Members Present:                                                            Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                            James Bauder
                                                                                            David Benner
                                                                                            Stephen Bergman
Alternate Member:                                                            Nancy Detwiler

Absent Member:                                                               Donna Conaway

Zoning Inspector:                                                              Joni Poindexter

AMENDMENT #546-05 – The Jackson Township Board of Trustees, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 propose text amendments to the zoning resolution to add an (R-T) Research and Technology District with amendments to Chapter II, Sect. 201.2(B), to add the definition of Light Industrial and Chapter IV, Sect. 411.1, 411.2, 411.3, 411.4, 411.5, 411.6, 411.7, 411.8, 411.9, and 411.10 and add Appendix “B” (Industrial Use excluded from the R-T District-Research and Technology).

Ms. Magyaros stated that this amendment was continued from March 17, 2005.  Ms. Magyaros stated that at the last meeting they only got through seven items so they would start with item number eight.

Ms. Magyaros stated at the time this amendment was continued they also continued amendment 547-05 which was to rezone the 162 acres from R-R to R-T.  However, on March 28th under resolution #05-019 the trustees unanimously withdrew amendment #547-05 regarding the rezoning of 162 acres.  So that is no longer before the zoning commission and it will not be considered.

Ms. Magyaros asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held March 17, 2005.

Mr. Benner made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 17, 2005 meeting.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she would have the zoning commission discuss each item and then at the conclusion of the commission’s comments she will open it up to public comments.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item eight is as follows:
Add 411.3(A)(10) a new land use category and “permitted uses” as follows:
10. Research and Technology Related Uses:
a. Research, technology, prototyping, and product testing and development, including research in all sciences, product engineering, and market development.
b. Processing, assembly, and light manufacturing uses
c. Logistics operations and facilities
d. Educational and training facilities and conference center
e. Day care facilities when provided as a secondary or accessory use located within the primary use structure
f. Retail use, restaurant, banking facility, personal services, indoor recreation, and health and wellness uses when provided as a secondary use located within a building devoted to a principal permitted use not to exceed a maximum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the building, whichever is less.
g. Retail sales of prototype/tested materials provided the use is secondary to a principal permitted use not to exceed two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or ten (10) percent of the gross floor area

Ms. Magyaros asked for comments from the commission on permitted uses.

Mr. Bergman asked if they eliminated the term “light industrial” last month.

Ms. Magyaros stated that they didn’t eliminate it last month but that was on the agenda that was received in the mail.  When looking at letter “B” processing, assembly, and light manufacturing uses, if they delete light industrial then they would delete letter “B”.  They do need to go back and address this at some point and if light industrial is deleted they will need to delete letter “B”.

Ms. Magyaros asked if the board would like to go back to number one and delete it.

The board agreed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item one deals with the definition of light industrial.  At the last meeting she mentioned the fact that they would have a definition of light industrial in the code, but there isn’t even a definition of industrial so she was concerned.  Mr. Magyaros stated that she does not have a problem removing light industrial from the R-T district.

Mr. Bauder made a motion to delete the definition of light industrial.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Ms. Magyaros stated under the proposed section 201.2(B) the definition of light industrial is being removed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that section 411.1 purpose, item number two, they need to remove the wording “and light industrial uses” since it has been removed from item one.

The board agreed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that proposed item number five under section 411.2(E) would need to be deleted if the light industrial is being deleted because there is no need for appendix “B”.

Mr. Bergman asked why there would be no need for appendix “B”.

Ms. Magyaros stated because that was a list of activities that would be prohibited in the light industrial.

Mr. Bergman stated that he thought appendix “B” was for items excluded from the research and technology district.

Ms. Magyaros stated that it says industrial uses excluded from the R-T district.

Mr. Bergman stated that it doesn’t say light industrial.

Ms. Magyaros stated that there would not be any industrial uses permitted in the R-T district so that is why it is not needed.
Mr. Bergman stated that he thinks in the long run they will need appendix “B” but with the explanation he thinks they can get rid of it at this time.

Ms. Magyaros asked if the board is in agreement that by deleting light industrial they no longer need appendix “B” because there would be no industrial permitted at all in the R-T district.

The board agreed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that they would skip to item eight which deals with permitted uses in the R-T district.  By deleting light industrial they no longer need item “B” which is processing, assembly and light manufacturing uses.

Mr. Bergman stated that assembly isn’t necessarily manufacturing.  He believes what you’re going to have is that there will areas where they will collect different parts from different areas and assemble them into a product, so he thinks assembly would be too restrictive to take it out.

Mr. Clark Richard’s asked if he could make a comment.

Ms. Magyaros stated yes.

Mr. Richard’s stated that he is on the comprehensive planning committee and he believes the spirit of the R-T district was to put something in there that would allow for higher paid jobs.  Not to bring tons of people into Jackson, but to help curb the industrial uses that we could have in the industrial areas.  Mr. Richard’s stated that his vision of what the R-T district should be is something like the Timken Research Center.

Mr. Richard’s stated as a member of the comprehensive planning committee he thinks this should be shut down until the committee figures out what they want it to do because he thinks the spirit was to do something in the industrial area that would be less harsh on the land and put it to better use and keep it over by I-77 and where the mining is.

Mr. Bergman stated that he agrees with Mr. Richard’s.  He was disappointed that in the month of January the original area that was project by the commission for the R-T district was altered to include what everyone was present for last week.  There was never a need for that line to be rezoned at this point.  However, the commission does have an idea where this campus like activity was to be.  From the visionary commission it is his understanding of the basis for the R-T district was fuel cell research.  He never heard of biotech until their meeting and following the newspaper articles over the last few weeks.  Mr. Bergman stated if they are talking biotech and nanotech, which he doesn’t even know what that is other than the word, he doesn’t know how they zone for that because he doesn’t know what the restriction are, so he doesn’t know what to put in the code to keep them safe.  Mr. Bergman stated that he is not against it, but he is concerned over what they have to do to protect the ground water, air and environment.  Mr. Bergman stated that he is not sure they need this until they research other technology districts to find out how they were put together and how they brought new jobs in and make sure that the proper building codes are available and they are incorporated into the new zoning for these types of operations along with a better vision from the visionary commission.

Mr. Richard’s stated that he felt disappointed as a committee member that a zoning change was even put in as a request when the trustees have asked them to complete a plan.  Even in the plan the area they asked to rezone is a candidate for an opportunity of an area that they wanted to preserve.  So without finishing the plan and allowing the trustees and zoning commission to review it and adopt it and accept it then they can move forward but he feels this is putting the cart before the horse.  Mr. Richard’s stated if this could be dropped and put on hold he would appreciate it and he would speak up at the next comprehensive planning meeting about how upset he is about this.

Ms. Magyaros stated that there is no way they can table it because it has been put before them so they need to vote to either approve it or vote to deny it.  They need to work through it and make some kind of recommendation to the trustees.

Mr. Craig Conley, 6105 Pinecreek NW stated that he thinks the problem they have is that it was done wrong from the beginning.  The language was designed to be user friendly to look like it would be great for a residential area but it is a lie.  Mr. Conley stated that he looked at the application that Stark Tech made to the government and that’s where they use terms like light manufacturing and prototyping.  Mr. Conley stated that research is necessary but what happened here is the commission was mislead.

Mr. Conley stated that he thinks the commission needs to find a way to table this and send it back or say no and let them start over again.  They need to look at the language and describe the use and then figure out where it goes.  The reason the language didn’t match the use is because they were concerned if they told the truth it would never get put next to a residential area, and of course it shouldn’t be put next to a residential area.  Mr. Conley stated that he thinks they need to start over again and they can table it, but he doesn’t know why they just don’t say no and don’t recommend it.

Ms. Magyaros stated under section 804.4G of the zoning resolution, it says the zoning commission may recess to continue such hearing from time to time and if the time and place of the continued hearing is publicly announced at the time of adjournment no notice shall be required.  Under 804.6 it says the zoning commission shall make a decision to approve, deny or modify the request within 30 days after the hearing is concluded so if she interprets the language under section “G” it does say the zoning commission may recess or continue such hearing from time to time so she doesn’t think they are under any great period at this point knowing that Stark States grant has been denied and there is no perspective business that they know about at this point in time that is itching to get into a research and technology district.

Mr. Bergman stated that is one of the confusions that he had when he brought up the fact that over the months all they heard in the visionary commission meetings was fuel cell and that was in place.

Mr. Benner stated that he has a few comments and thinks they should then call for a vote because the biggest concern that he has had over the last few weeks is if someone came in and said they would like to put a facility in and in the facility they wanted to do biomedical research.  He doesn’t know what would be required to restrict that building.

Mr. Benner stated at the risk of sounding like a scrooge, there is something nice about having people working, but this is a residential community and we don’t have income taxes so if there are 100 people working and making one million dollars a year it isn’t going to make that much more difference in the economy or property taxes.

Mr. Benner stated if there were companies who were dying to come in and do high tech we have the same pieces of property that we are talking about available today.  If they wanted to put a research and technology in there then they would be there today.  What we are doing here is not going to cause the infrastructure, which is water, sewer, power, gas, and communications, nothing of what we are doing here is going to cause that to happen.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she doesn’t think a research and technology district is a bad idea and agrees with Mr. Benner that there is land available for research.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she would open the meeting up for public comments.

Ms. Rebecca Weiford of 3720 Overhill stated that research for aids, smallpox and clinically trials happen everyday at Aultman and every major hospital in the United States and if something doesn’t go through The Food and Drug administration you’re not going to get a clinical trial.  If you’re concerned about the track record you can call OSHA.  If you’re worried about biotech then you should speak with people who work with it everyday.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she thinks this is what they would like to see done.

Ms. Weiford stated that she would not like to see this tabled indefinitely.

Mr. Benner asked Ms. Weiford what her perception is for providing an incentive for congressman Regula or someone else to say let’s do something here.

Mr. Bergman stated that Regula’s office might be a good place to contact to find out what kind of zoning district would entice him to send money to the township for research.

Ms. Weiford stated calling Regula’s office would be an excellent point and then calling all the people responsible for keeping people safe would be a good idea.  Call the center for disease control in Atlanta because if in deed this is a biotechnology thing it’s not going to be any more dangerous than the CDC is in Atlanta.

Ms. Janet Adams, 6057 Redford Rd. stated that she supports the idea of a research and technology district.  A lot of the industries regarding biotech and bioscience are new and they have promise for huge benefits, but they also have potential risks that need to be considered.  Ms. Adams stated that she looked at Stark State’s grant abstract.  In it they were requesting two million dollars for a center which is designed to speed up the commercialization of products made by an elector spinning process using nanofiber materials.  She went to the OSHA website and they say that the occupational health risks associated with manufacturing of nanofiber materials are not yet clearly understood.  OSHA recommends that much research is still needed until a clearer picture emerges.  According to the EPA manufacturing of nanofiber may pose health risks.  Ms. Adams explained several other facts with regards to risks and stated that they need to be considered.

Ms. Magyaros stated that Ms. Adams brings up a good point and they need to look at what kind of businesses could be located in the district but they don’t know what technology’s they want to put in and they don’t know what they are and what the risks are.

Mr. Tony Skipper, 95 Spruce Dr. stated that he works at the Timken Research Company.  If it would help the commission to see what goes on at that establishment and what the regulations are then maybe it could be arranged by calling the company.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she gets the consensus that everyone needs more information so she suggests either vote to deny it on the basis of needing more information or to continue it and ask to have a work session to get more information because to go back and try to rewrite the whole thing they would be totally taking out of contexts what the trustees presented.

The board agreed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she is struggling with if the board wants to recess it on the basis that they want to have a work session with the trustees to get something better in place or do they want to take a vote to deny it on the basis that they still have work session at some point.

Mr. Bergman stated if they vote to deny it then that puts it back to the trustees who could in essence approve it regardless of their recommendation.

Ms. Magyaros stated that is correct.

Mr. Bergman stated that he would suggest continuing the hearing in order to have work sessions.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks this is a better approach to take.  There has to be more clarification for regulations.  It doesn’t bother him that there would be technology located in Jackson, but what would bother him is if they approve something and then something would happen and if they had taken their time and did more research it could have been prevented.  He would have a hard time living with that.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks it is an excellent suggestion to find out what information they could get from Ralph Regula and a good idea to find out what other locations have done with this.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she thinks it would be better if the commission is involved in writing the regulations through work sessions.

Mr. Benner made a motion to continue amendment #546-05 pending the investigation of similar regulations or districts in other communities, investigation of Congressman Regula as to what opportunities might be available and investigate the intent from the comprehensive planning committee and the trustees on the zoning.  Mr. Benner stated that he would like some members of the zoning commission to volunteer to do that.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the board needed to announce a date for the continuance.

The board agreed on June 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Mr. Bergman made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector