To find a specific item within this document, point and click on Edit  in the Toolbar.  Dependent on the browser you are using, select Find (on this page)  or Find in Frame.  Type a keyword or words in the Find what: box then click on Find Next.
JACKSON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
August 19, 2004
MINUTES

Members Present:                                                          Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                          Donna Conaway
                                                                                          David Benner
                                                                                          Stephen Bergman
Alternate Member:                                                          Richard Russell

Absent Member:                                                             James Bauder-Recused

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                             Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector:                                                            Michael Saracina Jr.

Ms. Magyaros asked if the commission had any comments on the minutes from the meeting held June 17, 2004 or a motion.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held June 17, 2004.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

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

AMENDMENT# 542-04 - NexTerra LTD, Leonard Corsi, 715 Wye Road, Akron, OH 44333 agent for C. W. Vail LLC, 2445 Brentwood Rd. NW, Corinne Marzilli, 5873 Marzilli Cir. NW, Netalyn Santora, 4780 South Blvd. NW, Joseph & Kathy Marzilli, 3726 Darlington NW, Joyce Lemmon, 5896 Marzilli Cir. NW, Canton, OH & Leonard Kraft, 3485 Pigeon Run Rd. SW, Mass. OH, property owners, propose to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-3 (Residential Planned Unit Development District) 18 acres north of Hills & Dales Rd. bounded by the fire station to the west, Wackerly to the east, Everhard Rd. to the north, and 55.7 acres north of Everhard and west of Brunnerdale, Sect. 26SW Jackson Twp.  (Legal description on file)

Ms. Magyaros read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval and the facts considered in their recommendation.

MS. MAGYAROS:  At this time we will go ahead and move to the portion of the hearing where we have anybody that would like to speak in favor of the amendment approach.  I only have a couple ground rules.  We don’t have a lot of people here this evening.  Everybody that would like to speak will have an opportunity to do so and also maybe if your neighbor has already made a comment that you were going to make it would be helpful to keep the meeting moving if you raise another point that you wanted to make.  It is not always necessary to repeat the same comment over and over again.  So at this time I would ask anybody would like to speak in favor of the amendment to please stand and approach the microphone and we would ask that you state your name and address for the record.

MR. ROB VAIL:  My name is Rob Vail and I live at 2445 Brentwood NW, 44708.  I would like to first provide some explanation.  I’m the one who got Leonard into all of this trouble and so I’d like to put some perspective on the issue.  My sister and I own 67 acres of the 73 that is in this proposal this evening.  The land has been in the family since 1940.  My mother has lived on the property since 1957.  All of this was before Belden Village.  The growth and concentration since Belden Village has had its effect on the property.  The sewer was put through the property and all of the development that is both north and east and west of this has silted or did silt up the river, silt up the lake that is on the property.  The neighborhood burned down the barn that was on the property.  Five acres have now been taken for the fire house.  The farming that we have done on the property has been repeatedly interrupted.  We have been able to and offered… people have asked to buy this property for the last twenty years.  My sister lives in Vermont and she’s been there since the 1960’s.  She owns half of it.  I have no intention of living on the property so both my sister and I have known that we were going to sell it but my mother still lives there and so we were not going to try to interrupt her situation at all.  We were planning to let the whole thing lay fallow until my mother did not want to live there, and then suddenly seven years ago she married and moved off and we were suddenly very surprised because we suddenly realized we had to do something if she was not going to live there.  Then, unfortunately, her second husband died and she moved back to the farm.  But my sister and I did move to see what we could do about the disposal of this land.  Now my sister and I are both very fond of this property.  We’ve picnicked there with my grandparents and we’ve always saw it as open spaces.  And I say, we grew up there or used that property in the 1940’s long before the Belden Village era.

What we wanted to do was to try and maintain the property.  We knew we were going to sell it.  We knew that it would probably be developed, but we were hoping that we could see the development was as gentle to the countryside as possible.  We were hoping that there would be no loss of the contour.  It’s beautiful contoured land if anyone has ever seen it.  It has lovely water on it, it has lovely woods on it and we were hoping to not disturb it anymore than was absolutely necessary.  When we were in the midst of this I was listening to NPR one day and I heard an interview of Leonard Corsi, who was talking about development of the Firestone property in Bath.  He was talking about open space.  He was talking about not leveling property but permitting the contour. He was talking about all the kinds of things that I thought my sister and I were interested in and I called Leonard and said, “would you please come and look at a piece of property?”  He came and looked at the piece of property and I said does this fit the kind of thing you’re talking about.  He said it did.  I said my mother lives on this property and are you willing to wait until she decides to move.  He said he was willing to wait and I naively thought that we were doing the best by the property and not just selling it to someone who calls me up on the telephone and offers me “X” number of dollars per acre.  So Leonard has been engaged and working on this plan for probably three or four years.  But, I wanted you to know that I went to Leonard; Leonard didn’t come to me.  I went to Leonard and I was looking for someone who I thought could develop this property and leave the open space and be as gentle to the development as possible.  That’s why I got Leonard into this so I’ll let him defend himself.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments Mr. Vail.  Mr. Corsi?

MR. LEONARD CORSI:  Hi, my name is Leonard Corsi.  I’m with NexTerra Ltd.  We are the developers for the proposed development.  I live at 715 Wye Rd. in Bath, Ohio.

I’d like to just take a few moments, and I know you’ve seen most of this plan before but just take a few moments to recap some of this information that was just read off, but I would like to take just this time to review it.  We are requesting a zoning change from R-R to R-3.  We have 73.6 acres on both the north and south sides of Everhard Rd.  Of that, there are 59.8 acres net taking out the public right of way, gas wells, ditch channel, sanitary easements, gas easements, wetlands and ponds.  Based upon that net is how we come up with the 131 units.  With the R-3 zoning we would be able to obtain more density if we wanted to have more attached units and if we laid them out differently, but this is not our interest.  Our interest is to have a plan that works with the land and for the community.  We are proposing 131 units which is the same number of units allowed under the existing R-R zoning.  They are comprised of five fee simple lots of 20,000 sq. ft. each, sixty fee simple lots detached with a minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. lots and a minimum of 10 ft. setbacks for both the side and rear yards, and sixty-six condominium units.

I’d like to just take a moment and address the adjacent zoning.  The adjacent zoning is R-R (Rural Residential), R-1 (Single-Family), R-4 (Multi-Family) and R-6 PUD as demonstrated on the slide in back of you and there is a considerable amount of the R-4 and R-6 as you can see and our development really does function within the character and the nature of the area of all surrounding properties.  The requirement in the R-3 zoning is for 25% open space and accordingly that would mean 15 acres of open space on the parcel that we are developing.  Our plans show 63, I’m sorry, 61% open space with 36.67 acres of open space land.

The major difference from our original layout is that we have added approximately five acres to our original plan to facilitate an additional point of ingress and egress to the development with a traffic signal.  That is located at Hills & Dales and Everhard Rd.  This actually was a suggestion in our last… when we were last proposing it.  It was a very good and constructive suggestion that was actually criticism with a solution.  The reason we’re back to you so late is it took twelve months of effort to obtain the property at some expense and time and money.  However, we feel it is worth it to have a better plan.  Also as noted on the Stark Planning Commission, with regard to the addition of the road, we do feel it is a good idea and I think after looking at it with their comments and then actually having met with a couple of the residents that would be affected by it on Marzilli Circle and in talking with out engineers, we believe that working with the county engineer that we can set up the road such that it would prevent a cut through, through Marzilli Circle and through Brunnerdale and really forcing all traffic into the development, so anybody would want to take more time to get somewhere can take that route.  I’m sure that once they have done it they won’t do it again.  So I just wanted to address that particular issue.

As I said before in our presentation and I really actually appreciate the opportunity of Rob Vail having called us for the development because most of our work, in fact all of our work, is by landowners who call us because of the nature of our vision in development.  We focus on sustainable design which is interchangeably used as conservation development and open space development.  What does that mean?  Well that means that we come into a piece of land and we look at it at how a development can fit on the land and how it works with the environment and how it affects the safety and the economics of the community itself.  In this particular development it is actually a beautiful site to see when you’re on the land with the rolling hills and the way it all works.  What we wanted to do is we wanted to protect that environment, we wanted to maintain those elevations and those view lines that if you’re in the development that you would be able to enjoy.  Plus we wanted to protect and enhance the wetland areas that are available on the site.  So not just going there and saying okay we’re going to stay away from them, we’re going to enhance them as part of what this development is about.  We’re showing an organic gardening.  We call it a small organic farm of approximately two acres.  I’m sure that in the past chemicals may have been used in the farming but from this point on what we really want to do is have an organic garden and work with that through the community and it’s been very successful in areas throughout the country that it’s been tried before.  We’ve taken a great deal of care in our design and in our layout.  We’ve laid out the total development within the cornfield farmed area itself without affecting any of the trees, waterways, or wetlands.  And besides that, we’ve taken into consideration the sensitivity to our neighbors directly abutting us.  We have committed to major buffers within our open space planning and actually they naturally occur and we naturally keep them there.  That’s why we develop the way we do instead of coming in and cut and burn and flatten because that is not who we are.  Plus it provides the quiet enjoyment that all of those who have purchased prior to the development of this land have bought into when they bought their property.  They basically don’t even know we are there.

Speaking of which, if you come down Everhard Rd. the hillsides along the main property to the north will be maintained in the trees.  The development will only be visible once you get up towards where, for today we can call it the Hills & Dales Extension, up in that area is the only area that the home would actually be visible.  We are committed to planting windrows over there to help shelter the homes themselves from the view of the road, as well as sheltering the view of the citizens going up and down the road as well.  Within the community we have taken great care to make sure that it is a walking community and that the open spaces can be enjoyed.  Prior to this we did have a traffic study conducted and the basics of the traffic study suggested that there is really no impact or deprivation of the traffic under the current conditions.

Last, I’d just like to say that it follows the 2020 plan of the Stark County recommendations with regard to how development should happen and really in the improvement of the health, safety, and welfare of the community.  So in keeping with that, I mean the type of development we are doing is really a solution to the sprawl that is happening in suburban and exurban areas, and your community is to be applauded in their new comprehensive plan commission.  You have a good company that you are working with and hopefully through some efforts and through some education you will understand that this is the answer to the sprawl that has been going on in this country that everybody is complaining about, and that people have to continue to move further and further out.  That is not going to stop.  There has been a study that basically says 70% of the growth that happens is going to be in exurban green field areas and that’s even in areas such as Oregon which has an absolute growth boundary.  Seventy percent of their growth is going to be happening in green fields.  So it depends on how you want to treat it whether or not you want to maintain open spaces that we’re trying to do and we’re trying to create some alternative life styles & living styles for people who want to live in a different way that don’t necessarily need big mansions to mow the north forty, but to enjoy the same opportunity as having the north forty with out having to go out there and take care of it.  Thank you and I look forward to the rest of the evening.

One more thing, because I got so involved in talking, just to show you this is the existing property.  This is an aerial view showing you the corn field and as your looking at this particular plan, to your right is a hillside with trees and there’s a pond up at the top of the property on the west.  So anyways, I just wanted to show you the hillside that I was talking about.  If you look at the pond that’s on the north side of Everhard, and that’s the hillside with the trees and are still remaining, and what I’d like to do is show the overlay of our development on the property to show you that we are maintaining those areas that we discussed.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Mr. Corsi.  Are there any questions for Mr. Corsi?

MR. BERGMAN:  Just a quick question regarding something that was in the RPC.  One of the clarifications was whether you own the small parcel of acreage, 3.9 acres.

MR. CORSI:  We are in contention that my surveyors say we do.

MR. BERGMAN:  So it is more of a clarification.

MR. CORSI:  It’s an open space piece anyway and it’s actually on the south side of Everhard.  If we have to concede to them on that I’m sure we will.

MR. RUSSELL:  I have one question.  There was some question raised about that regarding the possible rental units there.  Is there anything in the covenants and restriction that would limit or prohibit rental of property?

MR. CORSI:  We have nothing in the covenants and conditions that prohibit rental.  All of the units are being developed as for sale units.

MR. RUSSELL:  But there is nothing that would keep various owners from deciding to move somewhere else and convert and retain ownership and rent the property.

MR. CORSI:  No, there is nothing in our covenants with regard to that.

MR. RUSSELL:  Is that something that would be considered.  I know that is something that is frequently done in condominium developments.

MR. CORSI:  I guess I would like to answer that with maybe a couple of examples.  When we prevent somebody from a rental potential, I have one personal example which is myself.  When I lived in Bath I took and had to go to a project in Illinois and I was there for twenty-four months.  I particularly did not want to sell my house and did not sell my house.  I rented my house for twenty-four months and moved back into the very same home.  So what we would be doing is precluding the very property rights that we’ve been afforded as a nation and as people and I think that when we start to talk about rentals and how we handle that, that the restrictions, if there are any or if there are any contemplations, they have to be very well thought out because there are many instances like that especially in today’s job market.  I know of another young man who lives in North Carolina who had to go up to work for his company in Chicago for a 12 month stay and he knows he’s going back to North Carolina, does not want to sell his home, so he rents his home for 12 months and moves back.  So I think it can be a dicey issue for some people especially if they are saying I want to buy a home but there’s a chance I may get transferred and there’s a chance I may not.  There is a lot of different instances.  There could be a provision but with rentals there may be a hardship provision of some sort.  As long as it gives them some type of flexibility to address those issues because I think that is only fair in property ownership.

MR. RUSSELL:  I understand that, but I think it’s also within the rights of the other owners.

MR. CORSI:  There may be ways to work that out and those are ways that we would be willing to investigate.  We wouldn’t want to do a blanket no rentals but the hardship, as you know, if you’re on leave for a year or two years for some reason there ought to be an opportunity, but with a time period that doesn’t allow maybe monthly rentals but a year or two lease, but you either have to move back in within that period of time or forfeit it.  But those are types of things that we would consider.

MR. RUSSELL:  That would be something I would be very interested in seeing.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Mr. Corsi, would that be something that would then not appear in a deed restriction, but would rather be addressed by a homeowner.

MR. CORSI:  Right, by the homeowners.

MS. MAGYAROS:  I also had a question.  Last year when we were looking at this project you emphasized sidewalks and front porches and I thought you had a great idea with a light that you were going to put on everyone’s house that would alert for emergency vehicles.  Are you still ….

MR. CORSI:  That will be part and within our covenants, conditions and restrictions.  There will be some design criteria and that will be within our design criteria.  This is something we spoke to the fire department about.  There was actually a fire ingress-egress to the lower half off of Wackerly there that came off of Everhard.  One of the questions was how is that handled by the fire department.  The way those are handled is there is a drive that they can drive down and has a gate across it with a knox lock on it, which is a lock that only fire departments have a key to, to open in case of an emergency.  I just wanted to address that since we were talking about it.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Any other questions for Mr. Corsi?  (There were none at this time)  Any body else that would like to speak in favor of the amendment?

