Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                       John Juergensen
                                                                                        Eric Oldroyd

Absent Member:                                                          Jim Giulitto
Zoning Inspector:                                                         Joni Poindexter
Zoning Date Coordinator:                                          Andrea Paumier
 

Appeal 2085 – Michael Sibila, 6146 Cherry Blossom Cir., N. Canton, OH 44720, agent for property owner, Don & Carolyn Mehl, 790 Mt. Pleasant, Clinton, OH 44216, requests a variance for a 2 ft. west side yard setback for an accessory building where 10 ft. is required and to allow the accessory building on the front yard where the building is only permitted in the rear or side yard. Per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11. Property located at: 790 Mt. Pleasant, Sect. 5NW, Jackson Twp.

Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file.

Mr. Dodson recused himself from Appeal 2085.

Mr. Deremer swore in Michael Sibila, 6146 Cherry Blossom Cir, N. Canton.

Mr. Sibila stated that he is the agent speaking on behalf of his cousins, Don & Carolyn Mehl. Mrs. Mehl father purchased this property; it is the old Akron Ski Club on Mt. Pleasant, across from Camp Y-Noah. The property was split up between his uncle’s four daughters. The house was built in 1978 and in 1984 Mr. and Mrs. Mehl built an addition. Then in 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Mehl added a seconded addition. The driveway is pretty extensive; the property owners have taken pictures. Mr. Sibila stated that his uncles had a large tractor that he mowed the property with. The reason for the accessory building would be to house the large tractor. The reason why the property owners want to keep the accessory building twenty feet from the existing structure is because of the power that leads in on the side of the property. The property is very steep. Mr. Sibila stated he would have to expose twenty courses of block out of the ground which would be an eye sore. Mr. and Mrs. Mehl took a picture from the position of the proposed accessory building and it is about eight feet below the top of the driveway. Mr. Sibila stated that if he would have to move the electric it will probably be from $1,800 to 2,200 dollars. The electric is the reason why he is asking for the variance; to maintain the fifteen feet from the primary structure. By maintaining the fifteen feet that threw the accessory building closer to the property pins by probably about two feet. Mr. Sibila stated that the garage will be drop into the ground so that there isn’t a ramp to drive up into the garage. Mrs. Mehl talked to the neighbors on the west side, and they do not have a problem with the garage placement.

Mr. Deremer asked how far back from the road the house sits.

Mr. Sibila stated about two hundred feet.

Mr. Sibila stated that the existing garage is already in the front of the house as you can see by the photographs.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in saying that the property line does not run truly north and south.

Mr. Sibila stated yes, it is on an angle.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in saying that the existing house is not square with the property line.

Mr. Sibila stated that is correct.

Mr. Sibila stated that the garage can not be constructed in the rear of the property due to the “fall off” of the property on the east side.

Mr. Deremer asked what size the new garage would be.

Mr. Sibila stated that the garage would be about 20X20 or 24X24. And it will look like the existing house.

Mr. Deremer asked if it could be attached to the existing house.

Mr. Sibila stated that the property owners considered that; but the cost of moving the electric is an added expense. It would cost about $2000 dollars because it is involved.

Mr. Deremer asked if the electric ran underground.

Mr. Sibila stated yes.

Mr. Deremer swore in Don Mehl, 790 Mt. Pleasant, Clinton.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that the reason why Mr. and Mrs. Mehl need the garage is due to the storage of the large tractor.

Mr. Mehl stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked what kind the tractor was.

Mr. Mehl stated that that tractor was a John Deere, 65 horse, diesel.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying the reason the garage can not be built in the rear of the yard because the tractor would not fit back there.

Mr. Mehl stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the gray area in front of the existing house and garage was.

Mr. Mehl stated that the house sits up on a “knoll” and there is an immediate drop off. So the gray area is a drop off. There is a small retaining wall there too.

Mr. McDonnell asked where the septic is located.

Mr. Mehl stated that the septic is located just to the left of the house in the gray area.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Mehl mowed the property.

Mr. Mehl stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he could see the difficulty getting a car to the rear of the property but the property owner wants to store a tractor in the garage.

Mr. Mehl stated that the tractor is about the size of a car.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he understood, but if the property owner can get to the rear of his property to mow why wouldn’t the tractor be able to get back there to be put in the garage.

Mr. Mehl stated that he can only get back to that portion of the property by crossing on the neighbors property. So in exchange for using a portion of the neighbor’s property to mow his property, Mr. Mehl has been mowing the neighbor’s property as well.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the garage is required to be fifteen feet from the principal building per Section 401.11. The site plan shows twenty feet from the principal building, why is the setback twenty feet as opposed to the fifteen feet.

Mr. Sibila stated that was the architect’s recommendation to be sure that all the setbacks were met.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the existing garage is a two stall garage.

Mr. Mehl stated that the existing garage is a three stall with one double garage door, 24X30.

Mr. McDonnell stated that according to the application the applicant is asking for a two feet side yard variance; according to the site plan the garage looks to sit back from the driveway, why can’t the proposed garage come right up to the driveway.

Mr. Sibila stated that the garage floor would be so steep that maybe not even a tractor could come out of the garage.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the property owner would be about to dig out the ground in the area of the proposed garage.

Mr. Mehl stated that from the edge of the asphalt as you go west, it is roughly thirty feet from the property line. If the garage were to be closer to the driveway it could also impede of delivery vehicles, EMS vehicles, it is very close as it is right now.

Mr. McDonnell asked how the wide the driveway is.

Mr. Sibila stated about twelve feet wide.

Mr. Deremer stated that he noticed that the back corner of the existing house is 2.9 feet closer to the property line then allowed; was there a variance for that originally.

Mr. Sibila stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if he were correct in saying that moving the proposed garage closer to the existing house will not make the garage any farther from the property line.

Mr. Sibila stated that is correct. A variance would have still been needed even if the proposed garage would be constructed right up against the existing garage.

Mr. Deremer stated that if the garage were to be attached to the existing home the previous 2.9 ft. variance would apply and the applicant wouldn’t have to come in front of the board.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far to the west is the neighbor’s house.

Mr. Sibila stated about eight hundred feet.

No one spoke in favor or opposition to Appeal 2085.

Mr. Deremer closed to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the applicant has shown a practical difficulty; and not just one thing, but a combination of different things. There is an irregular shaped lot, inclines all around the property, a forest to the right of the property. Due to the combination of things Mr. Juergensen has no problem approving the appeal this evening.

Mr. McDonnell stated that in his opinion an accessory building in the front yard is a huge variance. A garage located in the front yard is absolutely terrible. Practical difficulty must be met. Mr. McDonnell stated he concurs with Mr. Juergensen, that practical difficulties have been demonstrated. The topography of the land makes it very difficult to get to the rear of the property, the fact that the property owner has to use the neighbor’s property to even get to the rear of the property which may not always be an option available to the property owner. The garage appears to be more then one hundred feet and basically invisible from the street so he has no problem approving the appeal this evening.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. McDonnell is right in saying that a garage in the front yard is a very extreme case.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve Appeal 2085.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd - Yes, Mr. Juergensen - Yes, Mr. McDonnell - Yes, and Mr. Deremer - Yes

Appeal 2084 – Mann Architects, 3660 Embassy Pkwy, Akron, OH 44333, agent for property owner, LDV Properties, LLC, 3653 Dressler Rd. NW, Canton, OH 44718, requests a variance for 79 parking spaces where 178 spaces are required. Per Art. IV, Sect. 601.2. Property located at: 3653 Dressler Rd. NW, Sect. 25SE, Jackson Twp.

Mr. Deremer read the application and the contents of the file.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to attach the prior appeal files from Mr. Dickey and LDV Properties. Appeal No. 2079 and Appeal No. 1888.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jared Dickey, 3660 Embassy Pkwy, Akron.

Mr. Dickey stated that the property owner has purchased a property neighboring his, if you turn to site plan labeled C1.2 or C1.0 that shows the over all site plan of the property. The previous submission did not show the county access road that has been corrected. The property owner bought this property to create a place for over flow parking in order to comply with the zoning requirements. The property owner also has a letter from the neighboring business owners, One Dressler Road Company, LLC which indicates the company is aware of the addition of La Pizzaria, the hours of operation of the adjacent office building and the cross access agreement.

Mr. Deremer asked if the letter was from the office building to the north.

Mr. Dickey stated yes the neighbor from the north in which La Pizzaria has the cross access agreement. The letter also states that the neighbor’s have had no problems with the parking in the past.

Mr. Dickey stated that basically what has occurred since the prior appeals was showing the reduction of three parking spaces where the county access road does come onto the site. The total number of parking after the addition would be 70 parking spaces, total parking available including the cross access agreement is 174, and the math according to the Zoning Inspector is 178 spaces required.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in saying those figures are including the additional spaces needed after the addition.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer stated that the variance would be for 79 spaces where 178 spaces are required based on the size of the building.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct for La Pizzaria site.

Mr. Deremer stated that La Pizzaria does have an agreement with the neighbor to the north to use the spaces after the hours of operation, which is 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen asked how many spaces La Pizzaria has access to when the adjacent office building is open.

Mr. Dickey stated 104 parking spaces.

Mr. Juergensen asked during the day when the office building is open.

Mr. Dickey stated 9 spaces if the office building is using the maximum capacity of spaces.

Mr. Juergensen stated when they are closed then La Pizzaria has access to 104 spaces.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen asked if that were including the 59 spaces on the property to the east.

Mr. Dickey stated yes, but the property to the east has not been developed yet but it will be and can be developed to play with numbers, depending on the Board’s decision this evening.

Mr. Deremer asked if the spaces that are shown on the property to the east, are part of the calculations or not.

Mr. Dickey stated that they aren’t actually included on the calculations on site plan C1.1.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the total is 79 spaces just for the La Pizzaria property.

Mr. Juergensen stated that they are 99 spaces short on the property but have the potential to be 31 spaces short with the property to the north and the property to the east.

Mr. Dickey stated that without doing the math on paper, he would agree with that.

Mr. Oldroyd asked what the distance is between the proposed parking area to the east and the existing building.

Mr. Dickey stated about 160 to 180 feet.

Mr. Juergensen asked if he were correct in saying that there isn’t anything currently there.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct, that it is currently swampland.

Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Dickey has looked into whether that land can be developed on to the east because it is a swampland.

Mr. Dickey stated yes it is developable and is zoned for business right now.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the site plan reflected that.

Mr. Dickey stated that if you turn to site plan C1.2 it reflects those setbacks.
Mr. Juergensen can I have the Zoning Inspector to conform that.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes, but the parking spaces to the east shouldn’t be counted because if that site would be developed then those parking spaces need to go to whatever building is on the property so those spaces would not be able to be utilized for La Pizzaria.  As far as the building setbacks yes that is what is required. Ms. Poindexter stated that she and Mr. Dickey did not review the property to the east because that is not what is coming before the Board this evening. There is no application for a permit for the property to the east at this time.

Mr. Oldroyd asked Ms. Poindexter if the parking spaces on the east property were to be used then La Pizzaria could not put a storage building on that same property.

Ms, Poindexter stated that La Pizzaria could not put a storage building on that property anyhow because there can not be an accessory building on the property without a principal use building.

Mr. Dickey stated a shipping company with storage would be permitted.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes, it depends. If it were a storage building for an accessory use, that would not be permitted, but for a building on that property as a principal use that is permitted.

Mr. Juergensen asked what the property is zoned as.

Ms. Poindexter stated it is zoned B-3.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if a piece of land gets developed then parking spaces have to be devoted to that new development.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked where exactly the piece of land is in question.

Ms. Poindexter stated the property to the east that is shown here, which is over flow parking, if this property gets developed then the new development would have to have the required parking.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the owner of La Pizzaria owned the property to the east.

Mr. Dickey stated yes, paid for and has been filed.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many parking spaces La Pizzaria has on La Pizzaria property only.

Mr. Dickey asked before the addition or after.

Mr. McDonnell stated after the addition.

Mr. Dickey stated seventy parking spaces.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many spaces are available at One Dressler Road Company.

Mr. Dickey asked if he wanted calculations from day time hours or night time hours.

Mr. McDonnell stated both.

Mr. Dickey stated that day time hours, nine spaces and night time hours, one hundred and four spaces.

Mr. Dickey stated that upon development of the grass strip there will be seventy-nine parking spaces on La Pizzaria property.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Dickey heard the testimony of the Zoning Inspector that a storage building on that lot can not be built.

