JACKSON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
August 10, 2000
MINUTES
Members Present: David Clatterbuck
Rodney Napier
William Day
Tom Winkhart
Members Absent: Donna Conaway
Interim Zoning Inspector: Kris Hopkins
Assistant Law Director: Dave Ferrell
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the board had any comments from the minutes of July 20, 2000.
Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the minutes of July 20, 2000.
Mr. Day seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Day-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the board had any comments from the minutes of June 15, 2000.
Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the minutes of June 15, 2000.
Mr. Day seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Day-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
AMENDMENT 489-00 – Mark Burns of 1830 Steiner St., North Canton, Ohio 44720, agent for Rosemarie Salimbeni of 3444 Poinsetta, Phoenix, AZ 85028 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-2 (Two Family Residential District) 4.156 acres, more or less, on the East side of Lake O’Springs 791 ft., more or less, North of Portage St., Sect. 11SW Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file).
Mr. Clatterbuck read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning Commissions recommendation for denial.
Mr. Clatterbuck read the reason for denial by Stark County Regional Planning.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Mark Burns of 1830 Steiner St. stated he has an option on the property. Mr. Burns stated from 1967 to 1979 there was eleven duplexes with six surrounding the property in question.
Mr. Burns stated the zoning became effective in 1959. Mr. Burns stated if turned down he is asking for the same size lots which would meet the requirements of Jackson Township Zoning, which could be seven to nine single dwelling lots according to the zoning.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Burns is saying the land could be developed either way.
Mr. Burns stated part of the ground is unsuitable. An engineer has been involved in the planning and he said it could be built on.
Mr. Burns showed the board a layout of the lots.
Mr. Day asked if the layout is for single family.
Mr. Burns stated it could be done for single family if not allowed for duplex. The lots are 100 ft. wide by 180 ft. deep.
Mr. Burns stated he is asking for R-2 but if this is denied he wouldn’t have to come to the commission again because it is zoned R-R.
Mr. Napier stated Mr. Burns might have to ask for an R-1 due to the size of the lots.
Ms. Hopkins stated the lot size in an R-R district is 20,000 sq. ft. and for R-1 the lot size requirement is 14, 500 sq. ft. average but can go to 13, 500 sq. ft. minimum as long as the 14, 500 sq. ft. average is maintained.
Mr. Burns showed a drawing of what the duplexes would look like on the property.
Mr. Napier stated with R-1 some of the lots may work that would not work now.
Mr. Burns stated there would have to be two access roads. One on Lake O’Springs and one on Pawnee.
Mr. Day asked if Mr. Burns could build under a PRD.
Ms. Hopkins stated no because five acres are needed for a PRD.
Mr. Burns stated in an R-2 and R-1 the side setbacks are ten feet and the front is forty. The building would be setback fifty-five feet from the new road.
Mr. Burns had nothing further to add and the board had no further questions.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak against this appeal.
Mr. Mark Haymaker of 6919 Lake O’ Springs, which is directly across from the property in question, stated this is spot zoning and it is illegal. The law is to protect people like him who have a single family home. Mr. Haymaker stated the duplexes that are existing were there before zoning and there is fifteen feet of fill dirt on this property and it is now higher than Lake O’Springs. Mr. Haymaker stated there is also a lot of muck on the property.
Mr. Haymaker does not think the law needs to be fought for the benefit of the people who own the property.
Mr. Haymaker stated if there are seven duplexes with fourteen families, this is a lot of traffic in this area. Mr. Haymaker would like to see three or four houses and the road come through. Mr. Haymaker thinks the land needs tested to make sure anything that is built will not sink.
Mr. Richard Yachey stated he owns 1.5 acres by the property in question and is against the rezoning.
Mr. Haymaker stated he thinks if the property was zoned for duplexes instead of single family houses that it would decrease the property values in the area.
No one else in the audience spoke against this amendment.
Mr. Napier stated he would be willing to look at R-1 to keep it single family but yet to allow Mr. Burns to utilize the lot layout that he has which would give him more flexibility in developing the lots but keeping it single family. Mr. Napier thinks R-1 would be more appropriate.
Mr. Day stated he agrees with Mr. Napier. There is a lot of R-R with similar size lots and sewer is available. Mr. Day thinks this would be appropriate for R-1 and the extension of Pawnee is a plus for the area. Mr. Day would lean toward an R-1 zoning.
Mr. Winkhart agrees with Mr. Napier and Mr. Day.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated he was present at the meeting the last time this property was requested to be rezoned to R-2 and he still has the same opinion that it should not be multi-family. Mr. Clatterbuck stated he could go along with the idea of lowering it down to an R-1. Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Burns is satisfied with the soil testing of the property.
Mr. Burns stated there is poor soil but they would have piling. Mr. Burns stated he is in the development business and as a developer it would not be feasible to develop as R-1. The sewer and water lines would cost $250,000 to $300,000. To build single family even if getting $55,000 to $70,000 it would not be feasible. Mr. Burns stated that there are nine duplexes built within five hundred feet of the property. Mr. Burns stated as a developer that he would have to pass on the R-1.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Burns if he wanted the board to vote yes or no on the proposal and if Mr. Burns is saying that even by initiating an R-1 that it would not help Mr. Burns.
Mr. Burns asked if he would have to come back in front of the board.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated no that it could be done at this meeting. But what Mr. Clatterbuck is hearing is that it would not be feasible.
Mr. Burns stated maybe not for him but for someone else. Mr. Burns asked if he could get the property zoned R-1 for the lots without having to come back in front of the board.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated he could ask for a downgrading of the zoning from R-2 to an R-1. This does not mean the site plan is approved. The site plan would have to be done to meet the requirements under an R-1.
Mr. Burns stated he would like to request that his application be amended to R-1.
There were no further comments from Mr. Burns.
Mr. Napier made a motion to vote on amendment 489-00 as amended to R-1 by the applicant.
Mr. Day seconded the motion.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if anyone in the audience had any discussion on the amended application.
There was no discussion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Day-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
AMENDMENT 488-00 – Jackson Township Zoning Commission proposes text amendments to Articles II-Definitions, III-General Provisions-IV-District Regulations, V-Sign Regulations and VIII-Administrative Procedures of the Zoning Resolution. (Continued from July 20, 2000).
Mr. Clatterbuck read the RPC recommendation for approval and the facts considered in their decision.
The board had no discussion on the initiated text amendments from the meeting on June 15, 2000.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that there are additional changes dated 8/10/00 that the board would review and are as follows:
Mr. Jim Bennett of 7275 High Mill Ave. asked if the temporary signs could be set back further from the right of way.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked what the setback is now.
Ms. Poindexter stated the setback is five feet from the right of way.
Ms. Hopkins stated it is five feet from the right of way and ten feet from the side or rear property line.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that this should be enough room.
Ms. Hopkins stated for the record there is a list in the file consisting of eleven sign companies that received a notice of the hearing.
Ms. Poindexter stated the sign companies were also sent the proposed changes for the signs along with the notice.
There were no further comments.
Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the text amendment initiated by the zoning commission on June 15, 2000 in addition to the additional items dated 8/10/00 as amended and marked exhibit A.
Mr. Winkhart seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Day-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
Ms. Hopkins stated she would like to bring the commission up to date on some township issues. Ms. Hopkins stated that there was a rezoning request in front of the commission a month or so ago regarding a property on the corner of Lake O’Springs and Portage. The trustees requested RPC to review the amendment request because the applicant amended her request from R-4 to R-2. The trustees forwarded their request to RPC asking them to reconsider the proposed amendment in light of the fact that it was changed to R-2.
Ms. Hopkins stated in talking with the site plan review committee, it was mentioned that the township is in the process of working with an engineering consultant for major road changes to Portage St. One of the consistent responses from RPC is that the whole corridor needs to be looked at comprehensively as to what is the best zoning for the entire corridor. Ms. Hopkins does not have the official response from RPC but in the conversation with an RPC spokes person, she indicated that RPC feels very strongly of the need for looking at the entire area comprehensively.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if legally can this go back to RPC or is this just a request.
Mr. Ferrell stated it is just a request.
Ms. Hopkins stated the trustees did consult with Neal Fitzgerald on this and he said it is asking them in an advisory role, for them to comment.
Mr. Day asked if the person’s due process would be delayed.
Ms. Hopkins stated the trustees could choose to continue the public hearing. Ms. Hopkins stated for the board’s information she wanted to convey to the board how strongly it was conveyed to her by RPC that the area should be looked at on a larger scale instead of people coming in on a lot by lot basis asking for changes.
Mr. Winkhart asked if the trustee have considered doing a comprehensive plan along Portage.
Ms. Hopkins stated to her knowledge they have not.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated in the past the commission has gotten the map review committee to get together and do a map review and feels the board could request this.
Ms. Hopkins stated in looking at the map that Mr. Boger has hanging in the conference room, it is marked with all the highway improvements that are planned for the next five years. There are other corridors in the township that the plan review committee may want to look at.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the board might be able to request this.
Mr. Ferrell stated if the board wants to make a motion that the map review committee is reformed then somebody could take it to the trustees just as a recommendation from the board. If the trustees are interested then it could get going.
Mr. Winkhart made a motion that the zoning commission requests the trustees reconvene the map review committee for comprehensive review of zoning along the major corridors under transition.
Mr. Napier seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Day-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
Ms. Cheryl Gross asked the commission if she could speak.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated yes.
Ms. Gross stated she lives at 9284 Hocking St. by where Emerald Estates in going in. Ms. Gross stated in June she paid the township $1,000 to put new drain pipes in her yard. Three weeks later Barlo Excavating tore up a third of the piping. Ms. Gross stated her pipes were left sticking up out of the ground. She contacted Mr. Boger and he was very helpful. The pipes were put back in but when it rained the pipes floated back above the ground. Again they were put in. Ms. Gross wants to know why they were not notified as to what was happening. The township took her money and should have known the pipes were going to be dug back up.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the board does not know the answer and suggested she talk with the trustees.
Ms. Gross stated nobody would help her.
Mr. Clatterbuck suggests Ms. Gross attend the trustee meeting that would be held on August 14, 2000.
Ms. Gross stated her yard looks terrible and what she is hearing is that an easement is an easement and they don’t matter. Ms. Gross stated she paid for the property and maintains it, not Mr. Barlo or Andy Ginella.
Ms. Poindexter asked if Ms. Gross had spoke with the Stark County Engineers.
Ms. Gross stated she had a discussion with them. Ms. Gross stated that her driveway was broken in the process of tearing out the part that they needed to get out and she would like it fixed.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated he understands Ms. Gross frustration but the board has no control power over this. Under an easement when something is tore up it has to be returned close to its original condition.
Ms. Gross stated she does not know whom else to talk to.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the trustees would be the one to talk to and thinks Ms. Gross should attend the trustee meeting on August 14, 2000.
Mr. Napier asked who owns the easement.
Mr. Gross stated it is the road right-of-way.
Mr. Napier stated if it’s the township then Ms. Gross needs to talk to the trustees.
Ms. Hopkins asked how many other lots are affected.
Ms. Gross stated all most all of the lots on Hocking.
Mr. Gross stated the street is covered with mud all the time.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the trustees would be the one to talk to.
Mr. Gross stated he thought that as the zoning commission that they could recommend some regulation that would notify people of what’s going on.
Ms. Hopkins stated the township is not a party to and does not grant approval for any water lines being put in so the township is not even aware that they are being put in.
Ms. Gross stated Ms. Hopkins is right because she was on the phone talking to Mr. Boger and he stated he could not get involved because his job is only to make sure what they do is done correctly or if they are tearing up a township street. At that moment there was a huge whole in the middle of hocking street and Mr. Boger did not know this was being done. Ms. Gross thinks people should be notified as to what’s going on.
Ms. Hopkins asked if Ms. Gross had spoke with anyone from Ohio Consumers Water Company.
Ms. Gross stated no because she thought it was a township matter.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated this would be a public utility easement.
Mr. Napier is not sure the trustees could do anything.
Mr. Ferrell stated he does not believe the township can do anything. The trustees have more authority than the zoning commission but he is not sure they can do much.
Ms. Scourfield asked whom they could complain too as far as mud going into the street.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated this would be under the sub division regulation and the EPA.
Ms. Hopkins stated the soil and water conservation is the liaison with the EPA. Ms. Hopkins suggests Ms. Gross speak with Julie Barberi. Ms. Hopkins stated Ms. Barberi has been out to the building site and has issued them notification that they are not in compliance with their drawing. The Army Core of Engineers have reviewed some of the wet lands and they are entitled to excavate for their water lines on their own property and infringe on the wetland however they are not allowed to fill in the wet lands. Ms. Hopkins stated if there is any kind of filling going on the Army Core of Engineers should be notified.
Mr. Gross stated she is not getting answers from anyone she has talked to.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated Ms. Gross should speak with Ms. Barberi and the trustees.
There were no further comments.
Mr. Napier made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Day seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Day-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Clerk/Secretary