MR. GEORGE DIEHL:  George Diehl, 5903 Queensway St.  Our property is directly adjacent to the Vail family farm and any development there will have a direct and permanent affect on our daily life and on our property values.  We always knew that property would be developed but we could only hope that the Vail’s would choose a responsible and considerate developer.  I believe they have done so.  From the buffer zones, to the setbacks, to accommodations for traffic, Mr. Corsi has shown that he wants to be a good neighbor.  Like wise he seems to be offering our township what we say we want.  This is a new sort of neighborhood with different types of homes for different types of buyers.  It offers a unique approach to the extensive preservation of green space that we always say that we want.  It seems to me that under the current zoning a different sort of developer who adheres to the letter of the law but not its spirit could easily do something that we would long regret, whereas Mr. Corsi is showing us right up front what he wants to do and offering us great control over how he does it.  I hope you will give this consideration based on its merits and not on what has happened somewhere else in the past or on what might happen somewhere else in the future.  Mr. Corsi deserves a fair shake and those of us who live next door to the Vail family farm are relying on you to do the right thing.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Mr. Diehl.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the amendment?

MS. JOYCE LEMON:  My name is Joyce Lemon.  I live at 5896 Marzilli Circle.  I grew up right next to this property.  When it was time for it to be developed, I looked at the plan and I realized that a lot of that traffic was going to go right past my house out onto Brunnerdale, which wouldn’t be problem, but Mr. Corsi spent a lot more time and effort and has made an access out of that property to a traffic light which alleviated one of my big concerns.  The rest of the development is one of the best that I’ve ever seen.  I even took the plan to my ex-father-in-law, Bill Lemon, who had offered Mr. Vail more for the property along with Bob Dehoff.  When he looked at it he said this is a beautiful design, and better than anything he or Bob would have done.  So I was pretty happy with that cause I realized that there is a lot of green space here.  The townhouse condominiums are located near a very loud and busy street so I didn’t think a lot of people would want big homes along that busy intersection because I live right on Marzilli Circle and I hear at night the noise from the car radios stopped at three in the morning and two in the morning that wake me up through a brick ranch house.  So I figured that most people wouldn’t want big expensive homes next to that busy intersection or that busy traffic.  I’m very happy with the design and I think that so much of that has been left natural that I don’t think any developer would do better.  That’s really all I’d like to say.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Ms. Lemon.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the amendment?

MR. CHARLES BENNELL:  My name is Charles Bennell.  My wife Diane and I live at 5555 Everhard Rd. NW.  We are right next to the property.  Our house is on 4 plus acres and you can see the pond from the back of our property in the lower right side of the screen, so we back up to the buffer area.  On one level you know it couldn’t have much impact on us anyhow because it’s wetlands and floodplain and stream.  It’s a natural buffer.  That’s part good but the other part is that we really like the way the development process has been thought through.  I’ve lived there for 16 years and I’ve known the Vail family all my life.  As I looked at this the first time, I really have the sense that it’s being done the right way.  I think with that family having owned the home, the property, for decades it’s perfectly clear to me that they want to leave a legacy behind them when they no longer own it, and I think they have spent a lot of time thinking about that.  So it’s in that context that we are very comfortable with the plan and we hope you will recommend approval for it.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the amendment? (No one came forward)  Okay at this time we will turn to anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment.

MR. CLARK RICHARDS:  Good evening.  My name is Clark Richards.  I live at 5290 Schario Rd.  I came up here tonight prepared to basically bring some fire and brimstone but as you can see tonight that there isn’t a large audience here.  The reason there isn’t a large audience here is because I choose not to get the word out, put flyers out and let the public know what’s going on, and I think it’s another example of where the community is really uniformed when things like this go on.  But, I’m also up here with mixed feelings because I’ve seen the plan and I’ve talked with Mr. Corsi and I will say on one side it does seem to be a good plan and I know that there are some people behind me that possibly I may be disappointing because I’m not standing up here completely saying that I’m against it.  I will say though that I’m not totally for it, so if I’m talking a little confused tonight I am.  The one thing I want to ensure is that I’m not really fully understanding of the PUD and what the requirements are.  I know there are green spaces and I know that they are allowed tight housing and so forth.  The thing I’m concerned about is the PUD right at this time during the stages when we’re trying to put together a comprehensive plan for the township.  I’m not saying we shouldn’t have them and I’m saying that this should not belong here on the Vail farm but what I’m not sure about is, is this the time to do a zone change when so much is at stake with this plan?  Possibly Mr. Corsi is setting the example of what a PUD should be, but I think also in the plan that is being discussed with the McKenna group, which is a community planning agency that the trustees have hired, they have identified some goals and objectives that the comprehensive planning steering committee is looking at to possibly further improve our community.  Some of those goals, and I’d like to go over them because I think if their not discussed tonight or at least pressed upon with Mr. Corsi it could possibly bring a PUD into our environment that we’re not satisfied with.  Some of those are, and the goals that have been placed before the steering committee are to lower the allowable density of residential development in undeveloped areas and currently this is an undeveloped area; investigate the feasibility of limiting the number of residential permits granted each year.  It’s not to say that an individual can’t develop their land but we’re not going to develop it in two years.  We cannot have continuous growth where we’ve exploded out every piece of green space in the land in a short period of time.  The comprehensive plan is designed for over twenty years, and I think we want the growth to be managed over a twenty year span, so I think that the investigation of the feasibility of limiting the number of residential permits in a given year is critical to our township.  Investigate the feasibility of impacting fees on developers for new developments that will provide for associate infrastructure needs that might be required down the line.  There are also some goals that the comprehensive planning committee is looking at for land use.  One of those is to require developers to present a high quality landscape design and site plan review.  Although Mr. Corsi has a very nice plan I’d like it etched in stone that we are going to have those trees.  I’d like to have it etched in stone that we’re not going to see this development when I drive down Everhard Rd.  I’d like it etched in stone that the egress and ingresses are going to be attractive to the eye.  And I also like to make sure that the walkways will be there that he’s saying will be put in place.  Whether a PUD currently requires that, I don’t know.  But these are goals that I think the comprehensive steering plan committee is looking at that we want all developers to be forced to do.  I’m doing this from the blind so bear with me.  One of the other things that we’re talking about in land use is increase the amount of open space and Mr. Corsi appears to have done a nice job, but one of the main things that the comprehensive plan steering committee is trying to do is build corridors that allows residents within our community to get from one point of our township to another point without having to get into a car and drive down the road.  If you came to the meeting last night you saw some of the presentations where we had green corridors that were connecting possible green spaces that that township would like to pursue down the road.  So although Mr. Corsi has a nice plan here, we would also like to see these developers preserve a greenway corridor.  I know he says these are for the residents that are there, but if it’s that nice I’m sure that you, as well as myself, would like to take the opportunity to enjoy the lakes and the streams that are in that area.

