a third party administrator called Community Health Care.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anything has change regarding the driveway access.
Mr. Scheetz stated no.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anything has change with the landscaping.
Mr. Scheetz stated no. There was a variance granted along the east side of the property for the landscaping because of a gas easement in which nothing could be planted.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Scheetz if it is his testimony that it will not be detrimental to the property values in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Scheetz states yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Scheetz if it is his testimony that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Scheetz stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Scheetz if it is his testimony that all points of access drives, streets, and driveways are the same.
Mr. Scheetz stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the footprint
of the building has remained the same so the requirements of the EPA for
stormwater runoff are not applicable.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the property would be maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.
Mr. Scheetz stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation would be for the child day care center.
Mr. Scheetz stated that it would be approximately the same as the adult day care center which is 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. McDonnell asked if any lighting, loudspeakers, searchlights, or trash receptacles would be added to the facility.
Mr. Scheetz stated no.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the surface drainage and grading would remain the same because no additions are being added to the building.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many occupants there would be for the child day care.
Mr. Scheetz stated that there would be 85 children and 15 staff members. Mr. Scheetz stated that Karen Clark would be the owner and operator of the child day care center.
Mr. McDonnell stated that 35 sq. ft. of indoor space and 60 sq. ft. of outdoor space is required per occupant.
Mr. Scheetz stated that the outdoor open space would be occupied by children only.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the number of children would be split when going outside because with a 2,700 sq. ft. fenced in area there could only be 45 children outside at one time.
Mr. Scheetz stated that all of the children would not be in the outdoor open space at one time.
Mr. Deremer asked if there is anytime, such as to watch a plane, that the entire day care would go outside.
Mr. Scheetz stated that he does not believe so.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Scheetz if it is his testimony, as previously with the adult day care center, that no portion is closer than 600 ft. of gasoline pumps, underground gasoline storage tanks, or any other storage area for explosive or hazardous materials.
Mr. Scheetz stated yes.
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 Marsh Sprout of Interface Campus Preschool that is located in John Knox Church.
Ms. Sprout stated that she is not opposed to the day care but came to the meeting for informational purposes. However, she does have a concern with the driveway onto Eastlake because of the traffic.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Sprout if she is
concerned about the day care being so close to her preschool.
Ms. Sprout stated yes, but her main concern
is the driveway on Eastlake.
Mr. Deremer stated that there is another drive on Frank for traffic flow.
Ms. Sprout stated that she thinks it is good to have a driveway on Frank also.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Scheetz if the day care will provide more traffic flow than originally thought then with the office space.
Mr. Scheetz stated no. There is egress on both Frank and Eastlake for better traffic flow.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the requirements for the conditional use permit have been met. There is no question that there will be an increase in the traffic flow but he doesn’t think it would be that significant or detrimental to the area. Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1881 with the condition that the child day care would not exceed 5,211 sq. ft. and the 2,700 sq. ft. outdoor open space would not exceed forty-five occupants.
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. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held September 25, 2003.
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. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held October 9, 2003.
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. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary