Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Gerald Werner
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                        Jim Giulitto-Absent for appeal #1870
                                                                                        John Juergensen-Alternate

Zoning Administrator:                                                   John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                            Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1870 – Theodore & Linda Reid II, property owner, 6092 Pinecreek NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 6-1/2 ft. right (north) side yard setback for attached shed to principal building where a 10 ft. setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6092 Pinecreek NW, Sect. 3SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Theodore Reid with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The shed is already in place because I didn’t know I needed a permit for it, nor that there was a 10 ft. rule for setback.  It would be financially difficult at this point to tear it off and start over somewhere else.  Any freestanding shed would block view for neighbors.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the location of the shed, and a notice of zoning violation regarding the shed being constructed without a permit and not meeting the 10 ft. setback requirement.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Theodore Reid, 6092 Pinecreek NW.

Mr. Reid stated that he didn’t know he needed a permit for the shed because in Michigan, where he is from, you do not need a permit for something that small.  Even if he would have known he needed a permit, he would still be in front of the board asking for a variance because this is the only place that it can be attached to the home.  Mr. Reid stated that they wanted the shed attached so it doesn’t block the view from the back of their home.  Mr. Reid stated that the thought of putting a detached shed is not something that they want to pursue.

Mr. Reid stated that the neighbor to the north won’t have to look at the shed because don’t have any windows on the side of their house.  Mr. Reid stated that he stopped construction on the shed once he received the violation letter from the township.  The trim still needs to be put on the shed and it needs painting, which will be the same color as the house.  Mr. Reid stated that there is a steep slope in the back of his yard that goes down to the airport property, so even he was thinking about putting the shed in the back yard it would require a lot of excavating.

Mr. Deremer stated that the shed is odd shaped, 7 x 12 ft., and asked if there is anything particular about the size.

Mr. Reid stated he wants to be able to drive his lawn tractor into the shed.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Reid indicated that the back yard drops off and asked what the grade is.

Mr. Reid stated that he estimates it is 10 ft.  His property is the only property that drops off because the neighbors have more fill.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the shed would look like when it is done.
Mr. Reid stated that the trim and color will be the same as his house.

Mr. Dodson asked if there is any reason the shed couldn’t be attached directly behind the house.

Mr. Reid stated that there are glass sliding doors at the rear of the home.

Mr. Deremer asked if the sheds location effects drainage on the adjoining neighbor’s property.

Mr. Reid stated no.  The drainage goes toward the back yard and stays on his property.

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

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 Mr. Robert Williams, 6102 Pinecreek NW.

Mr. Williams stated that he lives to the right of the property in question and his property is affected by the shed.  Mr. Williams stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse for not knowing that a permit was needed because all it would have taken was a phone call.

Mr. Williams stated that he was in New Jersey when construction started on the shed and his daughter called to tell him what was going on.  He then called Mr. Phillippi who in turn sent the inspector out to see what was going on.

Mr. Williams stated that the distance between the shed and his home is approximately 18 ft.  The shed could probably not be put somewhere else and be attached, but could put somewhere else detached on the property.

Mr. Williams stated that the roof of the shed creates a problem because the water from the shed not only goes down the hill but it goes across to his property, into his window well and into his basement where it runs down the wall.  If the shed stays he will have water problems forever.

Mr. Williams presented a packet to the board, exhibit #1, which consisted of photos of the basement wall with water damage.

Mr. Deremer asked if there had been problems in the past with water coming into the basement.

Mr. Williams stated no.  He has lived there 25 years and has never had any problems.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Williams how long the Reid’s home has been on the property.

Mr. Williams stated that he is the second owner of his home.  The Reid’s are the sixth owner of their home and the home has been on the property just as long as his house has been on his property.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Williams if he ever had water problems in the 25 years that he has been in his home.

Mr. Williams stated no.  He has had some sweating but no water damage through any window well.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Williams if it is his testimony that he has never had any water seeping through the window well on the side of his home where the shed is located.

Mr. Williams stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Reid stated that the shed’s roof slopes down at a 2:12 pitch, which is the same pitch as the roof on his home.  There will be downspouts on the shed which is part of the construction that has not been finished.  Mr. Reid stated that there is a gouge in the grass where the runoff goes toward the back of his property.  Mr. Reid stated that they had some torrential rains while Mr. Williams was in New Jersey and he also had some water problems from the rain that came in his sliding glass doors.  There is no way the run off from his shed would go clear over to Mr. Williams’s window if you look at the lay of the land, and even if it could, it wouldn’t be a problem once the downspouts were put on and the construction was finished.

Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Reid’s downspouts go to the back of his property or to the street.

Mr. Reid stated that everything runs to the back of the property.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that generally this would not be a significant variance request.  He is having difficulty due to the testimony of the adjoining property owner that indicates that he has water coming into the window well.  Window wells have a tendency to collect water but by the same token, Mr. William has lived at the property 25 years and has testified that this is the first time.  There were pretty significant rains prior to that but the fact that there was no problem prior to the shed being built there could be a cause and effect between the shed and the water problems.  Mr. McDonnell stated that one of the things he looks at is if granting the variance will be detrimental to the adjacent property owner.  In this case it appears that it might be so he has difficulty with the variance if it is going to cause problems for the neighbor.

Mr. Werner stated that there have been some unusual rains but as stated by Mr. McDonnell, this is the first time in 25 years that Mr. Williams has had water problems so he would have difficulty in passing the variance.

Mr. Dodson stated that the board needs to find is a practical difficulty and even if the slope is 10% as testified to, people have build sheds on a lot steeper slopes then that so he questions whether there is a practical difficulty to allow the variance.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson and its hard to find a practical difficulty in this case.

Mr. Deremer concurred with the other board members and stated that there have been other cases where this type of addition has been acceptable because there was no other place to put a small shed of that type.  There have been people who have cut into a slope to fit a shed on the property and he believes there are other options to place the shed on the property without offending the zoning resolution.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1870 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that the variance request is denied.  If the applicant does not agree with the decision they can file an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas within 30 days from the hearing date.

APPEAL #1874 – Collins Construction & Development, property owner, 11395 Forty Corners St., Massillon, Ohio 44647 requests a variance for a 25 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required, a 5 ft. right side yard setback & a 6 ft. left side yard setback where 10 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is Lot #309 East Blvd., Sect. 14SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Todd Collins with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Irregular shaped lot, vacant property that is not buildable which leaves a 40 ft. green space between homes”.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the home.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Anitha Ta, 6983 Harbor NW.

Ms. Ta stated that she will be purchasing the home.  A 25 ft. front yard setback is pretty much in line with the other homes on either side of the street.  Ms. Ta stated that the lot is irregular and small so they are asking for a variance for the side yard setbacks.

Mr. Deremer asked what the square footage of the home is.

Ms. Ta stated that it is about 4,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Deremer asked how close the other properties are to the property line.

Ms. Ta stated that there is 30 ft. of vacant land between her home and Mr. Haymakers and on the other side there would be 20 ft. between the homes.

Mr. McDonnell asked when the property was platted.

Ms. Ta stated that it was done within the past two months.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the rear of her house would be closer or further from the lake then the other homes.

Ms. Ta stated that they are the same.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Ta if it is her testimony that the proposed home is basically in line with the adjacent neighbors.

Ms. Ta stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if the property is on Lakeshore or East Blvd.

Ms. Ta stated that it is on East Blvd.

Mr. Deremer swore in Todd Collins, 11395 Forty Corners Rd. NW.

Mr. Collins stated that the sketch shows the left side setback at 7-1/2 ft. but they are asking for 6 ft. so they can have some play.  The lot next to Ms. Ta is basically unbuildable due to the size of it.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the property frontage is.

Mr. Collins stated that it is 71 ft. in the front and 81 ft. at the lake side.

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. Dodson stated that a 5 ft. side setback for the Lake Cable area is normal and the 25 ft. setback will line up with the other homes in the area so he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. Giulitto concurred with Mr. Dodson and stated that the setbacks match the Lake Cable area.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it is pretty normal for the Lake Cable lots to be narrower than other lots and the setback are not out of line with the area.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the lot width creates a practical difficulty so he has no problem with the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1874 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 #1871 – Ron Canterbury, agent for WeCan Properties LLC, both of 4859 Hills & Dales Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a conditional use permit for a landscaping business with vehicle & equipment storage where a conditional use permit is required, a variance for no landscaping along the west parking and landscaping setback where landscaping is required, a variance for a 5 ft. parking and landscaping setback along the east boundary where 20 ft. is required, a variance for a zero (0ft.) front building setback where 50 ft. is required, and a zero (0ft.) front parking and landscaping setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 & 431.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4859 Hills & Dales Rd. NW, Sect. 25SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ron Canterbury with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Wish to use the location for retail sales landscaping company and it requires a conditional use permit. Building is already there.” The file contained a tax map of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, and a site plan and a layout of the proposed sewer plan extension consisting of two pages date August 7, 2003.  Mr. Deremer stated that there is a letter in the file from an adjacent property owner but it would not be read into the record.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Ron Canterbury, 2999 Tory Pines Circle NW and Charles Webster, 7237 Brycewood Circle NW.

Mr. Canterbury stated that they are looking to relocate their business on Hills & Dales Rd. and are asking for the conditional use permit to store their landscaping equipment in the proposed building and operate their offices out of the existing structure.  Mr. Canterbury stated that the existing building was actually a house that was converted to an office.  The proposed structure shown on the plan would be used for storage and retail use.

Mr. Webster stated that the parcel has two zonings.  There is R-4 zoning in the rear and B-3 zoning in the front.  They would like to put a tree farm on the R-4 portion of the parcel instead of building apartments and would like to build a building on the B-3 portion of the parcel for retail and storage.  They want to retain the existing building for offices.

Mr. Deremer stated that it appears most of the variances are for landscaping.

Mr. Webster stated this is correct.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the plan has gone through several revisions and the zoning department spent quite a bit of time reviewing the plan.  Because of the fact that this is a conditionally permitted use, technically, all the conditions that are encumbered on that use have to be met unless a variance is requested.  Because of the fact that there is an existing house there, it is not possible to meet the required front building setback or parking setback because when you take the 80 ft. assumed right of way for Hills & Dales the building setback goes right up to the front of the house.  Mr. Phillippi stated that the building as it sits today is non-conforming.  But because it is going to a conditional use, all of the conditions for that use apply unless a variance is granted.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the 5 ft. parking setback on the east side would only pertain to a portion of the side yard and the rest of it would have the full 20 ft. grass area.  It appears, according to the plan, that they would not need a variance on the west side although it has been requested.

Mr. Webster stated that he doesn’t believe they need the variance for the west side but they weren’t sure what they were supposed to be asking for until they got with Cooper.  Mr. Webster stated that this is correct, there is no variance needed for the west side.

Mr. Phillippi stated that there is an existing gravel drive on the adjacent property along the west side and as he understands, they would not be putting in an additional driveway in that area so they would be limiting it to one driveway that would meet the current zoning and county standards.

Mr. Webster stated that they would not use that drive at all.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the variance for the west side, although it is requested, would not be required and the landscaping would be able to be put in under the revised plan.

Mr. Webster stated that this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Canterbury and Mr. Webster if they concur that the variance on west parking setback is no longer being requested.

Mr. Webster stated yes, it is not required.  They should have modified the application when they did the plan but they didn’t.

Mr. Webster showed the board where the 5 ft. east side parking setback would be located.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Webster’s testimony that the variance on the east side is basically not going to change anything from what is currently there and what they are asking for is to keep what they have, the house/office building the same.  Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking is behind the current structure, none of the variances requested is along the parking area, and they will be able to put the landscaping in along the parking area.

Mr. Webster stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they are asking to leave everything the way it is along the east side.

Mr. Webster stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the front setback is because of the right of way and because they are asking for a conditional use permit.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes, the 80 ft. right of way goes through the building.

Mr. Deremer stated that the right of way is not that wide at this time but for zoning purposes it is considered 80 ft.
Mr. Phillippi gave the board three photos that showed the existing conditions on the property.

Mr. Webster stated that exhibit #1 is the existing building, exhibit #2 is the drive between the residence and their property, and exhibit #2 is looking toward the rear of the lot.

Mr. Deremer stated, so everyone understands, the variance requests are for the existing property.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he reviewed the site plan and if it meets all the requirements as far as setbacks, parking, and landscaping.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the plan meets all the requirements except for the variances that are requested.  The plan has been reviewed by Regional Planning and they have conditional approval.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit with Mr. Canterbury and Mr. Webster.

Section 431.2

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

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

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

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or County or State agencies where applicable.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will meet the requirements of EPA for stormwater runoff, when applicable.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will be properly landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it will be applicable because it is a commercial area.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the testimony from Mr. Phillippi indicates that the plan does show the required landscaping.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will be constructed in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Section 431.3(C)

Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Canterbury stated that the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and sometimes on Saturday.  They are not open on Sunday’s.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far the entrance or exit is from the intersection of Hills & Dales & Dressler.

Mr. Canterbury stated that it is about 400 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the nearest local collector street is.

Mr. Canterbury stated it is probably the entrance to Hills & Dales Village, which is probably 500 ft. away.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any additional lighting at the facility.

Mr. Canterbury stated that there would be a security light on the building and landscaping lighting.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any lighting by the storage area.

Mr. Canterbury stated that there would be a security light.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights, searchlights, or loudspeakers.

Mr. Canterbury stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any trash receptacles on the property.

Mr. Canterbury stated that there would be an enclosed dumpster at the rear of the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and drainage surface provisions would be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed and approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Section 431.6P

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Canterbury’s testimony that any dismantled or inoperable vehicles or equipment will not be maintained or stored on the property.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any outdoor storage areas.

Mr. Canterbury stated that there would the area with the dumpster container and it will be screened.

Mr. McDonnell asked if any landscaping supplies would be stored on the property.

Mr. Canterbury stated that he believes it is conditionally permitted to store mulch on the property as long as it’s not manufactured.

Mr. McDonnell stated that materials such as mulch or topsoil may be stockpiled on the site provided the materials are maintained in compliance with all Stark County Health Department regulations.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Canterbury if it is his testimony that they will not process mulch on the site.

Mr. Canterbury stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that such materials shall not emit any odor that is discernible to the adjoining properties.

Mr. Canterbury stated that it will not.

Mr. McDonnell stated that any outdoor retail sales shall comply with section 411.12A and shall not be conducted in the required parking or landscaped areas.

Mr. Canterbury stated that they will comply.

Mr. McDonnell stated that any outdoor storage areas shall be located in the side or rear yard.

Mr. Canterbury stated that they will comply.

This concluded the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Canterbury stated that he runs a reputable company with an excess of four million dollars in sales a year and image is everything to him.

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. Jack Brannan stated that he is neither in favor of or opposed, but has a question.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jack Brannan, 4875 Hills & Dales Rd. NW.

Mr. Brannan stated that he owns the property to the west of the property in question which has a 15 ft. right of way back to the other properties.  It is his understanding that they withdrew the variance request for the right side and there will be a grass area.

Mr. Deremer stated he is correct.

Mr. Brannan stated that right now there are two driveways into the property in question and asked if the one on the west side would be eliminated.

Mr. Deremer stated yes, based on the plan there will be only one drive.

Mr. Brannan stated that this was his only question.

Mr. Deremer swore in Hank Gonzalez, 4863 Hills & Dales Rd. NW.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he has an issue with them saying that it will not be detrimental to the property values in the immediate vicinity.  On the north side of Hills & Dales, although it has been zoned B-3 for a number of years, are all single family residences.  The property in question, that now occupies an office, was formally a single family residence and in his mind this classifies the area as residential even though it may be a non-conforming use in the B-3 district.  It is wrong to say that the development would not be detrimental to the area.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that the comment that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the existing property owners may be true other than their right to enjoy their lives in a residential neighborhood, which is what it is even though it may be zoned B-3.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that Mr. Canterbury indicated that it will be properly landscaped according to section 411.9 and appearance is of the most importance to their firm.  That certainly has not been the case since this spring when the property was stripped.  In late February or early March the entire property from about the 50 ft. line off Hills & Dales Rd. on back was stripped with bob cats and let go completely.  Mr. Gonzalez stated that if past evidence is any evidence of what the future intent would be then certainly he has difficulty believing this is the case because it looks lousy now.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that they said it would be maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe condition but is in not neat, orderly or safe now.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that there is a basement of an old bowling shop from the previous owners that has been an eyesore for many years and is a hazard in that someone could fall into the bottom of it.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he spoke with Mr. Canterbury last week and asked him what the intended height of the proposed warehouse building would be and he indicated that it would be 14 ft.  Mr. Gonzalez stated that he asked Mr. Canterbury the same questions this evening and he said that he didn’t recall saying that.  Mr. Gonzalez stated that now he finds out that the elevation will be 20 ft. with a gable roof.  With any reasonable pitch the building will be between 28 and 35 ft. in height.  This means that there is going to be a huge 8,400 sq. ft. structure, 35 ft. in height, dropped in the middle of a residential area, surrounded by houses, and it will be detrimental.

Mr. Gonzalez presented several photos to the board.  Exhibit #OE1 is a view looking from the driveway to the front of his house, exhibit #OE2 is a view from the front porch of his home, exhibit #OE3 is a view standing outside in front of his picture window, exhibit #OE4 is a view standing in the gravel easement looking toward the property, exhibit #OE5 is a view from his driveway looking southeast toward the property, and exhibit #OE6 is a view from his front yard north east toward the area that is reported to be a tree farm.

Mr. Deremer asked if the driveway shown is Mr. Gonzalez’s driveway.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that it is a common easement that goes to his property and a few other properties.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he doesn’t believe the applicant has met the criteria for the conditional use permit, mostly that it will not be detrimental to the property values in the immediate vicinity, will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners, will be properly landscaped according to section to 411.9, and will be maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe condition, because this has not been the case.

Mr. Gonzalez stated if the board should decide to permit the 50 ft. setback in the front from the street on the basis that there is an existing structure there, that variance should only apply to the current structure and if the property owners choose to demolish that structure than any new structure should comply with the current regulations and not be grandfathered.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that the security lighting on the back of the warehouse will be devastating to their enjoyment of the stars and moon from their front window.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Gonzalez what his property is zoned.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that it is split zoned.  It is zoned B-3 back to the line between the house and the garage and the rest of the property is zoned multi family residential.

Mr. Deremer asked if the B-3 has been there for a while.

Mr. Gonzalez stated that he didn’t know but believes it has been there since he bought his home in 1979.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Canterbury stated that Mr. Gonzalez’s first statement was incorrect in that he stated that it was being occupied as a residential use before he bought the property.  Dr. Unger was operating out of the building and before that there was a property management company in the building.  It has not been a residential house for over seven years.  Mr. Canterbury stated that when he purchased the property there was a building that had fallen over.  They removed the building and cleared the land.  He was planning on continuing but wanted to wait until he got the proper permits.  Once the board gives the ok to move forward, the property will be further cleaned up.

Mr. Canterbury stated that he told Mr. Gonzalez that the building would have a 14 ft. ceiling height and when asked this evening by Mr. Gonzalez what the building height would be, he told him 20 ft. with a 14 ft. ceiling height, not a 35 ft. building.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the criteria for the conditional use permit has been met.  He understands the concerns Mr. Gonzalez has but this is a B-3 area and all the residences are non-conforming.  The resolution says if they meet the requirements in the B-3 for the conditional use permit then they are allow too put the landscaping business on the property.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there has been testimony that the variance applies to the existing building that is there and there will be no change in what is currently there.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the variances or the conditional use permit or with indicating that the variances apply only to the existing building.

Mr. Dodson stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell and the restriction that would be put on a potential motion.

Mr. Deremer stated, from what he has heard the plan does meet the conditions for the conditional use permit and the testimony has been that they will comply with the standards for the conditional use permit.  The only thing they are having trouble with is the existing property that already sits there.  The easiest thing for them to do would be to tear the building down but they want to use the parcel as is at this time and that’s where the variances are being requested.  It’s only for landscaping, not property lines or parking areas.  The zero property line in the front is because the zoning resolution says that road will be 80 ft. wide someday.  Mr. Deremer stated that he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1871, specifically, the conditional use permit be approved, the 5 ft. parking and landscaping setback along the east property line be approved, the zero front building setback be approved, and the zero front parking and landscaping setback be approved, with the condition that the aforementioned area variances apply only to the existing structure currently being used as an office located on the south side of the property.

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 stated that if any one believes the decision is not correct then they can appeal it to the Court of Common Pleas within 30 days.

The board went off the record.

The board went back on record.

APPEAL #1872 - Christopher Swing, 500 First National Tower, Akron, Ohio 44308 agent for Developers Diversified Corporation, 5508 Belden Parke Crossing, Canton, Ohio 44720 appeals the decision of the Zoning Administrator on July 30, 2003 to approve a zoning permit for new construction of a Christies Cabaret for the property located at 4465 Everhard Rd. NW, Sect. 24SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

See attached transcript for appeal #1872.

Appeal #1872 was continued until October 2, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.

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