Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                Gerald Werner
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto

Zoning Administrator:                                                          John Phillippi

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                  Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1810 - Richard Mosher, DDS, agent for Swallowtail Condo Owners Association, property owner, 2400 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a freestanding sign 11 ft. 6 in. in height where the maximum permitted height is 10 ft. in Art. V Sect. 502.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 2400 Wales Ave. NW, Sect. 33SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Richard Mosher with reasons being to eliminate the existing entrance sign on Leecrest and incorporate all owner/occupants into the existing sign on Wales Ave.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and an 8-1/2 x 11” drawing of the proposed sign dated May 2002.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Jim Webster, Graphic Sign Company, Orrville, Ohio.

Mr. Webster stated that the existing sign has been on the property for a number of years.  Their intention is to elevate the original sign and place in a directory of tenants using the same existing base.

Mr. Deremer asked what the current height of the sign is.

Mr. Webster stated that they are adding three feet.

Mr. Deremer asked if the existing sign is roughly 8-1/2 ft. in height.

Mr. Webster stated that this is correct.  They are trying to use the existing sign with a minimal modification.  Mr. Webster stated that the letters would be approximately three inches in height for a visibility of about 100 ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if the exiting sign has a similar layout.

Mr. Webster presented a computerized photo of the original sign and stated that their intention is to elevate the original sign so they can insert the directory.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the application states that the sign is continuously being damaged.

Mr. Webster stated that this refers to the other sign that is located in an island on the side of the property that has the current directory.  The idea is to remove this directory sign and have the directory on the sign that is located on Wales Rd.

Mr. Werner asked if Mr. Webster is saying that they will be eliminating a sign and adding the information to the new sign.

Mr. Webster stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Webster how large the sign is that they would be removing.

Mr. Webster stated that it is approximately 3 feet wide and 6 feet in height.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the request were granted, would there be any objection if there was a condition put on the approval that the island sign had to be removed and not replaced.

Mr. Webster stated that the sign would be removed and not replaced.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the variance for the additional height is not required to identify the tenants because they are on the lower portion of the sign and asked if the height is based on aesthetic more than the listing of tenants.

Mr. Webster stated that this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the existing sign could be cut down to reduce the amount of the variance request.

Mr. Webster stated that they explored this option but came to the conclusion that the sign needs to remain intact so if they elevate the sign, then they can add the directory.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the dimensions are of the pedestal that the existing sign is sitting on between the brick and the bottom of the sign.

Mr. Webster stated that it is approximately six inches, but it would be removed.

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 Howard Seimetz of 2417 Wales Rd. NW.

Mr. Seimetz stated that there are four buildings and he assumes that all the people listed on the directory are not all in one building.

Mr. Richard Mosher stated that this is correct.

Mr. Seimetz stated that he is concern with lighting for the sign.

Mr. Mosher stated that the sign would have lighting.

Mr. Seimetz stated that the existing sign is nice but is not very well lit.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Seimetz if he thought that the sign would be a hindrance if it were three feet higher.

Mr. Seimetz stated no, he has no objection to the height of the sign.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Richard Mosher DDS of 2400 Wales Rd. NW.

Mr. Mosher stated that he is part owner of Swallowtail, which actually has ten owners.

Mr. Mosher stated that the shares the concern of lighting for the sign.  He wants to make sure the sign and lighting will be maintained so he is taking on the responsibility of the maintenance of the sign.
Mr. Mosher stated that the lights on the existing sign have been broken in the past by vandalism.

Mr. Deremer asked what type of lighting is on the sign.

Mr. Mosher stated that he is not sure what type of bulbs are used, but they are low to the ground and project onto the sign.

Mr. Deremer asked if the doctor’s have evening hours.

Mr. Mosher stated no, not at this time.  There is a new dentist moving in and he is not sure what his hours will be.

Mr. Deremer stated that if there are evening hours, this would be a good reason to light the sign.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Webster talked about the island sign and it is his understanding that it is their intention to remove the island sign.  Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Mosher has the authority to speak for the condo association.

Mr. Mosher stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if this is approved, would the island sign disappear.

Mr. Mosher stated yes.  They will remove the flower bed and the sign and will pave over the area.

Mr. Werner asked if the existing sign with the names is lit.

Mr. Mosher stated that there was a light, but people were always running over it so they ended up having it removed.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or against this appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that historically he has a problem with granting sign variances but he looks at this request as a minor variance.  Mr. McDonnell stated that they have an opportunity to trade 18 inches in height for 18 sq. ft. of signage, being the removal of the island sign.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have problem with this request.

Mr. Dodson stated that he thinks Mr. McDonnell’s analysis is correct and believes it is a minor variance.  They are basically getting rid of another sign that is basically in a residential area.  Mr. Dodson stated that he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with the other board members and thinks it will enhance the looks of the general area.

Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks this will make the sign more compatible with the other signs in the area and is a good trade off.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1810 with the condition that upon completion of the requested sign, the current island sign will be removed.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Dodson reclused himself from appeal #1811.

APPEAL #1811 - Fred Stergios, Attorney, 2859 Aaronwood Ave. NE, Mass. OH 44646 agent for John Stancato, property owner, 11969 Lincoln Way West, Mass. OH 44647 requests variances for a 58 ft. (east) rear yard setback and 44 ft. (south) side yard setback where 75 ft. is required for the principal building in Art. IV Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution and a 10 ft. east side parking and landscaping setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is on the east side of Wales Rd. approximately 115 ft. south of Stuhldreher St., Sect. 33NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-2.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Fred Stergios with reasons being to allow the construction of a building.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, exhibit “A”, a legal description of the property, exhibit “B”, a list of requested variances, exhibit “C”, a sheet consisting of the reasons for the variances, and a site plan dated September 10, 2002 by Milton Studer.

Mr. Fred Stergios stated that he is representing Mr. Stancato.  Mr. Stergios stated that the Stancato’s own the building immediately to the north and they are proposing to build a similar, but smaller, building on the two listed parcels.

Mr. Stergios stated that they need a variance because the property abuts up to residential property and the setback requirements are 75 ft. on the south and east side for the building.  They would like to line up the new building with the existing building and are requesting a 58 ft. east side setback and 44 ft. south side setback.  Mr. Stergios stated that the location of the building was arrived at with consultation from the Fire Department, which requires 30 ft. between buildings for fire access.  Mr. Stergios stated that the east parking and landscaping setback requirement is 20 ft. and they are asking for 10 ft. to provide adequate space for the parking of the cars, which will also line up with the existing parking.

Mr. Stergios stated that in the reasoning for the request where it states that the proposed building would not be seen from the apartments because of a mound, should state that the ground floor of the apartments could not see the building because the apartments have an upstairs.

Mr. Stergios presented three photos to the board showing the existing building and the vacant lot of where the new building would be located.

Mr. Deremer stated that exhibit “D” is the photo indicating the south side of the existing building and exhibit “E & F” are photos showing the vacant parcels.

Mr. Stergios stated that exhibit “A” consists of two pages.  Page one is the legal description of parcel #1621766, and page two is the legal description of parcel #1600468.  Exhibit “B” is the description of the requested variances and exhibit “C” states the reasons for the requested variances.

Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Stancato, 11969 Lincoln Way West, Massillon, Ohio.

Mr. Stancato stated that he has contacted some of the neighbors and sent a letter along with a map to those that he could not contact.

Mr. Deremer marked the letter as exhibit “G”.

Mr. Stancato stated that the existing building is very nice and well maintained.

Mr. Deremer asked what businesses are in the existing building.

Mr. Stancato stated that there is a mail box business, a finance company, a beauty shop and tanning salon.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Stancato why they don’t connect the two buildings.
Mr. Stancato stated that the lot drops off to the south about four to six feet.  Mr. Stancato stated that the property would look better with the buildings separated.  Traffic is another issue.  If the buildings are separated, traffic can circle between the buildings and go back out onto Wales Rd. instead of being forced to go out onto Stuhlderher St.

Mr. Stancato stated that when the existing building was built they were asked to give up 10 ft. of frontage for a turning lane.  This was given up but there still has not been a turning lane put in.  Mr. Stancato stated that he understands that a stop light was to be put up at the intersection but it’s been five years and they still haven’t seen it.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it is a requirement of the Fire Department to have 30 ft. between the buildings.

Mr. Phillippi stated yes.  They initially wanted to put the proposed building 20 ft. from the existing building.  Upon reviewing the plan with the Fire Department, they said that there had to be at least 30 ft. between the buildings, which is also the standard within the zoning regulations.

Mr. Stancato stated if the buildings were attached and the way the land drops off, if the parking were paved it would dump the water to the south and east of the property and this was a concern of the neighbor to the south.  Mr. Stancato stated that the water needs to be brought to the street and the surface drain.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building would be similar to the existing building.

Mr. Stancato stated that it would be exactly the same except 20% smaller.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Stancato how long he has owned the parcel furthest south.

Mr. Stancato stated that he has owned the parcel for about three months.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the site plan shows that the parking will be in line and exactly the same as the parking on the existing parcel.

Mr. Stancato stated that this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the building could not be smaller to meet the requirements for the south setback.

Mr. Stancato stated that it would not be economical or feasible.  Mr. Stancato stated that if the lot had not been adjoined with the existing lots, they could have only built a 9 ft. wide building.

Mr. Stancato stated that he believes the land will be put to good use with the building and the existing billboard on the property would be removed.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Eldon Young, 8670 Easy St. NW, Massillon, Ohio.

Mr. Young stated that he owns the property to the east, which is the apartments.  Mr. Young stated that he was very impressed with the existing building and it is very convenient for everyone.  Mr. Young stated that a lot of people are concerned with traffic when it comes to commercial buildings.  This cuts down on traffic because there is a postal business in the building and people don’t have to drive clear to downtown Massillon for postal service.  Mr. Young stated that the property is kept very clean.

Mr. Young stated that he would like to see the request approved and it wouldn’t matter to him if the parking went right up to the property line.
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 discussion.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board is looking at three variances and believes they can all be voted on as one because it is an all or nothing deal.

Mr. Deremer stated that he has no problem with the 10 ft. parking and landscaping setback on the east side because the existing parcel has maintained a 10 ft. setback, which was required when the building was constructed.  There will be landscaping along the lot line as required per the code and he would rather see landscaping between the parcels as opposed to grass.

Mr. Deremer stated that the variance on the east side puts the building in line with the existing building.  To push it forward on the lot would not allow the parking that is needed and to allow traffic to flow through the existing parcel and the proposed parcel.

Mr. Deremer stated that the only variance he somewhat struggled with was the south side variance.  Mr. Deremer stated because of the topography of the land they wanted to separate the buildings and he believes this is a reasonable hardship.  Mr. Deremer stated that the buildings need 30 ft. between them to comply with the Fire Department requirements along with the zoning regulations.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer in regards to the east side variance.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he has a small problem with the south side variance; however, he agrees with Mr. Stancato about the building being cut in half in order to meet the requirements.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the four foot drop creates a practical difficulty.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he likes the idea of the buildings being separated and thinks he can justify the south setback with regards to a practical difficulty.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer and Mr. McDonnell and has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1811 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1815 - Jackson Storage, Jack Koury, property owner, 4527 22nd. St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance for a zero (0) ft. parking and landscaping setback along both sides of the north and west boundary of proposed tract one where a 5 ft. parking and landscaping setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4527 22nd. St. NW, Sect. 36SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jack Koury with reasons being the site is completely development and they would like to split the lot.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan of the developed property, and a site plan showing the proposed lot split.  The file also contained a legal description of the 0.653 acre proposed tract and a full size site plan of the proposed lot split.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Jack Koury, 3614 Hazelbrook SW, Massillon, Ohio.

Mr. Koury stated that the property is not changing owners.  They just want to divorce the radio station from the storage units for tax purposes.  In order to do this they have to have so many feet and it just so happened that the split ended up in the middle of the parking lot.  Mr. Koury stated that the property is already graveled and the code says that there has to be a buffer strip between the properties, which would not be practical to do because a lot of money was spent taking the grass out and putting the gravel in.

Mr. Deremer asked if basically they are creating a separate parcel out of the existing parcel.

Mr. Koury stated yes.  There are two separate businesses and they would like to separate them for tax purposes.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the reason for the variance is so the parcel can be split into two parcels.

Mr. McDonnell stated that as he understands it, tract one and two is currently one parcel and it is the applicants desire to create two parcels.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this is correct.

Mr. Deremer asked if there would be a need in the future to have a fence erected along the property line.

Mr. Koury stated that they are going to put a fence around the entire property in the future with a gate.

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 discussion.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is more of a procedural matter.  This is an existing tract and they want to separate the parcel for reasons beyond the zoning resolution.  The parcel is a parking lot as it exists so basically they are talking about a stripped line through the parking lot.  Mr. Deremer stated that he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. Dodson stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer and does not have a problem with this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1815 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1812 - Robert Weinland, property owner, 5159 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance to replace a 400 sq. ft. non-conforming garage in the front yard area with a garage 1,152 sq. ft. where 500 sq. ft. is permitted per the 25% non-conforming use expansion for a total of 652 sq. ft. over the permitted 25% non-conforming use expansion in Art. III Sect. 303.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5159 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 23NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Robert Weinland with reasons being to store their mini motor home instead of parking it in the driveway and the garage must be in the same place due to existing driveway.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the location of the existing garage and the new garage.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Robert Weinland, 5159 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio.
Mr. Weinland stated that he talked to his neighbors and they have no complaints regarding the request.

Mr. Weinland presented to the board a hand drawn sketch of the proposed garage, a sheet consisting of three photos, a hand drawn sketch of the existing garage and proposed garage, and a second sheet consisting of three photos and explained what they represented.

Mr. Deremer stated that exhibit #1 is a page consisting of three photos showing the house and the existing garage, dated 10/22/02.  Exhibit #2 is the hand drawn sketch of the proposed garage, exhibit #3 is a sheet consisting of three photos showing the trees in front of the property, dated 10/22/02, and exhibit #4 is the hand drawn sketch showing the existing garage and proposed garage.

Mr. Weinland stated that the existing garage was built in 1941 and the photos show that the garage cannot be seen from the road due the existing trees.  Mr. Weinland stated that he would like to tear down the existing garage, which is 20 x 20 sq. ft., and replace it with a garage that is 1,152 sq. ft. so he can house his mini motor home.

Mr. Weinland stated that there is an existing lean-to on the garage so it is actually 526 sq. ft. and has 500 sq. ft. of concrete floor.

Mr. Dodson asked if the new garage would look like the existing home.

Mr. Weinland stated yes.  The shingles and siding will make the garage look like it was built with the house.

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 discussion.

Mr. Werner stated that when looking at an expansion of 652 sq. ft. over the 25% it seems like a lot, but at the same time Lake Cable is a different area.  Mr. Werner stated that he believes this is a legitimate requests and aesthetically it will fit in and won’t be seen from the road.  Mr. Werner stated that he does not have a problem with this appeal.

Mr. Dodson stated that he agrees with Mr. Werner’s comments.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the reason the garage is non-conforming is because it is a detached building in the front yard area.  If it were in the side or rear yard then Mr. Weinland would not have to come in front of the board.  A 20 x 20 sq. ft. garage is small and Mr. Weinland is doing the township a favor by wanting to house his motor home in the garage.  Actually, if the motor home is parked in the driveway, it is in violation of zoning.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with this appeal and it makes sense.

Mr. Deremer stated that he concurs with the other board members.

Mr. Werner made a motion to approve appeal #1812 as submitted.

Mr. Dodson 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 26, 2002.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he did not have a chance to review the minutes.
Mr. Deremer stated that the board needed to make a motion on the minutes because an appeal has been filed in Common Pleas Court for appeal #1803, which was heard at that meeting on September 26, 2002.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would abstain from voting.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 26, 2002 meeting.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion

The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-abstain, 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