Mr. Dickey stated that he believes Ms. Poindexter’s testimony was storage as a primary use.

Mr. McDonnell stated that if that became the primary use then the parking spaces on the proposed east parking lot would have to be at least the number that is required and dedicated for that use.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that in which time La Pizzaria would be back in here for another parking variance.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is not correct. La Pizzaria is asking for a variance for seventy-nine parking spaces, there will be seventy-nine parking spaces on La Pizzaria property. The east property would be used as over flow parking, La Pizzaria would not have to come back in front of the Board if the seventy parking space variance is approved.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that the seventy-nine spaces will be what are on west La Pizzaria property where the actual restaurant is located and the east La Pizzaria property.

Mr. Dickey stated that no parking spaces from the proposed east parking lot are included into the calculations done by Ms. Poindexter.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that the east parking lot has nothing to do with the appeal the Board is hearing this evening.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct. The owner of La Pizzaria has purchased that piece of property as an effort to provide more parking for the restaurant.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many spaces will be available in the east parking lot.

Mr. Dickey stated that the east property is an empty lot but as the current site plan shows fifty-nine.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that the totally number of parking spaces owned by La Pizzaria is one hundred and thirty-eight.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the required amount of spaces is one hundred and seventy-eight. Why doesn’t your application for the variance read 138 parking spaces where 178 are required there by only needing a parking variance for 40 parking spaces.

Ms. Poindexter stated that if you look in Section 601.7 under location The parking spaces required for dwelling units shall be located on the lot, and parking spaces for other uses shall be located on the lot or within five hundred feet of the main use along lines of public access to the property.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Dickey testified that its about one hundred and sixty feet.

Mr. Dickey stated that measurements if from the edge of the entrance.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the zoning resolution stated five hundred feet along public access. Ms. Poindexter stated she doesn’t believe that any of the spaces on the east property can count for La Pizzaria property.

Mr. Dickey asked Ms. Poindexter who owns the back access road.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the county access road does not go through to the Dressler right now, correct.

Mr. Dickey stated that on the Stark County map that road is listed as a county access road. It is paved.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is not an actual street.

Mr. Dickey stated that it is an access road right.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct but an access road is not a public street.

Mr. Dickey asked how traffic enters the residential area in the northwest corner.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she is unsure. I do not know if that is a public access road though. The street does not have a name.

Mr. Dickey stated that there is no sign posted.

Mr. Deremer asked if the road in question is the access road for the apartments.

Mr. Dickey stated that he believes the apartments abut off of the access road.

Mr. McDonnell stated that one of the duties of the Board is to make sure that the variance being requested is the absolute minimum required.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation of Tri County were.

Mr. Dickey stated that the hours are stated in the letter from Tri County, One Dressler Road Company.

Mr. Deremer asked what the normal hours of the La Pizzaria are. Do they have day time hours.

Mr. Dickey stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in saying that there is over-lap hours of operation on a daily basis.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated when Tri County is operation between 8:00a.m and 6p.m. Monday through Saturday that this new addition, which is a special event banquet, which is the reason for the parking variance, how can this Board be assured that when the parking spaces are not available next door, that that special event banquet room will not be used there by generating over flow.

Mr. Dickey asked the Board to direct that question to the owner of the property.

Mr. Deremer swore in Louisa Vuksanovich, 3653 Dressler Rd, Canton.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated that in the letter from Tri County, One Dressler Road Company, previously there is no issue with parking over flow, in fact during the day we rarely use their parking lot and actually we share the parking lot because a lot of their cancer patients park in our parking lot because that is Tri Counties front door. La Pizzaria and Tri County have a very good relationship.

Mr. Deremer stated but now La Pizzaria is going to expand the facility.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated that the addition is mostly going to be for weddings. Saturday night, evening weddings and maybe Sunday functions if there is a larger party.

Mr. Deremer asked what the normal hours of operation of La Pizzaria are.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated Sunday – 11:00a.m to 7:00pm, Saturday - 11:00a.m to 10:00p.m. and Tuesday thru Thursday – 11:00a.m to 9:00p.m.

