Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Eric Oldroyd
Member absent: Jim Giulitto
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #1993 – Todd Collins, applicant for Steve & Pam Porter, property owner, 2719 Mill Ridge Path NE, Massillon, OH 44646, requests a variance for a 5 ft. left and right side yard setback for principle building where 10 ft. is required and a 25 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 5757 East Blvd NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Todd Collins, and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan showing the post improvements for the property. The file also contained an overhead view from the county auditor showing the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Todd Collins, 11395 Forty Corners, Massillon, OH as representative for the appeal.
Mr. Collins presented a picture of the current property, marked as Exhibit 1, showing the front view of the structure on the property. Mr. Collins stated that the garage sits about 2 ½ inches below the road and that area floods when it rains, and will continue to flood if the structure is not raised. He will need to raise the new structure about 13 inches. In order to raise the structure, he will need to move the house back on the lot. The right side yard setback will not change, however the left side yard will be between 6-8 ft. The left side yard setback is currently about 8 ft. 2.
Mr. Deremer clarified that this will be a new structure and not lifting the current structure.
Mr. Collins stated that it will be a new structure. Mr. Collins also noted that the house that sits to the right, is a project that he worked on over a year ago and it has the same setbacks that they are asking for tonight.
Mr. Collins stated that until the old structure is down and more elevations are taken, he is unable to ask for specific setbacks. He already knows that he has to push the house back, just not sure exactly how far back. They are asking for the maximum of 5 ft. on the side yard, but it should end up being more than that. This will give him room to work within that parameter.
Mr. Deremer asked if the 25 ft. front yard setback that they are asking for will work for the home they want to build.
Mr. Collins stated that yes it would. That setback was exactly what they asked for over a year ago when they built the house to the right. Mr. Collins stated that the site plan has not changed, he is allowing room to fit the house on the property. If he meets the 40 ft setback, the house would be so far back on the property that it would obscure the view of the neighbors on each side.
Mr. Collins stated that he is trying to take into consideration multiple factors in building this new home. He is trying to provide views for the property owners on each side. He needs to lessen the steepness of the driveway and flooding issues for the new home owner by raising the new structure. However, by raising the house, he runs into problems in the back.
Mr. Deremer asked if the layout of the house will be similar to the house on the right.
Mr. Collins stated that yes, it is almost a carbon copy from the aerial view except the front entry is angled.
Mr. Deremer asked if the square footage would be the same.
Mr. Collins stated that the house to the right does not have a finished basement and this house will. The square footage of this house will be close to 5490, with three finished levels.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the right and left setbacks are right now for the house at 5757.
Mr. Collins stated that it is 8 ft. 2 from the left side and 5 ft. 2 from the right side. Mr. Collins presented two other pictures, marked as Exhibit 2 and 3.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the setbacks are of the current structure, including the carport. Carport is attached so it counts as the principal structure.
Mr. Collins said he does not have exact measurements of the carport.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is closer to 25 feet.
Mr. Collins said the carport probably sits closer to 30 feet from the right of way.
Mr. McDonnell stated and asked for confirmation that the new structure would not set any closer to the road than the old structure.
Mr. Collins stated that this is correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the square footage is for one single floor?
Mr. Collins stated that it is 1700 square feet.
Mr. McDonnell asked what is the total square footage of the new structure?
Mr. Collins stated that it is about 4900 square foot. After you take out the Great Room, and a few other areas that are not considered living space, the footage is about 4900.
Mr. McDonnell asked why you just can’t build a smaller house to meet the setbacks?
Mr. Collins stated that you could, however he defers that question to the home owner. That is not the plans they brought him.
Mr. Deremer asked if building a smaller home in that neighborhood would be an economically feasible option?
Mr. Collins stated that it would not be economically feasible to build a smaller house in that area. All of the other homes are considerably larger. Property owners pay a specific amount of money for the property and expect a specific size home.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in audience would like to speak in favor. Mr. Steve Porter, 2719 Mill Ridge Path NE, was sworn in.
Mr. Porter stated that he would like to answer Mr. McDonnell’s earlier question of why not just build a home that meets the required setbacks? Mr. Porter stated if you meet the necessary setbacks, it would make all the rooms very narrow. One of his main concerns is to respect his neighbors and their view of the lake. He did not want to go back deeper in the lot to obstruct their view. He stated that he was told due to the size and layout of the Lake Cable area, that it is not usually a problem to go with a 5 ft. side yard setback. Many of the homes in Lake Cable have a 5 ft. side yard setback.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the appeal. Mr. Donald and Mrs. Marie Pry, 5751 East Blvd, NW, both were sworn in to speak in opposition.
Mr. Pry stated that their home is on the left side of the property.