Goals for natural resources, and I would say that this is a beautiful property.  I’ve never been on it, but it does appear to me that it has a lot of valuable resources to this community.  There is a stream that runs down through it that I’m assuming feeds the lakes.  That stream, based on the comprehensive planning steering committees documents that we have, basically starts over on Devonshire Park.  They call it an unnamed stream.  That flow of water goes through his property, feeds down through the flood plain, and I would assume ultimately goes down to Sippo Lake Park.  I guess we want to make sure that the integrity of our water quality, streams, ponds, and wetlands are not destroyed by these types of developments or future developments.  And the way to do that, we want to be able to dock building setbacks along streams and wetlands that vary from at least fifty feet back to one hundred twenty feet back.  We also want to create what’s called a floodplain overlay zone.  I’m not sure exactly what that means at this time but I get the understanding that it means it is a more protected area on how homes can be built in those areas.  This property is very close to a one hundred year flood plain.  In fact it runs through it.

We also want to make sure that developers have water management plans.  And I’m not sure if Mr. Corsi has presented a plan at this point in time, but not only does this need water management, so does all the developers and I would like to see that Mr. Corsi presents a stern water management plan because I do believe that with the slopes that are on this property and if you look at the plan, most of the slopes in this area are between six and eighteen percent and some of them are up to twenty-five to fifty percent slopes, which means water is going to come running down the hills.  He needs to make sure that the water is maintained and protects the homes that are below it and also protects the homes as it goes down through Sippo Park and those areas because we all know that floods along 12th St. when we have high water.

My point being is that, is it time to let this go through?  I don’t know.  I think there could be opportunities lost if we approve it tonight without allowing the comprehensive plan to be completed, because according to the Ohio Revised Code, as we all know, zoning should be done in accordance to a comprehensive plan.  Currently our plan is not current and is in the process of being updated.  Also in this plan as I mentioned a few of the goals, there are over seventy of these types of goals that the committee is reviewing to try to improve our community and give a long twenty year vision of something we can all be proud of.

One of the things I’d like to identify with this property that I have a strong concern about, that is about the safety and welfare of the public.  I am very pleased that he did purchase the additional acreage to bring the egress and ingress out of Everhard Rd.   I’m sorry Hills & Dales.  I think that is very important.  However, I still have a strong concern about the ingress and egress that comes out to your right there where I think it is Willowdale Rd.  I still believe that a lot of traffic will come out of there.  Cars do come down over that hill very fast and I do feel that is a vehicle and accidental threat.  I would like to see that being changed to an in only; one way in and you cannot come out.  If you want to leave that facility you go out at the traffic light.  You can turn right, but you can’t turn left.

The other thing I have a strong concern about is the fire lane.  Although I know he mentioned that lane is protected by a special lock and key, I would have my doubts that that would operate in that manner and I assume over time it would become eroded and opened and people would use it all the time.  Whichever is quickest to get out of my neighborhood, that’s the way I’m going to go.  I would prefer that road be moved down to Wackerly Rd.  The reason for that is there are too many ingresses and egresses currently on Everhard Rd. today and the fewer the better.

Another major concern that I have, and I think this is voiced by some people that are here, is the condominium properties that are behind the fire station.  I do not think they are really appropriate for that area.  We’d like to see if there could be fewer, and if there are going to be fewer, we want them to be hidden.  That is one of the areas when you come into Jackson Township, at least from the east or the west side, that last thing I want to look at is a bunch of rooftops, and as you drive down that hill that’s all you’ll see is rooftops.

So, although I’m not saying I’m for it; I’m not saying I’m against it.  I’m saying there are still revisions that should be made before you consider this plan.  I think there ought to be, as I stated, a high profile plan for landscaping.  I think there ought to be a safety concern brought up as far ingresses and egresses into those properties.  I also think that timing is everything and Mr. Corsi and Mr. Vail I think, at this point in time, have picked bad timing.  Had this plan after our comprehensive plan is complete and is in place and we all say PUD’s are great and we think PUD’s should be assigned in these areas and these are the requirements of PUD’s, then I wouldn’t be hear tonight.

The one thing that I think you all remember is that these owner’s properties; they are not being deprived of their rights.  Although I know they want to do a nice development, if you deny it tonight or postpone it until the comprehensive plan is complete, they still can develop the property as single family use.  Importantly, I would still say that it does match some of the characteristics in those areas of the homes of large lots; single family homes.

So, I would just kind of close and say that because of the comprehensive plan that is not complete, I believe the approval of this application is early.  I think the plan should be done.  I think there needs to be more study of the water runoffs.  At this time I’m going to close with that, and if I disappointed some people behind me then I apologize, but I came here with mixed feelings and I’m speaking for me.  That’s all.  Thanks.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments Mr. Richards.  We do actually have several of our members that serve on the zoning commission also serve on the comprehensive plan steering committee, and I don’t know at this time if…. Mr. Benner I know you’re on that committee and Mr. Bergman you’re on that committee, if you have any comments.  I don’t participate in that committee so I don’t know if you have any comments to Mr. Richard’s concerns about completion of the plan or what’s going on with that.  I hate to put you on the spot but I guess I am.

MR. BENNER:  I don’t really have any comments at this point and time.  Mr. Richard’s is also on the comprehensive plan, so he knows of what he speaks as far as his participation and as a member of that committee.  There are, as Mr. Richard’s said, a number of issues that are before that body and they are being considered as far as what recommendations might be made.  That would just be speculation on my part at this point in time.  We are about half way through the process.  Timing, as Mr. Richard’s said, is an issue as far as this particular zoning request is concerned and as far as the work of that committee is concerned.  It’s probably six months to a year for completion I would guess for that committee.

MR. BERGMAN:  I think it might be a little bit quicker than that.  Maybe four months or four to six months, but yea it’s going to be a little bit longer because particularly we are into, as Mr. Richard’s said, we are into the goals and objectives and priorities.  In many cases some of the concerns are how to execute the goals, so we are just getting into that area where we can define what the township can do to make sure our goals are sustainable.  That is part of the difficulty that we are going to have to deal with.

MS. CONAWAY:  Is there anything that stands out being on that committee at this time that is just glaring at you that is going against everything that people are saying they want in this plan.

MR. BERGMAN:  I haven’t seen anything glaring.  As a matter of fact I think it is more questionable as to things that were talked about like the connection of the properties, the concern of the water sheds, and the concern of the density and its impact on the infrastructure.  All of those would be questions that we would ask anyone so I don’t think they are glaring.  It’s to my thoughts that the commissions objective is also to identify solutions that both the community and developers can live with and that’s really, I think, the questions I’m going to have in my mind tonight.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Do we have anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?

MR. BENNER:  I have a question for Mr. Richard’s before someone else speaks.  If the concerns that you have, and there are restrictions that the county has as far as water control, we know that the county does the job that they do such as it is, and I’m sure they try to do a good job, but there are restriction for when they file their plans as to how well they can handle the water runoff.  They do studies on the kind of soils that are there, and as you mentioned, the fall of the land and the amount of water that is going to drain through there and all those things are taken into consideration.  So that is something that any change that the comprehensive plan comes up with, is not really going to change that.  That’s a county driven function and I know there are some people here that know a lot more about water than I do and a lot more about those kinds of things, but they are things the county tries to control and help all the property owners do that.

MS. MAGYAROS:  We’ll ask you to approach so we can have you on the record please.  Thank you.  Just so we can get you on the tape recorder.

MR. RICHARDS:  I guess that I could highlight that one of the goals of the natural resources that is in that document we are talking about was to integrate a storm water management planning into our zoning resolution that provides a basis for the township to enforce.  So I guess possibly, maybe, the county engineers help them do that, but it seems like there’s been examples where the township has been caught in the middle because of poor storm water management.  So I would say in this area here that where the comprehensive planning committee is trying to look upon is to put some teeth into something that says, “Hey, you said that this was going to support this water and this was not going to be a problem Mr. Developer; fix it.  It’s not my problem.”  We can’t do that, because we get caught in the middle.

MR. BENNER:  Mr. Corsi, can you point us to elements that would be somewhat similar to this where you’ve had success in controlling the water situation, or have you had experience in this kind of construction.

MR. CORSI:  Yes, in fact every project we do we have to have success at it because much of what we do, to give you an example, part of our vision, part of what our company does as sustainable developers is we even do a lot of infill development which means we are already dealing with very tight bad situations where there is flooding occurring already.  So our neighbors, usually we help fix problems.  We have a very nice success story in North Olmstead with regard to that.  We are doing a very large re-development, and it’s an 80 million dollar development in the city of Parma Heights and we are implementing a 2 acre storm retention underground so that there aren’t mosquito problems, etc.  It’s a very important factor and what’s more important to us is that it is our reputation because we need to walk the talk, okay?  If we’re going to say who we are in this country as we develop because that’s what we are basing our reputation on.  Just to reiterate, our whole concern here and what we are doing with the current ponds and the current wetland areas, is we are enhancing them.  We will put in new bioswales.  We will be putting in wetland plants for filtration so that the silt runoff that is occurring and affecting our pond on our land gets cleaned up.  So we are going to be helping that.  The current runoff of the cornfield is greater than I believe, and I don’t want to speak…I’ll say it this way.  It is no greater than the development itself that we are proposing, or our development is not greater than the runoff that comes off of the cornfield per the calculations that our engineers have run.  But, the county and we are required by law with regards to storm retention and we take that very seriously and what it does to impacting wetlands and the environment.  That is one issue.

Just one quick thing and I took this information from the planning, from your comprehensive planning commission, and the headline was, “Top Visions from the Visioning Workshop.”  Number three was, “use smart growth to preserve open space.”  Number six in that was, “cluster housing, preserve green space.”  I attended the meeting last night and on the demographics board one of the headlines on it was, “to provide diverse housing opportunities for residents of various ages and income levels.”  Under the transportation and land use they were talking about sidewalks, trails, and connections.  All of which we are providing within our development.  Again, we applaud you on your comprehensive planning and I applaud Clark Richards on his concern about a development prior to completing this, but you’ve gone through some painstaking comprehensive planning even before this, and there’s mounds of documentation that PUD’s are what’s helping communities today from the onslaught, the sprawl, storm water management, preservation of open space, wetlands, etc.  I just wanted to bring that up.

MR. BENNER:  While we’re not looking for an exact date, but could you give some idea of the build out time for this.  Just a ballpark.

MR. CORSI:  We feel this is somewhere around a 48 month build out.

MS. CONAWAY:  I was wondering, Mr. Corsi, what Mr. Richard’s said about the ingress and egress.  I share his concern and I mentioned that to you when this was brought before this board before with Willowcrest and ingress and egress.  I think it was something that I had mentioned about if you could tie that in with that intersection where there is a light there at Hills & Dales.  What you have done I am very impressed.

MR. CORSI:  Well, we haven’t done it yet because we still have to get through the county engineer.  But we are trying.

MS. CONAWAY:  But I think that makes a lot of sense.  Would you consider perhaps a lane going over off to the right so that people could only turn right into there?  Would that work?

MR. CORSI:  We talked and anybody could go back to the public minutes.  I’ve agreed to a deceleration lane in order to come in right to the entrance at Willowcrest there.

MS. CONAWAY:  How would you do that?  Are you talking about turning in from either direction?

MR. CORSI:  It’s a deceleration.  A deceleration would be coming from east to west to Belden Village and the decel would be on the right so that anybody slowing down to go in there could get into the decel and then turn into the development.

MS. CONAWAY:  I think that is real important there.  What about if they are going toward Belden Village?

MR. CORSI:  The reason we had talked about the decel is that as you come over the hill coming from Belden Village out this way, that there is some concern as to the ability to see the person slowing down before it’s too late.  Coming back the other way, your line of vision is very good and you have plenty of time for slowing down.

MS. CONAWAY:  Even though it is good, I’ve noticed in some developments where they would make a left turn lane and kind of build that in.  Is that something you would consider?

MR. CORSI:  Actually that is…Well Jack and I were just talking and I guess the thing is, is this:  my opinion is that, one it will encourage people more to turn left in.  The idea in coming up with the traffic light, and I think we will be successful once we work with them, is that it is human nature to go the path of least resistance and what will happen is most people will end up going to the traffic light to begin with.  I mean that is pretty much, if you set it up, one is that we definitely need to have the ingress and egress where we have it there.  We had a second off of Marzilli Circle there which helps from the fire and safety.  Adding the traffic light is just another good move from a traffic standpoint and really I think the ability to get out at the traffic light will drive people toward the traffic light.

MS. CONAWAY:  I agree.  My concern with the left hand turn going north toward Belden Village, my concern is not that the people don’t have plenty of view of that person turning left that are behind them, my concern is that they are going to sit there for a while before they can turn left because of the traffic coming the other way, not to mention that the view not only it is not good for that person turning right, it’s not good for that person turning left in front of them either.  So that’s my concern.  That’s a heavily traffic…and anybody that’s on Hills & Dales, and I travel that road everyday and anyone that is on that road will tell you that when someone stops there to turn left, especially in a spot like that, they are going to sit there awhile and that’s going to cause some problems.  I really feel that might be a safety issue.

MR. CORSI:  I guess I would say that if I was going north that I would turn in at the traffic light at the road I was at before I came down to this portion to get to the road.

MS. CONAWAY:  Well that’s true too.

MR. CORSI:  So it really is… in coming from that direction, and that’s why it really was a great suggestion for that access point up there.

MS MAGYAROS:  I had one other question about the intersection that you are talking about improving and adding that forth leg to the intersection.  Do you plan on paying for that or is the township?  How are we handling that because I know we’ve talked about developers that want to improve infrastructure, but then the township ends up footing the bills.

MR. CORSI:  Well we know where that falls.

MS. MAGYAROS:  What was that.

MR. CORSI:  We know where that all falls; to us for the record, cause the record would get there anyway.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Because that is something that they are talking about, making the developer more responsible.

MR. CORSI:  We understand.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

MR. GENE BARNHART:  My name is Gene Barnhart.  I live at 2805 Coventry Lane NW.  As you look at this plan it is very clear that there has been a tremendous amount of thought put into the plan.  Just a little bit of background. I have a great diversity of history with zoning.  I was the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals in this township for sixteen years.  I was a member of that board for thirty-two.  I also have been a developer both in Lake Township and in this township.  I think the plan appears to be very nice.  I just think the application is made at the wrong time.  Let’s take a look at what has happened in this township.  The long range planning committee, which is the development plan, just didn’t come up over night.  It arose because the township trustees felt very strongly the pressure that was being placed upon them by the citizens in this community to establish a procedure for the orderly development of this township.  The last time that there was a long range plan made in this township was when we actually classified our situation in this township in 1981 so that apartment buildings couldn’t be built just about anyplace.  I was the vice chairman of that committee, which was the commission actually.  So that we have in place right now a long range planning commission which to develop a comprehensive plan which is already been discussed here this evening.  That’s item number one.  Item number two, last week we read in the newspaper that the township trustees were alarmed by the explosion in the issuance of building permits.  As a consequence they employed counsel to inquire into whether or not there could be some sort of moratorium established.  I think it is important that when we recognize those two things that we consider that this plan, which certainly is very attractive and I don’t think there is any question that Mr. Corsi is a very capable developer, but we have a situation where the property which lies almost entirely in an R-R area is being proposed for development as a PUD, and we have that at a time that two things are going on in this township which might change that concept if it could be changed.  But if you folks make that change tonight to permit this, then it can never be changed.  And as Mr. Richard’s pointed out earlier, you are not depriving this applicant of any right that they don’t already have.  Your board is under no obligation; your commission, pardon me, your commission is under no obligation to provide a developer with a different kind of zoning which enables them to develop the land in perhaps a more profitable fashion.  That’s not your function.  Your function is to ensure that there is proper zoning in the community which is consistent with a general plan of development and in accordance with good zoning and is for the public good.  It seems to me that if you folks decide this issue tonight, and this is nobody’s fault that it happened this way and I’m not blaming the applicant and I’m not blaming the board, or commission.  I’m accustomed to saying board so excuse me, but if you make this decision tonight I believe that you are actually defying the clear directives and goals which have already been established in this township by the trustees who are the elected representative of us in the community.  And when I was an appointed member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and I want to remind you that you are appointed and you are not elected, and the elected officials in this community have directed that we have to have another look at what is going on with our zoning.  They have done that because that isn’t something that they pulled out of the air.  That is a reflection of the attitude of this community that we need clear direction in our zoning, that we need a comprehensive plan to tell us where we are going, and I do not think it is appropriate for your board at this point, and I point out and I say at this point, and I’m not saying at some future time, but I’m saying at this point and at this time in history it is not appropriate for your body to essentially if you do because I don’t know how your going to decide, but if you do decide to grant this application I think you are overruling the directives of the trustees who are the people who appointed you.  I don’t think that should happen.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Mr. Barnhart I don’t disagree with your comments in that the trustees are in the process of developing this comprehensive plan that all of us I think in the township want to see done.  My concern is if we don’t take some kind of action tonight and we sit back and we say it remains rural residential, technically it is still out of our hands because they can still develop it as rural residential and then the developers will be required to have the 20,000 sq. ft. lots and we have no control as far as green space, open space, preserving natural amenities that are found there on the property.  So that’s kind of where I’m caught in between yea we can hold off tonight and say we don’t want to see a change, but yet legally we can’t stop him from at some point going ahead and developing it as a rural residential development which we have very little control over as a zoning commission.

MR. BARNHART:  (Spoke from the audience which was inaudible.)

MS. MAGYAROS:  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?

MS. SUSAN SIGMON:  Good evening.  My name is Susan Sigmon.  I live at 3178 Trillium Circle NW.  I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening.  I have, or someone in my family has lived at that address for forty years now.  To give a point of reference, Trillium Ave. is off of Brunnerdale once you turn left onto Hills & Dales.  I travel Everhard and/or Hills & Dales at least two to five times a day.  I am a licensed social worker by trade so that means that I work with people and I know people.  I certainly and readily admit that I don’t understand the technicalities of watersheds and development and so on.  I know that Mr. Corsi is weaving a wonderful tale and my biggest concern is the accountability that is going to be built into what he is saying.  I certainly agree with my colleagues Mr. Richards and Mr. Barnhart in their statements.  I wholeheartedly agree with what they said earlier.  My biggest concern is the accountability that is going to be built in.  When I hear words like, “will work with them” and “sustainable development” my radar goes up and I’m very concerned about what that exactly means.  When I hear that there is fifteen acres of green space I certainly question what kind of pieces and parts makes that up.  I just am very concerned about that and I also concur wholeheartedly with the need for us to step back and realize what we are doing at this time and how important that comprehensive plan is.  I was a wee child of six when we moved onto Trillium Ave. and when I think of the growth and the development that this township has gone through, it really disgusts me that our consumptive society has allowed this township to be developed as it has, and I would like to ask all of you to be held accountable to what you are doing this evening as well.  Again, I appreciate you letting me speak this evening.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Ms. Sigmon did you say you thought there were fifteen acres of green space?

MS. SIGMON:  Yes.

MS. MAGYAROS:  There is actually I believe thirty-six acres in the plan.

MS. SIGMON:  How did I hear fifteen?

MS. MAGYAROS:  Fifteen is the minimum permitted based upon the acreage in an R-3 PUD.  He would be required at a minimum to have fifteen acres and this plan has thirty-six, so just to clarify that for you.

MS. SIGMON:  Thank you for the clarification, and my questions would still remain how much of that is pieces and parts and what is continual.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?

MR. MIKE CADY:  My name is Mike Cady.  I live at 3600 Wackerly Dr. and I’d just like to say at this time, which has been used a lot tonight, I’m opposed to this zoning change.  I think you guys...I hope that you can stand up a little bit and don’t let this small crowd think that everybody has given up on this.  Stick with your gut and try to hold these people off and don’t let them bully you into a quick decision because they are not going to tear that land up too quickly, and I hope you guys can hold off a little longer too try to get the comprehensive plan in motion.  This may end up happening and I’m sure it will someday.  I’ll have houses right in front of me which makes me sick, and someday I’m going to have them right behind me if Tam O’Shanter is allowed to pass.  There is a lot of emotions in situations such as this.  A lot of people are tired of this dragging on and I’m sure a lot of you are also.  I’m sure you guys are also.  Ultimately these guys here don’t care about us.  These guys don’t care.  Their trying to sell these people right here and we got to back these two up because they care about us and they are suppose to.  Mr. Vail I just want to thank you.  You mentioned your good memories and being there with your grandfather.  I’ve walked on your farm since I was about six with my grandfather and I think it is beautiful and I wish I had the money to give you right now because I’d buy it and leave it the way it is but I don’t.  I hope we can just hold off a little bit and then look at this more in depth and if it happens after that, that is fair for everybody.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?  (No one came forward)  Okay then we will start with comments from our zoning commission members and Mr. Russell I’ll start with you down on the end.

MR. RUSSELL:  I guess one of the first things that I’d like to address is that our vote tonight is merely a recommendation to the trustees.  It is there I think that the concerns about the possibility of a moratorium, the concepts that are being discussed in terms of the comprehensive plan, are probably better known there than for most of us here.  So ultimately the final decision rest with them and I’m sure that decision will be made in the context of what is happening with the comprehensive plan and their feelings about the impact that this change might happen.  I think we as a commission, lacking a moratorium or a request from the trustees to suspend any rezoning requests, need to act as they come and the trustees can then dispose of that recommendation as they please.  I believe from what I’ve seen and heard and understand about the R-3 versus the R-R, that the R-3 really offers the most guarantees to people of this township that the land will be protected in the ways that it is described in the plan.  I think it preserves the nature of that area.  I don’t believe it is inconsistent with that area.  I think the existence of different housing opportunities is a plus for people who would like to retain or remain in this area but may not necessarily want to live and maintain a half acre lot.  So that’s my thoughts on it.  I obviously lean towards this because I think overall it offers the best possibilities versus leaving it R-R which provides no guarantees about what will happen with that land in terms of being stripped, graded, and so on, at least not nearly as many as the R-3, which requires a plan that must be followed.  So that’s the nature of my comments.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you.  Mr. Bergman.

MR. BERGMAN:  First off I just want to thank Mr. Vail for coming tonight.  I really do appreciate that you took the time to come and address this and give us a little bit of history of how this thing occurred.  I want to just bring up something that I think Ms. Sigmon mentioned.  What does sustainable development mean?

MR. CORSI:  I’d be happy to give you the definition.

MR. BERGMAN:  Any definition would work for me.

MR. CORSI:  Basically sustainable development in a nutshell is where you mediate the tensions between economics, environment, the community and safety and welfare.  That is what sustainable development is.  So what does it really mean in reality?  The reality of it is that you come in and you work with the lay of the land.  As developers over the years and when I first started in the business the way we developed is any tree was gone because it is easier to go in and clear cut and flatten.  So that’s the way that we use to develop, or I used to develop, when I worked for others.  That’s why I have my own firm; so we can do sustainable conservation development, okay?  So that we can look at the land and say what fits on the land and walk softly on it when we’re developing it.  And by virtue of the last person in opposition said, “Well what pieces of land are you giving me and are they contiguous?”  I would submit to you, that all of the open space is contiguous and there are acres upon acres. There’s at least seven acres up in the right hand corner of old growth and second growth trees.  Down here in the pond section there has to be another few several or five acres plus in between the court.  In between the back of the houses there is open space.  In between the condos and the single family detached there’s open space, and there’s trail connections to all of the open space.  Thank you.

MR. BERGMAN:  My final comment is really, as you surmised on, I am a sitting member of the comprehensive committee, and as impressed as I am with the plan itself and the fact that Mr. Vail came tonight, I have to commit to my presentation that I cannot in good conscience go against the plan of attack that the trustees have asked us to and that is to develop the comprehensive plan before anything else occurs in this township.  I’m impressed with everything you guys have done.  I understand the background of it, but I also understand the charge that I have by sitting on that comprehensive plan, and that’s a personal thing that I have to stand behind.  That’s my final comment.

MR. BENNER:  Mr. Corsi, I think this is a good plan.  I would comment that I’ve been coming to these zoning commission meetings for years, years prior to becoming a member, and every time it seems like there used to be PRD’s and now there’s PUD’s.  The people who really want these are the developers.  The people who never have anything good to say about them are the people who live around them.  I’m not quite sure why we still have them on the books if that many people in the township seem to feel that way about these and that’s one of the things that the comprehensive plan is looking at, to see whether that’s a zoning requirement that we should leave there.  As Russell said, this kind of a plan allows the township and the zoning commission to have some control over what happens here because Mr. Corsi or any other developer that comes in has to specifically spell out what they are going to do before they do it and they are kind of held to that.  An R-R development like we saw or an R-1 development like what is in the golf course area that we’re looking at right now, as was reported in the paper there is nothing there that is going to slow that down at this point in time.  All they have to do is ask for a plat plan, development plan, from the county and they go forward.  So you get very little input and very little control into the process.  Having said all of that in the grand scheme of things, a four to six month delay in this project, if it is a good project and if it’s meant to be after the comprehensive plan comes together, really won’t make much difference ten or fifteen years from now.  It may make a difference over the next four to six months to Mr. Corsi, but I don’t see that being a long term issue there.

MS. CONAWAY:  I have to agree with Steven and with David on every comment both of them brought up.  Number one, we are here to represent the people of this township.  If we do have a committee that is working right now in trying to come up with a comprehensive plan for this township, then I think we do need to honor that.  I think that is, and I agree with Mr. Barnhart and I know you served on the commission years ago with my father, we are here to serve the people of the township, and I think in respect to the people of the township, I agree four to six months won’t make that much difference.  I have to say that I think it is a beautiful plan.  I have to say that I’m impressed that you are working with us and working with the neighbors in that area trying to make things work for everyone that is concerned, but I still think being that it is a good plan, that four to six months should not make that much difference.  You do still have some things to work out with the traffic signal.  You would have time now to do that and every thing would be a little bit surer.  I would feel better having seen some of the things that’s happened in this township if we could have some things set in stone.  I agree with Mr. Richard’s on that.  We all know, I think, and I don’t have to mention the development that was allowed in without the zoning commission.  There was a time, and I don’t know if you are aware of this, but for a short time and this was because there was a group of trustees prior to this group that we have now that completely took the PRD’s out of the zoning commissions hands.  I don’t know if you are aware of that, but that was not a zone change.  You could start with an R-R property and you could make a PRD without a zone change.  And then with this new group of trustees that was quickly changed.  That was taken out of the zoning commissions hands by the way.   We had nothing to say about that.  So I think we are making strides in trying to do what the people of this township want, and the one thing that I have seen in the years that I have been on this commission and the years my father was on this commission, and I’ve lived here my whole life, is sometimes we get in a big hurry.  I agree with Mr. Benner that four to six months isn’t going to make that much difference when we’re talking about twenty to twenty-five years from now.  And I’m only sorry that I didn’t make the open meeting last night for what’s going on because I do have some ideas that I would like to mention.  In bringing that up now, any of you here tonight, they are open to any of your ideas.  It’s time we get ideas from people in the township.  You have good ideas.  We are here to listen, and I’m ready to sit back and give it some more time.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Well, being the legal person that I am of the group I immediately opened the zoning ordinances and began looking through it because I remembered that there is a section that we are required to make a decision within 30 days of the application being submitted.  The language reads the zoning commission shall make a decision to approve, deny, or modify the request within thirty days after the hearing is completed.  I think you can see based on the comments of my fellow commission members their desire to see this postponed for four to six months until we see that.  I’m going to leave it up to you.  Would you at this time consider withdrawing the application or postponing a vote on the application until we get a final report from our steering committee?  If not then we’ll have to go ahead, I believe under the zoning ordinance, and vote tonight.  And if you want a break to talk about this that is fine.

MR. CORSI:  Okay.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Why don’t we just take a five or ten minute recess.  You guys talk about that and then we’ll come back and make a decision.

(Off the record for applicant’s private discussion)

MS. MAGYAROS:  Are we ready to go back on the record.