Mr. McDonnell stated that what if there is a wedding for Friday afternoon that started at 4:00p.m there is a potential for over flow which will not be accommodated for from the two parking lots combined.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated that she could make sure no parties would be scheduled before 6:00p.m. In six years, La Pizzaria has never had a party of that magnitude at 4:00p.m. Tri County and La Pizzaria has always had a good relationship but Bally’s will not let the La Pizzaria customers on their parking lot, even though Bally’s customers use La Pizzaria’s parking.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that the cross access agreement between La Pizzaria and Tri County goes with the land.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is an escape clause through either party.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated she didn’t believe so.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Ms. Vulsanovich had mentioned that La Pizzaria would not book any parties before 6:00p.m while Tri County is open. Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Vulsanovich if that were to be a problem if that became a condition on the appeal if it were approved.

Ms. Vulsanovich asked if the condition can limit the number of people instead.

Mr. Deremer asked how many customers it would take to exceed the parking.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is only referring to the banquet room addition, not the whole restaurant.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated she understood.

Mr. Dickey stated 250 people.

Mr. Deremer stated that the parking spaces at Tri County could then be used after 6:00p.m.

Mr. Dickey stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many spaces La Pizzaria is required to have now.

Ms. Poindexter stated as of right now La Pizzaria is required to have 145.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many parking spaces La Pizzaria actually has.

Ms. Poindexter stated 106.

Mr. McDonnell asked during the busy time of the restaurant, how many customers are in the restaurant.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated about 125 people.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many employees La Pizzaria has.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated about six employees.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Vulsanovich if the variance with a condition indicated that before 6:00p.m. La Pizzaria could not rent or book parties that are larger then 125 guests.

Ms. Vulsanovich stated that would be fine with her.

No one spoke in favor or opposition of Appeal 2084.

Mr. Deremer closed to public input.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that he believes that the condition of limiting the number guests to a party in the banquet room before a certain time would eliminate most of the concerns about the number of parking. He stated that he would be receptive to add the condition onto the variance.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Oldroyd. The Township wants businesses to grow and work with businesses to allow that to happen. The practical difficulty of La Pizzaria is the size of property available, another practical difficulty is that La Pizzaria has enough parking; it is just not located on their property. The property owners have taken steps to solve that problem with Tri County or One Dressler Road Company. Mr. McDonnell stated that his concern with this variance and the previous variance this year was to make sure that the parking that was available was not over taxed and there would be customers parking in Bally’s or along Dressler. With the owner present this evening the Board was able to arrive at a fair way to solve the parking problem and that would be to put a condition that if the variance is granted then that room will not be rented to a party greater then 125 guest prior to 6:00p.m Monday thru Saturday.

Mr. Deremer stated that there are not parking spaces considered in that east parking lot. After 6:00p.m when the other parking lot opens up to the north, La Pizzaria has all the spots they need. They have more then enough parking spots that are required with the neighbor’s property. Bases on the testimony and the condition to the variance, he has no problem approving the variance this evening. The cross access agreement has been in place since they had built the original structure and they adjoined the parking lots together.

Mr. McDonnell typically a variance stays with the property unless the Board puts a condition on the variance that states the variance does not. This variance is predicated on the agreement between La Pazzaria and Tri County cross access agreement. Mr. McDonnell suggests that the Board put a condition on the variance that it applies only as long as that cross access agreement between La Pizzaria and Tri County is valid. If the cross access agreement is terminated, then the parking variance is terminated as well.

Mr. Dodson asked if there was a copy of the cross access agreement on the file.

Mr. Deremer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve Appeal 2084 with conditions. Number one being that the variance will be in effect only as long as a easement agreement/cross parking agreement is in effect between the owners of parcel number 1702409 currently occupied by La Pizzaria and parcel number 1799009 currently occupied by Tri County or their successors. Condition number two being that between the hours of 8:00a.m and 6:00p.m Monday thru Saturday, La Pizzaria shall not rent or otherwise allow use of the “Crystal Room” previously referred to as the new banquet room, by parties in excess of 125 guests.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd – Yes, Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. McDonnell – Yes, and Mr. Deremer – Yes.

Appeal 2086 – Richard M. Asmus, 3458 Dovershire Ave. NW, property owner, requests a variance for a 4 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required for a principal building. Per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11. Property located at: 3458 Dovershire NW, Sect. 33NE, Jackson Twp.

Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file.

Mr. Deremer swore in Richard Asmus, 3458 Dovershire Ave. NW.

Mr. Asmus stated the reason he is here this evening is for a variance for a third car garage that will be attached to the existing garage.

Mr. Deremer asked if here were correct in saying that this variance is not for a three car garage it is for an extra stall attached to the existing garage.

Mr. Asmus stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer asked what size the proposed garage would be.

Mr. Asmus stated the garage would be roughly 12X22.

Mr. Asmus stated that the side yard is the only place to put the garage and it will be attached to the existing garage and blend in nice with the house.

Mr. Deremer stated that he notices on the site plan a future addition on the back of the house where the deck is positioned currently.

Mr. Asmus stated yes they will be taking the deck out and have a sun room addition in the future. There is an extra car in the drive way that his daughter drives and with the extra garage they wouldn’t have to move cars around in the driveway.

Mr. Juergensen asked how close to the garage would the house be to the west.

Mr. Asmus stated that the proposed garage would sit 6 ft. off of the property line and he is unsure how far the neighbor’s house is from the property line. The neighbors do have a fence that extends out and connects onto his fence going around the back yard and the new garage would come to where the gate of the fence is currently.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in saying that Mr. Asmus property looks at the rear of his neighbor’s property.

Mr. Asmus stated no, the side of the house.
Mr. Deremer asked where his neighbor’s driveway is.

Mr. Asmus stated on the other side of his property.

Mr. Deremer stated that the site plan shows seventeen feet. where it was advertised as a four foot setback. Could that be pushed back to five foot setback, or was four feet a safety factor.

Mr. Asmus stated that he believes that a four foot setback is what the builder needed.

Mr. Deremer stated that on the plans that were submitted there is five feet marked on it.

Mr. Dodson asked if there was a reason the garage couldn’t be placed in the back yard.

Mr. Asmus stated the garage could be placed in the back yard, but attached to the existing garage would look a lot nicer.

Mr. Deremer asked if the garage could be constructed somewhere else on this property and not violate the zoning.

Mr. Asmus stated that he believes it could be.

Mr. Juergensen (INAUDIABLE) asked Mr. Asmus about the 5 ft. setback as opposed to the original 4 ft. setback as written on the application.

Mr. Asmus stated that if the plans say 5 ft., then 5 ft. is fine.

Mr. Deremer stated that the plans show the addition being 12 ft. and its 17 ft. to the property line, which would be 5 ft.

Mr. Asmus stated that he doesn’t understand why the contractor is asking for 4 ft. maybe to be safe, he doesn’t know.

Mr. Deremer stated that the less of a variance being asked for the better.

Mr. Asmus stated he understood.

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

Mr. Deremer closed to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he does not see a problem approving this appeal. Mr. Juergensen stated that he is having a much better time with the variance being the 5 ft. instead of the originally applied 4 ft. variance.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that he disagrees, the applicant hasn’t shown a practical difficulty, he basically wants something that does not fit. This lot is basically the same size as the other lots in the neighborhood.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the change from a 4 ft. side yard setback to a 5 ft. side yard setback.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd – No, Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – No, Mr. McDonnell – No, and Mr. Deremer – Yes

Appeal 2087 – Marl Paulus, 3458 Carie Hill Cir. NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owner, requests a variance for an 8 ft. rear yard setback where 15 ft. is required for an in ground pool. Per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11. Property located at 3066 Carie Hill Cir. NW, Sect. 33NW, Jackson Twp.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mark Paulus, 3458 Carie Hill Cir, Massillon.

Mr. Paulus stated that he needs eight feet to be able to situate the pool in the back yard or accommodate the pool area, entering the pool area from the home. Mr. Paulus stated that as you can see from the site plan, he would like eight feet from the deck to be able to come down to the pool area and be able to walk around the pool easily. Mr. Paulus stated that he understands that he can go 10 ft. from the side property lines and 15 ft. from the rear property line, and he has to have a fence around his pool area, at the same time he can construct the fence right on the property line. Mr. Paulus stated that his argument is, if he has to construct a fence around the pool and it can be placed right on the property line, what does it matter at that point where the pool would be situated on his property. Mr. Paulus stated that if he is going to construct this pool, he would like it to suit to fit better in the rear yard then hug right up against his sunroom and the deck. With out the eight feet from the deck, as soon as you come down the stairs of the deck there would only be about one foot or two and then you’d be in the pool. If someone were to trip down the stairs they’d be right on the pool which would be a safety hazard and according to zoning regulations he can do that.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in saying that this would be an in ground pool.

Mr. Paulus stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer asked if 18 X 36 feet is the standard size in ground pool.

Mr. Paulus stated yes that is the most common size, anything smaller then that is not worth it.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Paulus sketch shows a hill on the back side of the property, is that a hill up or a hill down.

Mr. Paulus stated that that hill is on a grade. Mr. Paulus stated that he brought some pictures to give the Board a better idea of the backyard.

Mr. Deremer stated that they will be marked as exhibit one, two, and three.

Mr. Paulus stated that the hill goes down about 5 ft. from the crest.

Mr. Deremer asked if that was a drainage ditch or does it just happen to be a grade.

Mr. Paulus stated that he would think that the house below that would get most of the run off by the pine trees.
Mr. Deremer asked if he owned the pine trees.

Mr. Paulus stated no they belong to the neighbors behind his house.

Mr. Deremer asked how tall the fence would have to be.

Mr. Paulus stated four feet.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Paulus if there were anyone living in his home that is taller then four feet.

Mr. Paulus stated yes, his son Janson.

Mr. Deremer stated that from the pictures he does not have much room in the back yard.

Mr. Paulus stated that it is tight and if he were to put the pool in he would only have eight feet from the deck stairs.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the pool has to be 15 ft. away from the house.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes, unless it is attached by a decking or concrete.

Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Paulus is going to have a deck and concrete.

Mr. Paulus stated that the deck is already there. From the bottom of the decks stairs to the pool will be concrete.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he understands the safety reasons but is there any certain reason for the 8 ft. variance request.

Mr. Paulus stated that he feels with the 8 ft. he can utilize the space and make the pool more user friendly as a pool instead of being snug up against the home. Mr. Paulus stated that if he had to place the pool against the house and had to pour concrete more towards the rear of the property, then the noise would be more to the rear of the property and echo through the neighborhood.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that the section in the back yard it does not look so much like a hill but it does look like water is supposed to run that way.

Mr. Paulus stated that the plan would be to build that up, there would be a retaining wall. In a sense, the way that runs now, the neighbors behind him will get more water now then they would if he puts a pool in.

Mr. Juergensen asked what will happen when Mr. Paulus goes to close the pool.

Mr. Paulus stated that the ground takes in water whether there is anything there or not if it rains its still going to hit that surface and run. The way that grade is now, it looks like they would be more assessable to get the water at this point. When a pool is constructed the surround ground slopes away from the pool. The pool goes two inches higher then the grade. Mr. Paulus stated that he would think the water would go north, south, east, and west. Anyone that has a pool knows that if it rains the water has to be kept below the skimmer. You have to pump the water off if it gets over filled and that would just go back into the drain which would go into the sewer.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that there is enough room on his property to construct the pool and have the 15 ft. rear yard setback.

Mr. Paulus stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that opposed to a practical difficulty it sounds more like a person desire.

Mr. Paulus stated yes, probably more so. At the same time keep in mind that a fence does have to be constructed and that fence can go right on the property line.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he understands that.

Mr. McDonnell stated that as he looked at exhibit one and two, looking at the back yards. Mr. McDonnell stated that he assumes that he is viewing Mr. Paulus’ back yard and the surrounding neighbors back yards. Mr. McDonnell asked if there is anything that is makes Mr. Paulus’ back yard different from theirs.

Mr. Paulus stated that his back yard is the highest.

Mr. Deremer asked if anything of Mr. Paulus’ neighbor’s have a sunroom on the rear of their house.

Mr. Paulus stated that his neighbor’s to the south have a sunroom also, but their house sits closer to the road.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Paulus has about 34 ft. to work with.

Mr. Paulus stated that is correct. 34-35 ft. Mr. Paulus stated that he was trying to center the pool in the back yard. Being 8 ft. from the house, 8 ft. from the decking, and 8 ft. from the rear property line.

Mr. Deremer stated that part of the reasoning for the 8 ft. variance was due to safety.

Mr. Paulus stated that is correct. If I did adhere to zoning regulations and put the pool right on top of the deck then if anyone would happen to trip and fall and nobody was home and they landed in the pool.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Denise Ertle and Tom Ertle, 7938 Erica Cir. NW, Massillon.

Ms. Ertle stated that she would prefer that the pool be as far away from the property line as possible for noise factor. We have grandchildren. There is nothing about this variance that would enhance their property value. Having the pool closer then 15 ft., the water run off is also a pretty big concern because their property is on a slope. Ms. Ertle stated that she has a photo which shows the elevations and how the yard slopes.

Mr. Deremer stated that he will mark the photo as OE1.

Mr. Deremer asked what direction the water run off from their property goes.

Mr. Ertle stated that it goes into the street.

Mr. Deremer asked where the water run off goes from Mr. Paulus’ property.

Mr. Ertle stated the water runs onto his property.

Mr. Ertle stated that even with a wall or fence up he still wouldn’t want the pool that close to his property.

Ms. Ertle stated that she is also concerned about the row of pine trees in their back yard, any excavation in the back yard may disrupt the root system of those trees.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that Mr. and Ms. Ertle’s property is directly behind Mr. Paulus property.

Mr. Ertle stated that is correct.

No one else spoke in opposition.

Mr. Paulus stated that as far as the run off, Mr. and Ms. Ertle’s property would get more water now with a grade verses when he puts a retaining wall up at the bottom of that hill. Mr. Paulus stated that his property line goes right up against those pine trees and if those roots grew up hill and 12 ft. into where his pool would be constructed he doesn’t feel that root disruption of their pine trees would be an issue. He feels that the neighbor’s would get more water now as opposed to after the pool is constructed.

Mr. Deremer asked if the concrete that Mr. Paulus has shown on the site plan, would the concrete be level with the sunroom grade or will there be a step coming out of the sun room.

Mr. Paulus state when you would come off the deck the concrete would actually be level with that step because of where that grade is, it would actually be about 7 inches below on the north side and it would on ground level on the south side.

Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Paulus already has down spouts that go out onto the street.

Mr. Paulus stated yes, about four.

Mr. Deremer closed to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the applicant is required to show and the Board is required to see a practical difficulty in order to grand a variance. On this appeal Mr. McDonnell stated he has not seen a practical difficulty. He has seen a personal preference but not a practical difficulty. When he looks at exhibits one and two at the back yards of the properties on Carie Hill he sees nothing that distinguishes the applicants property from the rest of the properties on Carie Hill.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that he concurs with Mr. McDonnell, a practical difficulty has not been met. When he looks at exhibits one, two, and three a pool could basically be constructed on the properties around the neighborhood. The size that Mr. Paulus wanted and where he wants the pool is more in preference.

Mr. Juergensen stated that with the fence in place, no one will be able to see the pool and how close it is to the property line. He stated that he agrees with the applicant, that there will be less water going onto the neighbor’s property behind him. Mr. Paulus is basically going to have a 648 sq. ft. basin that will collect water.

Mr. Deremer stated that he concurs with Mr. Juergensen. The practical difficulty is the health and safety coming out of the house, having a safe zone to land. Mr. Paulus could build the pool tomorrow 15 ft. from the rear property line, being right up against the house without us meeting here this evening.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Juergensen and Mr. Deremer. Mr. McDonnell stated that he might agree with Mr. Deremer’s comments if having a pool was a God given right, but it is not, having a pool is a luxury. The safety issue can be addressed in other manors. How could this Board tell the other property owners in this neighborhood that they can not construct a pool in the same position as Mr. Paulus who lives right down the street. He stated that he feels pretty strongly about this variance because he has experienced it, he knows what it is like to live with a pool next door. A pool that meets the requirements. Mr. McDonnell stated that he knows it may increase the property value of Mr. Paulus’ property he believes it will decrease the property values of those properties around. To grant a variance when the variance is not required with those factors in mind, he stated he can not do that, along with that the applicant shows no practical difficulty.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal 2087.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd – No, Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – No, Mr. McDonnell – No, Mr. Deremer – Yes

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve meeting minutes from Thursday, July 26, 2007.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Mr. Oldroyd made a motion to approve meeting minutes from Thursday, August 9, 2007.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator