Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen-Alternate
Absent Member:
Gerald Werner
Zoning Data Coordinator:
Joni Poindexter
APPEAL #1875 – Gail Rownd, property owner, 7482 Arlington Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance to allow an accessory building in the front yard area where accessory buildings are permitted in the rear or side yard per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 7482 Arlington Rd. NW, Sect. 9NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Gail Rownd with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Location of dwelling does not allow adequate room (or setback) from property line on south and east side while area to west of dwelling has severe slope.” The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a rendering of the building from Buckeye Barns, Inc. and a mortgage survey showing the location of the proposed building.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Gail Rownd, 7482 Arlington Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.
Ms. Rownd stated that her property is located on a hilltop with adjacent woods. The side yard to the south is all dense woods with a steep drop off so the proposed area is the only flat spot to put the structure.
Ms. Rownd gave the board several photos
showing the property and explained what each represented.
Exhibit #1 is a view of Dr. Marvin’s house,
which is directly behind her.
Exhibit #2 is a view from her deck toward
the property line.
Exhibit #3 is a view from her living room
and shows a green post and where the property line is located.
Exhibit #4 is a view from the south side
of her bedroom.
Exhibit #5 is a view of the logs that
were delivered for construction of the structure.
Exhibit #6 is a view from the structures
location looking down.
Exhibit #7 is a view from her front door
looking down the hill to the flat area.
Exhibit #8 is a view of the side yard
and shows how it slopes down.
Exhibit #9 is a view of the driveway off
Arlington Rd. and shows that there is no view of the structure from the
street.
Mr. Deremer asked how far the structure would be from the property lines.
Ms. Rownd stated it would be 34 ft. from the side property line, 892 ft. from Arlington Rd., and 500 ft. from the back of the property.
Mr. Deremer asked if the property is over 100 ft. wide where the structure would be located.
Ms. Rownd stated that it is 109 ft.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the board needed
to see a practical difficulty and asked what that practical difficulty
is and why the structure could not be put along the north side of the house.
Ms. Rownd stated that all of the Pineview
neighborhood would be able to see it if it was put on the north side of
the house and it would be a visual distraction. The proposed area
is a flat hidden area that is accessible.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there is a steep drop off on the north side.
Ms. Rownd stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked why the structure could not be put in the back of the property along the east side.
Ms. Rownd stated that the property drops off and it would be an eyesore for the neighborhood.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the property drops off on the south side.
Ms. Rownd stated that there is no room on the south side because of the way the house is structured.
Mr. Deremer swore in Dr. Rini, 7699 Bethany Cir. NW.
Dr. Rini stated that he would be the only neighbor to view the structure and he does not have a problem with the location. The west side is shielded by dense woods and the neighbor to the east is way down the hill and cannot see it. Mr. Rini stated that he believes the structure would be very nice and appealing to the neighborhood.
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. Dodson stated that he believes the resolution, although it applies to all lots, was intended to apply to smaller lots where there is a concern that someone might put a storage shed in the front yard. Mr. Dodson stated that this is not the situation in this case and thinks there is a practical difficulty with the slope of the land. Mr. Dodson stated that he does not have a problem with the request.
Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson and stated that he does not think the spirit and intent of the zoning resolution will be harmed with the variance.
Mr. Deremer stated that this is an unusually large lot and even though the structure is definitely in the front yard, it is way back from the road. Mr. Deremer stated that he is in favor of the appeal.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1875 as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #1873 – Caplea Studio Architects, 11700 Cleveland Ave., Uniontown, Ohio 44685 agent for Freedom Investments, property owner, 4895 Dressler Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 9 ft. front parking and landscaping setback where a 20 ft. front parking and landscaping setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4895 Dressler Rd. NW, Sect. 24 SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Kenneth Hoopes with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The parking lot does not provide enough visitor parking close to the main entrance. A 10 ft. wide curb lawn with the existing ornamental trees will remain.” The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan labeled project #02145 by Caplea Studio Architects with a revision date of 8/12/03, and a layout of the proposed parking area labeled SK-2.1a, dated 8/20/03.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Kenneth Hoopes, 11700 Cleveland Ave., Uniontown, Ohio 44685.
Mr. Hoopes stated that they are seeking more parking spaces within the expansion project for Freedom Investments. The current project is a 7,500 sq. ft. addition to the front of the building. They have complied with the minimum parking requirements within the zoning standards but the problem that they have encountered is the front access to the facility only provides 15 to 18 parking spaces on the existing layout. Mr. Hoopes stated that all the employee’s park in the back and they are seeking additional parking in the front for customers.
Mr. Hoopes stated that all of the businesses that adjoin this facility have encroached into the 20 ft. parking setback and they are seeking a request to obtain more parking along Dressler Rd. and also to encroach into the 20 ft. parking setback.
Mr. Hoopes presented three photos to the board. Mr. Hoopes stated that exhibit “B” shows what is currently there. If approved, the edge of the parking lot would be as shown on exhibit “B”, which is 10 ft. from the edge of the curb to the edge of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Hoopes stated that Applebee’s which is next door, Verizon which is to the south, Thursday’s Plaza, Levin’s Furniture, and Friday’s, are all in the very same dimension, which is 9 to 11 ft. from the sidewalk to the edge of the parking lot. Mr. Hoopes stated what they are requesting falls in line with the other businesses on the street.
Mr. Hoopes stated that exhibit “C” shows that Applebee’s has the same dimensions as their proposed request so they are not making a request that is beyond what the standard businesses along the street currently have. Mr. Hoopes stated that they have a lot of ornamental trees buffering the curb lawn and the proposed parking lot.
Mr. Hoopes stated that exhibit “D” is a photo of businesses across the street and shows that from the curb to the edge of the parking lot, they are all within one foot or so of their request.
Mr. Deremer asked if the request is for a 9 ft. setback as shown in exhibit “B”.
Mr. Hoopes stated yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if the additional parking spaces are needed in the front to meet the resolution.
Mr. Hoopes stated yes. They are meeting the minimum with the current number of employees that they have, but that’s for employee personnel only. The parking is very restrictive for clients and customers.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he is correct in saying that the extra parking is for a proposed expansion of the building.
Mr. Hoopes stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked what Freedom Investments does.
Mr. Hoopes stated that they are a Corporate Firm.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Hoopes testimony that currently the business meets the minimum parking spaces that are required by the resolution.
Mr. Hoopes stated yes. One hundred eight parking spaces are required and they are providing one hundred twelve. The plan was originally designed to comply with the zoning requirements but after further review and discussion they opted to pursue the request.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficulty is.
Mr. Hoopes stated that they need additional parking.
Mr. Deremer swore in William Downey, 4895 Dressler Rd. NW.
Mr. Downey stated that Key Advantage Group is the tenant of building owned by Freedom Investments. The Key Advantage Group is the Corporate Headquarters of eight transportation companies located throughout the United States. There are operations in 36 states and they have about 4,000 employees. They are bringing the back room operations, accounting and finance, from those companies to Jackson Township. The reason for the expansion of the building is to accommodate the current employees that they have. Mr. Downey stated that they wouldn’t be able to house the additional employees without the additional parking spaces.
Mr. Deremer asked if there are any future plans regarding moving to another site as the company grows.
Mr. Downey stated that they hope to accommodate everyone in the building with the proposed expansion.
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. Giulitto stated with the pictures that were provided regarding Applebee’s and Verizon, the measurement seems to flow down the street and is not out of line with the area. Expansion is always good and they are trying to comply the best they can. Mr. Giulitto stated that they will be keeping the trees so he does not have a problem with the request.
Mr. Deremer stated that this is an area of Dressler Rd. where the trees are starting to mature. Those folks have an advantage on the existing properties in that they thought ahead of the resolution and planted the trees when it wasn’t a requirement of the resolution. Mr. Deremer stated that he believes this would be a positive improvement on the basis of what was testified.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1873 as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #1876 – Linda Wells, property owner, 6883 Flagstone Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 10 ft. rear yard setback where a 15 ft. rear yard setback is required for the principal building in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6883 Flagstone Circle NW, Sect. 22NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Linda Wells with reasons being a 15 ft. rear yard setback is required. The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a map of a mortgage location survey showing the proposed location of the addition.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Linda Wells, 6883 Flagstone Circle NW.
Ms. Wells stated that she currently has a two stall garage and would like to add a third stall. Her home is located on a corner lot. Although it may look like the addition is on the side, it is actually at the rear of her property and the setback requirement is 15 ft. Ms. Wells stated that she is asking for a 10 ft. setback.
Ms. Wells stated that garage cannot be added to the other side of the home because that’s where all the utilities ago into the house and there is a large slope with a walk out basement.
Ms. Wells presented three photos and stated exhibit #1 is a photo of the back side of the house, exhibit #2 is a photo showing the proposed location of the garage, and exhibit #3 is a photo showing the distance between her house and her neighbor’s house.
Ms. Wells stated that the garage stall would be the same size as the existing garage stalls and would meet all the other setback requirements.
Mr. McDonnell asked which street the front door of the home faces.
Ms. Wells stated that her front door faces Flagstone and her home is addressed to Flagstone.
Mr. McDonnell stated although it may be possible, it is impractical to put it where the front door is or where the walk out basement and utilities are located.
Ms. Wells stated this is correct.
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 sees a couple of difficulties that the applicant may have. With the home being on a corner lot, he could make a case that this is actually the side yard. The reason he asked the applicant if the addition could go in front of the front door or over on the left hand side is because the board needs to see if it can be built somewhere on the property and still meet the zoning requirements. If it can’t then they are probably overbuilding on the lot, but it is possible to put it somewhere else although it is not practical. Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes Ms. Wells has met the sardine theory of not trying to put ten pounds of rocks in a five pound can. A three car garage is pretty standard and the variance is minimal. Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the request.
Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that the proposed location makes sense.
Mr. McDonnell stated, for the audiences information, the board has said a number of times that they don’t have a problem with this. Not because it is their feeling, but because certain requirements have been met and a practical difficulty has been demonstrated.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1876 as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #1877 – William Day agent for Beatty Properties, Inc., property owner, 4821 Nobles Pond Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance to allow the temporary placement of an informational trailer on site to assist promotion of Scotsbury Condominiums unit model unit can be constructed, not to exceed six months. Property location is 10.367 acres at the corner of Amherst & Beatty, Sect. 20SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by William Day with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The Jackson Township Code has no provision addressing this temporary use.” The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the trailer, a copy of a page from the resolution that was effective until October 14, 1999 that covered temporary buildings, a copy of a page from the resolution effective from October 15, 1999 until December 11, 2002 that covered temporary buildings and sales offices, and a copy of a page from the current resolution effective December 12, 2002 in which the temporary sales office portion had been removed from the resolution.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in William Day, 4821 Nobles Pond Dr. NW.
Mr. Day stated that his reason for the variance is because a temporary sales trailer is not covered in the present zoning book. There is a section for model homes that is kind of the next step when you have a completed model or condo. This is for the interim period. Mr. Day stated that they had a sales trailer when they did their first community in Jackson Township as well as Massillon, Plain, North Canton, and other areas.
Mr. Day stated that this is a practical use and he is not sure if it was an over site when the revisions were done to the zoning book. Mr. Day stated that a sales office is very important in his business and a construction trailer is permitted on the property during construction.
Mr. Day stated that they have a lease from the adjacent property owner for a 50 x 100 ft. adjacent parcel that is graveled to keep their equipment out of the mud. They would either put the trailer on the graveled area or where it is located on the site plan. Mr. Day stated that he doesn’t know if the location is an issue but the use is.
Mr. Day stated that in looking at the practical difficulties and considerations where it states the variance is a minor deviation from the zoning resolution, it is not exactly covered. It is very similar to a construction trailer and actually it would be for a more limited time. When the first model home is done the trailer would be gone and a construction trailer could be there for more than a year depending on how long the construction takes.
Mr. Day stated that the variance will not harm nearby properties. Traffic wise, the operation is normally until 4:00 p.m. five days a week. One the average they might get one car an hour so traffic is not an issue. Mr. Day stated that the variance will not harm people associated with nearby properties, will not change the character of the nearby areas, and is the minimum necessary to permit reasonable use of the property. Mr. Day stated that he doesn’t know why a sales trailer is no longer in the zoning resolution.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Day if he received any indication from the zoning office as to why this is no longer in the resolution.
Mr. Day stated that he spoke with Mr. Phillippi but doesn’t know if it is considered more of a commercial use because they are selling out of a trailer.
Mr. Day stated that there is a sales trailer for Serenity Shores at the corner of Amherst & Fulton. Mr. Day gave the board a photo of the trailer at Serenity Shores, which was marked as exhibit #1, and a photo of the sign showing the hours of operation that was marked exhibit #2. Mr. Day stated that his intent is to show that this is a logical use.
Ms. Poindexter stated that a violation letter was sent by the Zoning Department to Serenity Shores regarding the trailer being on their property.
Mr. Day stated that he would like to go to the Zoning Commission and ask them to implement a sales trailer into the regulations but this takes several months and he would like to have the trailer on the property within the next fifteen days. Mr. Day stated that he may pursue this at a later date.
Mr. Day stated that he did not get an answer as to why it was taken out of the zoning book. Either it was an over site or someone doesn’t realize the importance of needing a sales trailer.
Ms. Poindexter stated that Mr. Phillippi had told her that the building department looks at it more as a commercial use. The public comes in and it is not handicap accessible and does not have restroom facilities and things of that sort, so it is looked at more of a commercial use as opposed to a model home with a desk and telephone that eventually will be a residential home.
Mr. Day stated that a ramp is not hard to construct and could be done if needed.
Mr. Deremer asked how big the trailer would be.
Mr. Day stated that he does not have the trailer yet, but the width is probably 10 or 12 ft. by 40 ft. Mr. Day stated that it wouldn’t be any bigger than a construction trailer.
Mr. Deremer asked if there would be a restroom facility in the trailer.
Mr. Day stated that there are port-a-johns outside which people use all the time at fairs, etc. Mr. Day stated that the first home would be built by the time sewer is available on the property.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the trailer would be single or double wide.
Mr. Day stated that it would be single wide.
Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Day is asking to put a trailer on the property for informational sales until a model home is built.
Mr. Day stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be construction trailers on the property when they are building the model home.
Mr. Day stated yes.
Mr. Dodson asked if the model home is presently being constructed.
Mr. Day stated no. They will probably draw the permit next week.
Mr. Dodson asked how long it would take to build the model home.
Mr. Day stated that it would take about four or five months depending on the whether.
Mr. Deremer asked if any units have been sold.
Mr. Day stated that the project is going to be done in phases and they have about nine units sold.
Mr. Giulitto asked if he correct in saying
that there is a sign on the property that says something to the effect,
future homes with a phone number.
Mr. Day stated yes, there is a number
where they were before this project but in two weeks they will be out of
there because construction will be complete. Mr. Day stated that
they are only permitted to have a model until construction is complete.
Mr. Giulitto asked if someone was driving by, could they look at a number and if they were interested they could call that number.
Mr. Day stated yes, while they have that number.
Mr. Deremer asked what hours the sales office would be open.
Mr. Day stated 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday and there would be two employees.
Mr. Day stated that he does not have an office and it is not practical to get a lease somewhere for four or five months; however, it is practical to be on site.
Mr. Deremer agreed.
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. Juergensen stated that he is concerned that the resolution was amended to specifically exclude this. He disagrees with Mr. Day and doesn’t think it was an over site. He thinks it was intentionally excluded based on the amended resolution page that he saw. Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks the board has to look at it as an accessory building, which is a permitted use in an R-3 district. In looking at 401.12E which permits temporary buildings and uses, “E1” states, “temporary buildings including tents and construction trailers for uses incidental to construction work may be erected.” Mr. Juergensen stated that he doesn’t see where this is incidental to construction work; its incidental to selling homes on the property. Mr. Juergensen stated that he would have a problem with this appeal based on those two items.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks exactly the opposite and doesn’t know if it was specifically excluded or not but it is not in the book, specifically in 801.16. When he reads that temporary buildings including construction trailers for uses incidental, when he sees the word “incidental”, to him that means it’s really not necessary for construction purposes. Incidental to him is something that is not required. When he sees that construction trailers are allowed and there is going to be a lot of other equipment out there, to him for a six month period it is not really violating zoning or violating the intent or spirit of the resolution. Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks it is difficult to make an economic use of a piece of property if you can’t sell the house and have to wait five or six months until a model is built. Mr. McDonnell stated to him it’s like tying the guy’s hands behind his back. Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the request and it makes sense to have a sales office there until the model home can be built. However, a condition could be put on it that once the model home is complete, the trailer would be gone.
Mr. Deremer stated that the board needs to look at the current wording of the resolution as it stands today. When he looks at the resolution, the fact that it does not say sales offices but yet they still allow temporary buildings for construction, to him that means they actually opened it up a little bit. Mr. Deremer stated that it is incidental to have a sales office to sell the homes prior to getting a model home constructed. It is not in the resolution and lined out so he thinks it somewhat opens the door to allow the board to act in one way or another. Mr. Deremer stated that the temporary sales office should be allowed with the restriction similar to the prior code, which is it could only be there a maximum of six months or if the model home is finished prior to six month it would be removed, whichever is first.
Mr. Deremer stated that there is a concern of the building department where they believe it is a commercial office and they are looking for sanitary facilities such as water and handicapped accessibility. Those can be addressed with a temporary structure such as having a tank that is pumped out.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks the intent of the trustees was to prohibit that type of use. The fact that it was excluded at one point and is absent from the current resolution, he thinks this allows them to infer that.
The board had no further comments.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1877 with the condition that the trailer be allowed for no longer than six months or completion of the model home, which ever occurs first.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from August 14, 2003 and stated that Mr. McDonnell was absent for appeal #1864 and #1865.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he would vote with the understanding that his vote does not apply to appeal #1864 and #1865 due to his absence.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from August 14, 2003.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, with respect to #1864 and 1865 and abstained from appeal #1866, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from August 28, 2003.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-abstain, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Juergensen 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