Mrs. Pry stated that they are opposing this new home because they feel it will be detrimental to their property. They are too close to their property already, and with the new structure they would be even closer. Mrs. Pry presented pictures of trucks that damaged their property when they came in to cut down trees on the property.
Mr. Deremer marked the pictures as OE Exhibit 1, OE Exhibit 2, OE Exhibit 3, and OE Exhibit 4.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Pry how close the property line is to their house.
Mr. Pry stated that he does not have a site plan, however, he believes it is 5 1/2 feet.
Mr. Deremer stated that the existing house is 8 feet, is that correct.
Mr. Pry stated that yes, he believes that is correct.
Mrs. Pry stated that she believes that zoning is put in for a reason. If you allow variances it sets precedence and she doesn’t feel that is right. Lake Cable has a lot of older homes and they look a lot alike. If you give a variance to allow them to get closer it does not make for good neighbors. She is glad it went to appeal and if she needs to get an attorney she can do that.
Mr. Deremer clarified with Mr. Pry that their house is 5 feet on each side to the property line.
Mr. Pry stated yes, that was before zoning was put in.
Mrs. Pry stated again that she does not want the variance approved, it would hurt her property.
Mr. Deremer asked if that home was the same age as their home?
Mr. Pry stated that he believes his neighbor’s home is the same age as his home. They were built in middle to late 50’s and they have lived there close to 30 years.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else wanted to speak concerning the appeal?
Mr. Collins wanted to make a point of clarification on the tree removal from the property. They met with Don Pry prior to the tree removal and he was present the day the trucks came on his property. There was a tree hanging over on Don’s property, and they asked him if they wanted them to take it down. Don stated yes, and they took down the tree at their expense. They felt they not only included Don Pry in the planning of this day, but he was also happy and satisfied with the outcome.
Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Collins indicated earlier that if they grant a variance the setback may be 8 feet, may be 6 feet or may be whatever works?
Mr. Collins stated that it will not be 8 feet. To raise the house they have to move the house back. It will fall somewhere between the 6 ft. or 7 ft. range.
Mr. McDonnell asked if his testimony is that to make this work they need to ask for 5 feet on both sides. You do not feel comfortable asking for more than that?
Mr. Collins stated that no, not at this time.
Mr. McDonnell asked what will prevent them from making that determination on what the setback will actually be.
Mr. Collins stated that they do not know exactly what the height is of the sewer lateral. They need to get everything middled on the property, and with the home owners on each side. Also, one of the trees on the property was going to come down and now it will remain.
Mr. McDonnell clarified that Mr. Collins testimony is that he will not know the exact setbacks until he brings down the other home.
Mr. Collins stated that yes this is correct. Once the old house is down, they can start to determine the slope of the driveway.
Meeting was closed for public input.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he feels that this property is similar to many properties in Lake Cable. The lots are narrow for which typically zoning asks for. The front is considered the back and the back is the front, due to the view of the lake. The applicant’s testimony is they will not go any further back than necessary to obstruct the view of their neighbors. Due to these situations, the board has allowed 5 ft setbacks in Lake Cable. Lake Cable does not have a problem with 5 ft yard side setbacks. The 25 ft. setback is in line with the house on the right. The only problem he has is granting the full variance due to they can not pinpoint exactly where the house is going to lay. However, he feels the practical difficulty has been met.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell concerning the Lake Cable area. He stated that if you get more than a 5 ft. side yard setback that is a bonus for that area. He also feels that if they did not approve the variance, they would be holding them to a higher standard then they have made the other neighbors in the area meet.
Mr. Deremer also agreed with Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Juergensen. Mr. Deremer stated that he understands Donald and Marie Pry’s concern about their neighbor’s property and how it affects the value of their home, however, he feels that the old home would be more of a determent to their property than a new structure.
Mr. Oldroyd made a motion to approve appeal #1993 as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer informed Mr. Porter and Mr. Collins that they are approved as requested. If anyone feels they made an error in their decision, they have 30 days from today’s date to make an appeal to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.
APPEAL #1997 – Ken Manda, 8422 Saybrook Ave NW, North Canton, OH, agent for Joe Kovarik, property owner, 6746 Promway Ave NW, North Canton, OH 44720 requests a variance for approval of expansion of 2852 sq. ft. where 9.5 sq. ft. of the non-conforming use expansion is permitted for a total of 2842.5 sq. ft. over the 25% non-conforming use expansion per Art. III Sect. 303.3 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6746 Promway NW, Sect. 12 SE Jackson Twp Lot 66, 67, 68 & 85. Area zoned I-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Joseph Kovarik, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan of proposed improvements, survey of the property, calculation of square footage prepared by the zoning office, and tax map of the parcels and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Ken Manda, 8422 Saybrook Ave, NW, North Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Manda stated that Joe Kovarik purchased quite a bit of property on Promway, and he is fixing up each property. He wants to put this building on the back of one of the houses. On one side of them you have Russo Concrete and TA behind him which neither are the greatest sight to look at.
Mr. Manda presented a drawing of the proposed 40x80 structure, marked as Exhibit 1. Some of that house will be taken off, and the entire structure will be sided and redone. He needs a heated structure to house a lot of his toys, for example, boat, snowmobiles, automobile.
Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Kovarik owned a landscaping company.
Mr. Manda stated that yes he does.
Mr. McDonnell asked if Joseph Kovarik owned all of the properties in question.
Mr. Manda stated that Joseph Kovarik owned all of the properties, however, he wanted him to represent him in front of the board.
Mr. McDonnell asked how the current structure is being utilized?
Mr. Manda stated that it is a residence. Mr. Kovarik currently lives across the street from this property and he wants to remodel this structure and move into it.
Mr. Mc Donnell confirmed that Mr. Kovarik will be moving across the street and living in this property.
Mr. Manda stated that is correct.
Mr. Manda stated that these lots are not very deep. Mr. Kovarik wants to put money in the properties and make them look better. Mr. Manda also stated that Mr. Kovarik had considered putting an office in one of the buildings, but decided it was not a prime location for an office. He decided to keep it as residential.
Mr. Deremer asked if all of the setbacks are met
Mr. Manda stated yes, all of the required setbacks have been met.
Mr. Deremer stated that he is basically combining four lots.
Mr. Manda stated that it is actually 5 lots.
Mr. Deremer clarified lot number 65, 66, 67, 68 & 85.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Poindexter why they had to come in front of the board
Ms. Poindexter stated because it is residential use in an industrial district. She also stated that they meet all of the setbacks.
Mr. Dodson brought up the point of what if the storage section was not attached to the house.
Ms. Poindexter stated that it has to be attached to the structure.
Mr. McDonnell confirmed that this is a residential structure and the owner will be living there.
Mr. Manda stated that yes, this is for residential and the owner will be living there.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen brought to the table his concerns. This is a 30,000 percent increase and the resolution book states we can not allow more than a 25% increase. Also, he does not feel the board has the authority to grant this.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the board is authorized to grant a variance greater than 25%. The zoning inspector can allow up to 25% and anything over must come to the board. Also, the size was 836 sq ft and for residential use. He feels the owner has the right to do with their property what they wish. That is why it is important to him that the owner is going to use this as a residential unit and he will be leaving there. He does not have a problem with the request.
Mr. Dodson questioned the use of the adjacent properties as long as the new structure is not attached to the existing residence.
Mr. Oldroyd stated that he is very familiar with the area. If anyone would like to improve that area he feels no reason to deny their request.
Mr. Deremer questioned Ms. Poindexter about the lot(s).
Ms. Poindexter stated that when you look at the definition of lots, you can use more than one lot. Lots are all being used in conjunction with each other. Mr. Manda can build that building on the other lots, but needs to build under commercial standards, not residential.
Mr. Deremer referred back to the zoning resolution book, Section 303.3 the second paragraph stating that a non conforming use shall not be enlarged or expanded so as to encroach upon any adjacent or contiguous lot of record. Such contiguous/adjacent lots of record, or any portion therof, shall not constitute part of the “Zoning Lot” of a nonconforming use.
Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.
Mr. Juergensen asked the date that he bought the property.
Mr. Manda stated that he owned the property before 2003.
Ms. Poindexter stated that there are not a lot of records on this property.
Mr. Jurgensen stated that he goes back to what he stated earlier. Section 303.3 A. of the zoning resolution book states that a non-conforming use can not be enlarged or expanded on an adjacent lot, therefore, he can not see how they can vary from this. He does not feel the board has the right to approve this variance.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he was originally under the assumption that all of these lots are of non-conforming use. Any lot loses its non-conforming use status if you seize the use for 2 years or more. Since that structure has not been used as residential, it is no longer non-conforming. Those lots are now industrial and they can not rezone them. Mr. McDonnell stated that he now agrees with Mr. Juergensen.
Mr. Deremer stated that the board is restricted on what they can approve.
Mr. Manda asked if he could build that building on the other lots, not attached to the old structure.
Ms. Poindexter stated that yes he can. He could build it across lot 65, 66, and 67, however, he would have to build under the commercial regulations. The structure would have to be built as a storage unit under the industrial district.
Mr. Deremer advised Mr. Manda to discuss his options for building this structure with Ms. Poindexter after the meeting.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to deny appeal #1997 as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-no, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer advised Mr. Manda that they have denied the appeal as requested due to the non-conforming lots.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of July 28, 2005. Mr. Deremer and Mr. McDonnell were absent at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from July 28, 2005.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes with exception to appeal 1995, and Mr. Deremer-yes with exception to appeal 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator