Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer-Recused from appeal #1929
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell-Recused from appeal #1929
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                       Jim Giulitto
                                                                                       John Juergensen

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                          Joni Poindexter

Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Deremer recused themselves from appeal #1929.  Mr. Dodson served as acting chairman for appeal #1929.

APPEAL #1929 -  Corina Houston/Archer Signs, 1917 Henry Ave., Canton, Ohio 44706 agent for Paul Tackett, property owner, 490 Vandilia Dr., Tallmadge, Ohio 44278 requests a 30 sq. ft. wall sign on the north side of the building where a wall sign is not permitted per Art. V Sect. 502.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4922 Everhard Rd. NW, Sect. 24SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Dodson read the file application signed by Corina Houston and stated that this appeal was continued from 8/26/04.  The only addition to the file from the last hearing is a memo regarding the square footage of the building and permitted signage with a legal opinion from Neal Fitzgerald, law director for Jackson Township.

Mr. Dodson asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Dodson swore in Paul Tackett, 4922 Everhard Rd. NW.

Mr. Tackett stated that he would like to put some additional signage on the building that would have normally been within the regulations if they would have been able to position the building the way it was intended, but due to the property being too narrow they had to rotate the building.  They are not permitted to put a sign on the north wall of the building, so they are requesting a variance.

Mr. Dodson stated that previously a wall sign was requested on the north side where a wall sign is permitted on the west side of the building.  Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Tackett if the request is amended to requesting a 30 ft. wall sign on the north side of the building where a wall sign is not permitted.

Mr. Tackett stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto stated when Mr. Tackett was in front of the board the last time the request was for “Aamco World’s Largest Transmission Specialist”.  Mr. Giulitto asked if the request is now just for the word “Aamco”.

Mr. Tackett stated this is correct.  The part that says “World’s Largest Transmission Specialist” is on the front of the building, so when the application was submitted the first time it wasn’t submitted right.  Mr. Tackett stated that the only sign they want on the north wall is the 30 sq. ft. Aamco sign.

Mr. Giulitto asked if anything would be changing on the front of the building.

Mr. Tackett stated no.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the linear frontage of the west side of the building is 40 sq. ft.

Mr. Tackett stated yes.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the sign that is on the building now is 42.71 sq. ft.

Mr. Tackett stated that he has two signs on the front of the building.  The total sq. ft. is less than the permitted 80 sq. ft. of signage for the front of the building because they currently only have 66.71 sq. ft. of signage.

Mr. Juergensen stated that there is 13.29 sq. ft. of signage left for the front of the building but the sign requested is 30 sq. ft.  Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Tackett if he wants a variance for the sign on the north wall and the square footage.

Mr. Tackett stated yes, but they are not putting it on the front of the building.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks the variance is caused by the main entrance not being on the north side.

Mr. Tackett stated that if the entrance was on the north side then he wouldn’t need a variance.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Dodson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Dodson swore in James Bauder, 6106 Armistice NW.

Mr. Bauder stated apparently the property was bought and the building designed and then it was decided that building wasn’t aligned properly for what he wanted to do, so he doesn’t think the township should have to correct the applicant’s mistake.  Mr. Bauder stated that the sign could be put on the northwest corner facing the street and be seen in both directions.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Dodson closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he is still under the opinion that the applicant doesn’t need a variance to put the sign on the north wall.  In looking at 502.4(A) it states, “The permitted square footage of walls signs shall be determined by multiplying two square feet by the linear frontage of the building upon which the sign will be located.”  Mr. Juergensen stated that he takes that as taking the linear frontage of the building and multiplying that by two and that is the amount of square footage that he is allowed to have on whatever side he wants.  Mr. Juergensen stated that he doesn’t see any specific requirement that the sign is limited to one side of the building.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the issue as to whether they can have 16.71 additional square footage, he would be in favor of granting a variance with respect to this.  It is an irregular shaped lot and the larger side of the building does not face the street, but more importantly the spirit and intent of the zoning resolution will not be offended in any way by granting the variance.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. Juergensen and stated that he doesn’t think the variance is needed and they should be looking more at the square footage, but he really doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson stated that he thinks the resolution could be clearer, but the point is that the board in the past interpreted the regulation to mean that unless you are on a corner lot you can only have a sign on one side unless you get a variance.  Mr. Dodson stated that if the trustees decide to change the regulation to clarify it then it would be a good thing, but for the time being they are bound by what the board has done in the past.  The trustees have told them in the past that they should be tuff on signs and a lot of requests have been turned down for signs on two sides of the building where it wasn’t on a corner lot, but this is different because the lot is extremely narrow.  Mr. Dodson stated that he would be inclined to say the variance is required and in this very limited situation he would be tempted to support it.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1929 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1938 – John Albini, property owner, 6134 Grail Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance for a 6 ft. (right) west side yard setback for principal building where a 10 ft. setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6134 Grail Circle NW, Sect. 34NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by John Albini with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “to make existing two car garage into a three car garage.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, and a site plan showing the proposed addition.  The file also contained two letters from adjoining property owners, which remained in the file but were not read into the record because they were not sworn testimony.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in John Albini, 6134 Grail Circle NW.

Mr. Albini stated that he is not the original owner of the home.  He would like to add 9 ft. to the existing garage on the west side of the property.  The reason for the variance is because the existing home was built at an angle along the property line.  If it were built parallel to the property line, like the neighbors homes, then there would have been enough room, with the property being 92 ft. wide and the home being 60 ft. wide, to add the addition without a variance.  Mr. Albini stated that the variance is for a 6 ft. setback in the front, but the back of the garage will be at a 9 ft. 6 in. setback.

Mr. Albini stated that his personal reason for the variance is for security because his vehicles have been broken into in the past.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Albini if he could physically put the addition on the property without violating zoning although it may not be practical.

Mr. Albini stated that it could possibly be built somewhere else but because of the nature of the lot there wouldn’t be any access to it.  Along the west property line is a power easement with a power box in the rear of the existing garage.  Along the east side of the property are gas, water, and sewer easements.  Mr. Albini stated that there is a deck along the rear of the existing garage so there would be no access to the that area.

Mr. Dodson asked what is located between the existing garage and the house.

Mr. Albini stated that there is an enclosed breezeway.  The garage could not be moved to the breezeway area because it steps up to door going into the home.

Mr. Deremer stated in looking at the way the subdivision is laid out, there really isn’t a neighbor along the west side yard.

Mr. Albini stated that the back of the neighbor’s property is next to his side yard.

Mr. Deremer asked how the view would be affected.

Mr. Albini stated that there are trees along the west side of the property so the view would not be affected at all.  Mr. Albini presented eight photos and explained what each represented.

Photo #1 & 2 is a view of the property from the neighbors back patio.
Photo #3 is a view of the neighbor’s trees taken from Mr. Albini’s yard.
Photo #4 is a front view of Mr. Albini’s home.
Photo #5 is a view showing where the garage would be located.
Photo #6 & 7 is a view of the sidewalk along the west side of property.
Photo #8 is a view of the power box from the back side of the home.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Albini if he indicated that because of the way the house sits and the fact that it is cantered off a little bit is one of the reasons why the garage cannot be built without violating zoning.

Mr. Albini stated that the house is 12 ft. from the east property line and 15 ft. from the west property line.  If it would have been built at a 10 ft. setback along the east side and straight on the lot then a variance would not be required.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficult is with the land that requires the variance.

Mr. Albini stated that the power box, the house being built at an angle, and the sewer and water easements on the other side of the property prohibits him from building it anywhere else.  The lot is a good size lot but it is on a cul-de-sac, is irregularly shaped, and gets a lot narrower along the west side.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Lisa Albini, 6134 Grail Circle NW.

Ms. Albini stated that part of the reason the addition cannot be put in the rear of the property is because of all the easements and where the electric box is located.  There are trees along the west side of the property and the neighbor who would be most affected wrote a letter stating that they do not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Albini if she spoke to the neighbors regarding the request.

Ms. Albini stated yes, they do not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer swore in Chris Redmond, 6133 Canterbury NW.

Mr. Redmond stated that he lives directly behind the Albini’s and supports the request.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is anything that Mr. Redmond sees with the lot that stands out.

Mr. Redmond stated what he sees is the position of the home on the lot.  If added anywhere else on the lot it would not be functional.

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 he is having difficulty finding a practical difficulty as it relates to the land when reading section 803.5.  He understands that the applicant indicated that the house is cantered on the cul-de-sac but that is not peculiar to houses located on radiuses of cul-de-sacs within the same zoning district.  He doesn’t see anything that is peculiar to the land to justify the variance.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he knows the applicant has a lot of vehicles and is concerned about their safety, but it is his belief that the amount of possessions one has does not justify a variance.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. McDonnell to read the section he was referring to.

Mr. McDonnell read section 803.5(B)(1) which stated, “Whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable generally to other lands or structures in the same zoning district; examples of such special conditions or circumstances are: exceptional irregularity, narrowness, shallowness or steepness of the lot.”  Mr. McDonnell stated that he doesn’t see that any of those exists for this particular piece of property.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he disagrees with Mr. McDonnell.  Section (B)(1) allows the board to consider special circumstances.  The slanting of the house along the property line can be a special circumstance.  There was testimony that Mr. Albini did not build the house.  In looking at section 803.5(B)(3), he doesn’t see that it is substantial.  One end of the garage is still 9 ft. away from the property line and he doesn’t see where the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered.  There has been testimony that there are trees that would almost be covering up the structure.  Mr. Juergensen stated based on section 805.3 he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. Juergensen and stated that there are irregularities with the parcel.  There is quite a bit of frontage for the property but some of it is only 20 ft. wide along the neck part of it that can’t be used for anything and there has been testimony that Mr. Albini did not build the original structure.  Mr. Deremer stated that the structure could be built on the property without violating zoning but the best place to put it is where it is shown on the site plan.  As testified to, it could be put on the other side but there are easements.  Mr. Deremer stated that he believes they are trying to make the best use out of the property without harming the neighborhood.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1938 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-No, Mr. McDonnell-No, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1936 – First Baptist Church of Jackson, 6975 Promway Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Jackson Board of Education, property owner, 7600 Fulton Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit for a church where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7600 Fulton Rd. NW, Sect. 21NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Thomas Kang with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “For our church (approximately 330+ members) to conduct worship services and Sunday school classes (to teach the bible) for 2-1/2 hours every Sunday morning between the hours of 9:00-11:30 a.m. (until the construction of our building is complete).”  The file contained an aerial view of the tax map of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, copies of previous permits from the school, and a site plan showing the location of the building that would be utilized for the church.

Mr. Deremer recused himself from appeal #1936 due to his wife working for the school system.

Mr. McDonnell served as chairman for the appeal.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Dan Clevenger, 4831 Lindford Ave., Canton, Ohio, attorney for the applicant.

Mr. Clevenger stated that they are asking for a conditional use permit for a portion of the school for their Sunday school service for 2-1/2 hours on Sunday mornings.  They are in the process of purchasing land to build a church in the community.  This is a helpful conditional use for the community as it encourages the health and welfare of the community as a whole.  Mr. Clevenger stated that the majority of the members of the church are in the community and they have the support of the school, which they have been meeting in for about 4-1/2 years.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there are any changes proposed to be made to the school itself.

Mr. Clevenger stated there are no changes to the physical structure of the school, but over time they have switched from smaller classrooms to larger classrooms.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Clevenger anticipates any physical changes to the school in the future.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.  They put small signs up in the parking lot on Sunday morning and then remove them the same day.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit, section 431.2

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Clevenger’s testimony that it will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Clevenger’s testimony that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that section 431.2(C) & (D) are non applicable because it is currently constructed and exists as is.

Mr. Clevenger stated this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that section 431.2(E) is non applicable because it is in a residential district.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Clevenger’s testimony that this will be maintained in a neat, orderly and safe fashion.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.3(C).

Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation would be.

Mr. Clevenger stated the hours are 9:00 am to 11:30 am on Sundays.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the parcel is over one acre and asked if it is Mr. Clevenger’s testimony that the entrance and exists are more than 100 ft. from two arterial streets.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any change in the lighting.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if any searchlight, floodlights, loudspeakers or similar structures would be used outside the building.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they would be utilizing the schools trash receptacles.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the grading and surface drainage provisions have already been addressed by the school.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.6(F).

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Clevenger’s testimony that this is located on an arterial street and has direct access to that arterial street, being Fulton Rd., without going through a residential area.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there are any outdoor children’s activities.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated if they do have any outdoor children’s activities in the future they need to be advised that all outdoor children’s activities shall be enclosed by a fence or wall having a height of at least 5 ft. but not exceeding 6 ft. and an entry gate shall be securely fastened.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the building is existing which makes section 431.6(F)(3) non applicable.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Clevenger’s testimony that all activities, programs and other events shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted, and shall be adequately and properly supervised so as to prevent any hazard and to assure against any disturbance or nuisance to surrounding properties, residents or to the community in general.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking and emergency entrances and exists are the same that are utilized by the school.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that this concluded reviewing the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Clevenger had no further comments and the board had no further questions.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Doug Kilchenman, 5147 Dublin Circle NW, Canton, Ohio.

Mr. Kilchenman stated that they have about 120 kids of which 82 are 4th grade and below and 40 plus are junior and senior high kids.  Seventy-five percent of those are Jackson local school kids.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Kilchenman what his relationship is to the church.

Mr. Kilchenman stated that he is a member.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that the Board’s policy in the past has been if the applicant meets the criteria for the conditional use permit then the board grants the request.  Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t see any reason not to grant conditional use permit in this case.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson and believes all the conditions have been met for the conditional use permit.  Mr. McDonnell stated, if approved, the decision of the board does not obligate the Jackson local school district in any way to allow the church to operate and they can terminate the agreement at any time.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1936 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments on the minutes from the meeting held August 12, 2004.

Mr. Dodson asked if it is correct, on page seven, when Mr. Giulitto asked if Mr. Tackett is going to put something on the awning, if Mr. Tackett answered that the standard would be the phone number.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes, this is correct according to the tape and the meeting notes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that on page ten there is a correction in the wording from “Mr. Giulitto asked if the Fire Chief had seen the drawing” to “Mr. Giulitto asked if the Fire Department has seen the drawing”.  On the same page there is a spelling error for the word alleviate.

Mr. Juergensen stated that on page five the word “here” should be spelled “hear”.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from August 12, 2004 as amended.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, except for appeal #1929, and Mr. Deremer-abstained.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto 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