MR. CORSI:  Yes.  This is a difficult decision in the discussion we’ve had for a short amount of time.  I’ve heard the board members suggest, what’s another four months or six potentially?  I looked at the schedule from your consultant and they don’t even know when this process is going to end.  We have been at this for three and one half years already so it’s not another four months to us.  I’ve heard people come up here and tell you what your charge is, and I would just like to say a couple of things with regard to that.  The comprehensive plan has been developed for this township.  The comprehensive planning is a fluid issue in all communities and comprehensive plans are always being revisited and re-envisioned.  Just because you’re in the middle of a new comprehensive planning doesn’t mean that you don’t go on with business and review things according to your current codified ordinances that are on the books.  I’ve also heard that it was the charge of the trustee to instruct you not to approve projects while the comprehensive plan was under consideration, and I see you thinking is that true, but if you go back I’d ask Joni to review the record; it was said.  So I would like to say my piece on that.  I would like to know if in fact the trustees did give that charge.  I’ve heard talk of a moratorium and I know in fact that there is no moratorium instructed by the trustees, so it is really with a very, very heavy heart that I listen to what’s being said here and the concerns that everybody has.  And when I look back here, I just want to say one thing.  All of my adjoining neighbors are for our project and they are for our project because it is a great project and it affects them most directly.  The people that you are looking to don’t live there, okay, and they are involved in the planning process.  We’ve talked about runoff.  We’ve talked about open space.  We’ve talked about planning and you know what, we’ve delivered you a great plan.  We’re going to ask you to vote tonight.  We expect to know what the vote is, but then we all will have to live with the vote.  So, we’re just going to ask you to go forward.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Okay, that’s fair.  I just wanted to give you that option.  I didn’t make comments on the project because we had gotten sidetracked with that issue.  I think everybody, or most people, probably know the last time this project was before us I was definitely for the project.  I think it is a beautiful plan.  It’s a beautiful piece of property and if I had my way I would say never develop it.  Never develop it and leave it as is.  Unfortunately, that is not an option facing us tonight.  A decision has to be made.  And a decision has to be made, do we keep this property rural residential or do we develop this property as an R-3 PUD.  I have weighed the factors and there are certain criteria that we are required to consider under our zoning code.  Those are contained in Section 805.10.  I would like to review them just to make it clear that we are considering those in making our decision tonight.  Those factors are, “Will it be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area.”  I think we know that we have an R-6 PUD across the street at Glenmoor.  We’ve got condos in the area and we have rural residential.  This development offers condos, single family dwellings, and also some 20,000 sq. ft. lots, so I think that it does fit in to that criteria and it blends well into that neighborhood.  The second factor is that it, “Will not be hazardous , disturbing and produce adverse effects upon such as traffic, noise or lights or otherwise adversely effect existing or future adjacent and/or surrounding uses or structures.”  At one of our previous hearings we adjourned so Mr. Corsi could have a traffic study conducted.  We went through that and it came back not any major impact on the traffic in the area; although, I know we are all struggling with the traffic issues out here and with road widening projects.  He’s talked about tonight that the buffering that would remain, the tree line, and the buffering that would be put in place as people approach to try to hide the development from cars traveling up and down Hills & Dales.  The third factor that we have to consider is that it, “Will not be detrimental to property in the immediate vicinity or to the community as a whole.”  I don’t think we’ve heard any comments tonight that has clearly established that there would be some detriment to surrounding property.  Drainage is always an issue.  Unfortunately none of us on this commission are experts at drainage and that is an issue that our Stark County Engineer will address if it gets that far.  The next factor is, “Will be serviced adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishments of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately for such service.”  We recently passed a levy out here last fall.  We realized that we needed to add on to some of our school buildings to accommodate all of the new developments that we’ve had in.  I think at that time somebody said that we had seventeen developments that sprung up, over night basically, and has affected the capacity that our schools have for the students, so I think we’ve addressed that issue.  We’re continually working on road issues.  We’ve moved around some fire stations in the township to better service our residents as far as that’s concerned, so I don’t think there has been anything negative in my mind that shows that we wouldn’t be able to adequately service our area if this development would go in.  The next factor is, “Will be in compliance with State, County and Township regulations.”  I don’t think we’ve seen anything or heard anything tonight that would indicate otherwise.  “Will have the streets that are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the planned unit development.”  As I said earlier, we did have a traffic study completed and that indicated that the development would not have a negative impact on the traffic flow.  “Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads.”  I know Mr. Corsi is willing to put in the acceleration lane for us and address some of the concerns that we had about traffic trying to enter and exit the development.  “Will conform to the provisions of the township’s land use plan.”  That’s probably where my biggest concern is.  We are in the middle of trying to come up with a vision for Jackson Township and it is one that hopefully we can educate the citizens on, and we can’t get the citizens input on, and get everybody on the same page so we have a great place to live in the future.  Based on that, I would be in favor of the project.  So, we can go ahead and take a vote.

May I have a motion to vote on amendment #542-04.

MR. BENNER:  So moved.

MS. CONAWAY:  Second

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Russell?

MR. RUSSELL:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Bergman?

MR. BERGMAN:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Benner?

MR. BENNER:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Conaway?

MS. CONAWAY:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Magyaros?

MS. MAGYAROS:  Yes.  Okay, our recommendation to the township trustees is for denial of the amendment.  This matter will go before the trustees for a public hearing, and Joni I’m going to put you on the spot.  Do we have a date for that?

MS. POINDEXTER:  The trustees will set the date and time at their meeting on August 23rd.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Okay, they will set their date and time at their meeting on the 23rd.  I’d like to thank everyone that came out this evening and participated.

MR. VAIL:  It is hard to do good.  Thank you very much.  I think we will probably give up on the project.  I will try and see what I can do about disposing of the land under an R-R.  I thank you very much.

The board reviewed proposed amendments that were discussed at the meeting on March 18, 2004, but were never officially initiated for a hearing.

MS. MAGYAROS:  At the meeting in March we reviewed proposed changes to the resolution, but I forgot to make a motion to initiate them.  The areas that are different from the last time the proposed changes were reviewed are highlighted in yellow, which is just adding a word or two.  Maybe to clarify for the record, last March the board reviewed the proposed zoning changes to the zoning resolution and I failed to make a motion to initiate those changes so at this time I would recommend that we re-review the changes that we had intended to propose with just a few additions to that and then make a motion to initiate so we can get things rolling.

So the first one was section 401.11(3)(G) and the zoning commission agreed to delete “Depth over 3 feet requires fencing” and replace it with N/A.

MR. BENNER:  Are we going to go through all of the changes or just the highlighted changes?

MS. MAGYAROS:  Should we go through all of the changes or just the highlighted changes?

MS. POINDEXTER:  That’s up to you if you just want to review them to make sure that you still want to stick with them.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Well, we’re pretty confident we want to stick with them.  Let’s just review the highlighted changes.  So that takes us to item number eight, Section 411.3(F) Supporting retail and services that reinforce the character of the district such as stores selling arts & crafts, gifts and/or incidental food, ice cream, bike rental & repair, ATM, restaurants and we would add the letter “P” so they are permitted in, and we had B-1, B-2 , B-3, and I-1 districts.  We agreed to also keep this as a permitted use in the canal parkland district, but it shouldn’t be in the B-1 because retail is not permitted in a B-1 district.  So that would be the change that we’re making from our meeting in March.  It should not be in the B-1 district.

The board agreed.

(Mr. Vail came up to board and started to speak.)

MR. VAIL  It has been drawn to my attention that it was illegal for you to call the moratorium on this issue.  To use the moratorium as a consideration.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Mr. Vail you know what, I would be glad to talk to you about that maybe off the record.  Could we do that?  Could you stick around for a little bit?

MR. VAIL:  No I want to..

MS. MAGYAROS:  We’re actually in the middle of going through some zoning resolution changes.  We only have a couple more to go through.

MR. VAIL:  No, forget it.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Well we’d love to hear from you, but we’re on the record going through these as it is.

MR. VAIL:  Forget it, you’ll get what you want.  You’ll get R-R rural residential.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Alright let’s go to item number twelve.  We’re actually adding a word.  We’re just adding the word “wall” to clarify how we determine square footage for wall signs.

MS. POINDEXTER:  It is the same for number thirteen.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Yes, and in item number thirteen just for clarification and to attempt to make it clearer.

The board agreed.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Those were the only changes that we were looking at from when we discussed these in March.  So may I have a motion to initiate changes to the zoning resolution?

MR. BERGMAN:  I move to initiate changes to the zoning resolution.

MS. CONAWAY:  I seconded the motion.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Russell?

MR. RUSSELL:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Bergman?

MR. BERGMAN:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Benner?

MR. BENNER:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Conaway?

MS. CONAWAY:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Magyaros?

MS. MAGYAROS:  Yes.

Mr. Russell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Russell-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary