Members Present:                   David Clatterbuck
                                              Rodney Napier
                                              Donna Conaway
                                              Thomas Winkhart

Alternate Member:                   Aletha Magyaros

Absent Member:                      James Bauder

Jackson Twp. Trustees:            Patty Miller
                                              Steven Meeks
                                              John Pizzino

Zoning Administrator:               John Phillippi

Clerk/Secretary:                      Joni Poindexter

Ms. Miller stated that the Jackson Township Trustees would be called to order and this is a joint meeting. Ms. Miller, Mr. Meeks and Mr. Pizzino all stated that they are in attendance for the meeting.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated this is a meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Commission and the board would call to order. Mr. Clatterbuck, Mr. Napier, Ms. Conaway, Mr. Winkhart and Ms. Maygaros all stated that they are in attendance for the meeting.

Ms. Miller stated that the meeting would be turned over to Mr. Clatterbuck.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board needed to elect a Chairmen and Vice Chairmen for the year 2001.

Mr. Napier nominated Mr. Clatterbuck for Chairman of the board.

Mr. Winkhart seconded the nomination.

There were no further nominations.

The vote was: Ms Magyaros-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.

Ms. Conaway nominated Mr. Napier as Vice Chairman of the board.

Mr. Winkhart seconded the nomination.

The vote was: Ms. Magyaros-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.

WORK SESSION – Review, discussion and proposed revision of the Jackson Township Zoning Regulations concerning Planned Residential Developments, directional and off-premises signs, child day care, and billboard regulations. Other regulations may be discussed as appropriate.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would turn the meeting over to John Phillippi, Zoning Administrator.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this portion of the meeting is a work session to consider changes or alternatives to provisions within the existing zoning. Mr. Phillippi stated that there has been discussions regarding the Planned Residential Development and he has prepared a memorandum that was provided to the zoning commission members and the trustees. The memorandum gives an analysis of, the current situation, concerns regarding the regulations and some recommendations or alternatives to be considered for making changes.

Mr. Phillippi stated this is not something that is cast in stone but is a recommendation and a starting point in order to analyze the current regulations and see where there could be changes that would better facilitate the development within the township.

Mr. Phillippi stated there is a recommendation that the PRD (Planned Residential Development) should be a separate classification similar to the PUD (Planned Unit Development). The reason for the recommendation is basically looking for a means to eliminate the PRD as it currently exists as a permitted use or a development option in its own right within the R-R and the R-1 districts. When looking at the R-R and R-1 districts there are standard requirements for lot sizes. In the R-R district there is a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and also setback requirements. As a development option in its own right, the PRD can be submitted if the development is being developed with sewer and water as a subdivision and setting aside open space with a minimum of 10% to 25% of maximum density. The development then is subject to much different requirements and regulations that would be uniform within that district. Mr. Phillippi stated because of the differences within the district under the PRD development option, it is felt that it should be either a separate zoning classification or in some other way handled apart from a permitted use in its own right within that residential district.

Mr. Phillippi stated when looking at the PRD, it is very similar to a PUD. The two major differences are that the PUD can, but is not required to, have commercial or business uses included which are not permitted in the PRD. The second one is that within a PUD there can be a variety of housing types. The PRD district is limited to only single family detached dwellings on an individual lot or as a condominium type development.

Mr. Phillippi stated that another major issue is the process for approving the PRD. Under the current arrangement as a permitted use, the development is submitted to the township and goes through an administrative approval process with the ultimate approval coming from the Zoning Administrator after being reviewed by the site plan review committee. The concern is that there is not only no zone change but the procedure does not allow for any type of public review or review by a public body such as an elective official or appointed body such as the zoning commission or board of appeals.

Mr. Phillippi stated that one of the problems is that the adjoining property owners are notified of the development but there is not public hearing in which the residents can address their concerns. Mr. Phillippi stated that it is difficult to address the residents concerns without a public hearing.

Mr. Phillippi stated if the PRD were removed from the R-R district, he believes it is very important to understand that there needs to be some provisions made in order to restore an alternative within that district to the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes where sewer and water are available.

Mr. Phillippi stated that another concern with the PRD is the method of determining the maximum number of dwelling units. Mr. Phillippi stated that he has spent a lot of time looking at the provisions and calculations relative to not only the standard 20,000 sq. ft. subdivisions, but also with regards to the subdivisions that would be developed under the regulations for a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Mr. Phillippi stated at a maximum of 2.2 dwelling units per acre, the density under the PRD is substantially greater in terms of the number of units than would be realized through a subdivision at 20,000 sq. ft. and also a subdivision at 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Phillippi stated that he has provided information that supports the facts.

Mr. Phillippi stated the number of dwelling units are determined by an arbitrary factor of 2.2 dwelling units per acre multiplied by the gross acreage minus the existing right-of-way at the time the development is proposed. The open space is included in the overall acreage. Mr. Phillippi stated that he would propose as a minimum that there be a change in the method of calculating the density whereby if the 2.2 units per acre where maintained then it would be calculated exclusive of the open space that was being set aside. Mr. Phillippi stated that he still believes that there would be a density bonus under the PRD and that it would restore quite a bit of parity especially with regards to the 15,000 sq. ft. developments.

Mr. Phillippi stated there is proposal to increase the minimum acreage for a PRD to 10 acres because Mr. Phillippi questions whether 5 acres is a reasonable amount in terms of achieving an adequate number of lots for a viable home owners association which maintains the open space.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he is also proposing for consideration a change in the definition of common open space. It really doesn’t change the use of the open space but is more for clarification because there has been some discussion as to what constitutes open space.

Mr. Phillippi stated that as an alternative to setting up the PRD as its own separate classification, an alternative that may actually be viable would be to consider establishing the PRD as a conditionally permitted use under the R-R and R-1 districts. Mr. Phillippi stated items that should be considered in this would be: 1) It would subject a proposed development to a public body review, being the board of zoning appeals, so that the public would have an adequate opportunity to address their concerns, 2) By going to the BZA it would not be a zone change and no action would be taken by the zoning commission or trustees, 3) The BZA in addition to reviewing the development for compliance, could also put conditions on the approval.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that when the zoning resolution was first laid out the primary concern was green space. The way that Mr. Phillippi has it proposed, changing the numbers and eliminating the green space from the mathematical requirements and using the 2.2 standard, Mr. Clatterbuck sees no incentive for a builder to build a PRD. Mr. Clatterbuck stated in his opinion the objectives for green space would not be met.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that one of the considerations made at the time the resolution was written is how they would get the developers to put 20-25% of the land aside for green space. The only incentive was to build on smaller lots, which would allow a higher density in that particular area. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that most of the projects that have come up have been right around the 2.2 density. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he couldn’t see an incentive under the mathematics for a builder to go to the extra effort to put in green space when he is going to be able to build the same amount houses in the same area anyhow. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that a decision needed to be made whether to preserve the idea of having more green space or not.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he likes the idea of the PRD being a conditional use under the way it is presently written.

Mr. Phillippi asked if Mr. Clatterbuck is saying that the density would be lowered to the point that it would be economical.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that there would not be any reason for the builders to preserve green space because they could build the same amount of houses in the same layout.

Mr. Phillippi stated that it is his understanding that the intent was that the density permitted under the PRD would be the same or similar to the density that would be, under the prior regulations, permitted under the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks this is what needs to be discussed.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked what the incentive would be for the builder allowing green space and what benefit would the township get out of the green space. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he is under the impression that they are trying to preserve green space and if this is not their goal then Mr. Phillippi’s formulas will work. There is parity but Mr. Clatterbuck is not sure that they can see parity and still get green space.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this is a legitimate item for discussion. Mr. Phillippi stated that he believes there is a density bonus to be had but in addition there is also a savings to the developer with regards to the public facilities and infrastructure because there is less sewer and water lines and roadways to be constructed.

Mr. Steve Smith of 6501 High Mill stated that the township spent 3 to 4 years developing the resolution and the township hired a consultant to help with this. Mr. Smith asked if the township worked with a professional consultant in developing the new proposals.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he did not work with a consultant.

Mr. Smith stated that the township came up with the concept of the PRD specifically to address the green space issue and Mr. Smith would encourage someone to look into a professional land planner before changing the regulations.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he would be happy to provide his credentials to Mr. Smith. Mr. Phillippi stated that he has been involved in planning for thirty years and is a charter member of American Certified Planners as well as many other planning organizations.

Mr. Smith stated that he keeps hearing high density and the PRD’s are not achieving higher densities. Mr. Smith stated that they are aggregating some of the density to certain areas so they can leave other areas open. They are still achieving the 2.2.

Mr. Smith stated that 15,000 sq. ft. with 43,500 sq. ft. per acre would give almost a density of 3 units per acre. With taking out the streets the allowable amount is 2.2 units per acre. Mr. Smith stated that he believes the numbers are right for 2.2 units per acre.

Mr. Smith stated that he thinks the zoning code is addressing the minimum and as far as he knows no one has developed to the minimum code.

Mr. Smith stated Emerald Estates was 430 units.

Mr. Phillippi stated that it was 497 for the overall development plan and the maximum at 2.2 per acres would be about 530.

Mr. Smith stated that even with Emerald Estates the density did not hit the maximum. Mr. Smith stated that the zoning code tries to address the minimum amount, not the maximum.

Mr. Smith stated that he would argue the fact that there is a savings to the developer in developing cost. Mr. Smith stated that there is a benefit to the township in the amount of roads that they would have to maintain.

Mr. Smith stated that no one has seen how the PRD’s are going to work and they need to be giving an opportunity to see this.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he basically agrees with everything that Mr. Smith has said with the exception of the density. Mr. Phillippi stated there is something to be said for a density bonus with regards to the PRD based on the fact that it is a development concept and it is desirable for the township. Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks the township should maintain it as a development option but the density needs to be critically looked at. If the township feels that the current density requirement is appropriate for that development then Mr. Phillippi thinks this needs to be considered. Mr. Phillippi stated they need to be careful in looking at the densities in terms of what is the actual density for various types of developments.

Mr. Smith stated in addressing the minimum, the old R-1 use to be 13, 5000-sq. ft. lot minimum and not many of these were seen. Mr. Smith stated that he does not believe PRD’s would be built to the maximum density.

Ms. Miller stated the minimum lot size in Emerald Estates is 56 x 105. Ms. Miller gave an example and stated that there was a request for someone to rezone R-2 to R-R so they do a PRD and get more density and Ms. Miller does not think this was expected when the PRD was put in effect.

Ms. Miller stated that she agrees with Mr. Clatterbuck that they intended to develop and preserve green space but not at the cost of lot sizes being small. Ms. Miller stated that 56 x 105 is a very small lot.

Mr. Smith stated this is where the public and trustees are confused. The 56 x 105-ft. lot is the smallest corner pin of that lot.

Ms. Miller asked if it is not the minimum lot size in Emerald Estates.

Mr. Smith stated it may very well be but lot size is being confused with density.

Ms. Miller stated that this is something that Mr. Phillippi is suggesting that they need to address. Ms. Miller stated that she does not believe they ever expected the minimum lot size that is being entertained. Ms. Miller stated that the minimum lot size and green space needs to be addressed but not at the cost of eliminating the PRD.

Ms. Miller stated that if someone is in an R-R district and has a half-acre lot and the lot next them is 56 x 105-sq. ft., this is where the complaints are coming from.

Mr. Smith stated that it needed to be taken into consideration that other lots in that same development are 100 x 180-sq. ft.

Ms. Miller stated that if someone is next door to the small lot it is hard for him or her to take this into consideration.

Mr. Smith stated that he does not believe anyone is next door to the small lot. There are four different size lots in the Emerald Estates development.

Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Phillippi is having a problem dealing with the PRD because he gets the angry residents coming into township hall. Ms. Miller stated that when the PRD was passed she really believed that it was going to be no less density. The main concern is the minimum lot size. Ms. Miller stated that she does not believe when the PRD was passed that they would have lots that size. Ms. Miller asked if the board knew this when they passed it.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated absolutely, that was a consideration at that time.

Ms. Miller stated that when it was explained to her at the board of trustees and she voted on it, that she was absolutely told that it would be the same density.

Mr. Smith stated if dealing with 100 acres and the density is allowed at 2.2, you would be able to get 220 lots within that 100 acres. In Emerald Estates the developers elected to take and offer three or four different lot sizes. One of the lots was 56 x 105. There are also lots developed at 75 x 120 and also lots that are 85 and 100 ft. This seems to meet what the market wants and also at the same time meets the township goals of maintaining 25% green space. Mr. Smith stated that there are smaller lots under the PRD in maybe one area, and if the zoning commission wanted to address a minimum lot size and this is in the best interest of the township, Mr. Smith thinks that the regulations should be developed and orientated toward that.

Mr. Phillippi stated when Mr. Smith talks about the density that there is something wrong in his premise. Mr. Phillippi asked if Mr. Smith is saying that if he takes the acreage, and when figuring the density with the 15,000-sq. ft. lots, that he is simply dividing the entire acreage up by 15,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Smith stated right.

Mr. Phillippi stated that it would be impossible to take acreage and develop it at 15,000 sq. ft. lots, and come up with that density. Mr. Phillippi stated that Mr. Smith is taking what he computed to be as 2.2 and using that as his basis in order to simply then turn around and use that as the multiplier for the entire acreage for a PRD. Mr. Phillippi stated that on one hand Mr. Smith is looking at minimum lot sizes in a hypothetical unrealistic sense because he could not get that may lots and type of density in that acreage. Then he is taking that factoring figure and applying it to an overall number of acres and coming up with, not a hypothetical figure, but an absolute number of units that can be constructed there. When looking at the two developments, there is no parity. Mr. Phillippi stated that it is mathematically impossible.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he is saying that if in fact the density was suppose to be the same as the developments at 15,000 sq. ft., then that is simply not correct.

Ms. Miller stated that every time the code has ever been written or changes have been made, it is only after they have tried to enforce them that they realized that maybe everything had not been addressed. The sign regulations have already been re-written because of problems. Ms. Miller stated that she does not believe they ever expected a higher density to ask for a rural residential so they could do a PRD and get a higher density. Ms. Miller thinks they need to re-look at what was wrote and consider the incentives to save the green space and weigh that at the cost of the minimum lots size verses the density. Ms. Miller stated that it is difficult to explain why they have allowed minimum lot sizes at 56 x 105.

Mr. Smith stated that he still believes the density is the same and if the township wants to address minimum lot sizes, then this should be looked at.

Ms. Miller stated the reason she brought up the lot size is because she does not believe that anyone ever believed that there would be lot sizes that small in an R-R district.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that was the intention. There is not one person in the room that is going to have that lot next to them. Only when you have a PRD is where there will be a small lot. The person who buys the small lot will know that it is small and it will not effect the person in the next development.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the trustees need to tell them whether they want to preserve green space or not.

Ms. Miller stated that they want to preserve green space but not at the cost of minimum lot sizes or higher density districts going to rural residential to get more density. If some areas are unbuildable, it is being counted as green space.

Ms. Conaway asked what is green space, is it retention ponds, gas lines or land that can’t be built on anyway. Ms. Conaway does not think people want retention ponds and gas lines as green space. Ms. Conaway stated that she does not agree with the small lot sizes and when the people don’t like it, then the township should listen and the developers should also listen.

Ms. Miller stated that she thinks they need to tweak something. When the regulations were developed Ms. Miller did not believe any of the minimum lot sizes would be there. Ms. Miller stated Emerald Estates was only given as an example.

Mr. Smith stated to say that a gas line easement should not be used as green space, in the past it was someone’s back yard.

Ms. Conaway stated that her question is, is that what people are thinking of when they say they want more green space. Ms. Conaway doubts that this is what they were thinking.

Mr. Smith stated that he hopes they were talking about large aggregated areas that were undeveloped.

Mr. Phillippi stated that no one said that the PRD’s are not a desirable concept and Mr. Phillippi does not think that one PRD should be used as an example, but look at overall what the regulations are. Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks everyone has agreed that it is a desirable concept and agrees that there is a need for a variety of lot sizes in order to provide for a variety of housing types, but somehow a balance needs to be achieved.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he believes the approval process needs to be addressed so the public can address their concerns.

Mr. Smith stated that the developers do not want confrontation with the area residents because these are the people that they are trying to serve.

Ms. Miller stated the township wants to encourage communication and thinks that everyone is saying the same thing and hopefully they can come up with something that will make Jackson Township better.

Mr. Smith had no further comments.

Ms. Scourfield of 9501 Pondera stated the she understands what Mr. Phillippi is saying about the density. When taking into consideration the roads and making the lots actually front the roads, looking at the actual as opposed to the hypothetical would be a more realistically way of looking at it.

Ms. Scourfield stated that she is not against PRD’s but it needs some adjustment.

Ms. Scourfield stated that in reference to what Mr. Smith said about the lots that adjoin green space, they don’t. Ms. Scourfield stated that she is very familiar with Emerald Estates and there are 60 or more smaller lots that do not adjoin green space. Ms. Scourfield does not think small lots are what the trustees had in mind when recommending the PRD’s.

Ms. Scourfield stated that she is glad to see that the township cares about what the residents have been saying.

Ms. Scourfield stated that in Mr. Phillippi’s memorandum he seems to say that the ORC did not provide for a PRD, that is a district without uniform requirements, and asked if this is no longer an issue when speaking about making the PRD a conditionally permitted use. Ms. Scourfield stated that she took it as if the PRD’s were in violation of the ORC.

Mr. Phillippi stated that one could question whether or not it is consistent with the provisions. Mr. Phillippi stated that’s why he thinks the township should look at another means of handling the PRD’s either as a separate district or as a conditional use permit.

Ms. Scourfield asked if that would work with the uniform regulations within the district.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks it would be appropriate as a conditionally permitted use because there would be specific requirements that would be reviewed individually by the board of zoning appeals to ensure that the PRD did in fact meet the requirements and conditions. In addition the board of zoning appeals has some latitude with regards to conditionally permitted uses as far as requirements that would address concerns that the residents might have.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Phillippi received a legal opinion on this issue.

Mr. Phillippi stated no.

Mr. Dave Ferrell, Assistant Law Director for Jackson Township, stated that he was not concerned with this until he read the memo. Mr. Ferrell stated that he did a check of cases to see whether that raised any interpretation of anything and he did not find anything. Mr. Ferrell is not sure that he shares the opinion of Mr. Phillippi but it is something that should be looked into.

Ms. Pam Richardson stated that she is the manager of Lake O’Springs Park and they have the opposite problem because of the zoning regulations. The neighborhood has very small homes on small lots and the zoning code makes them have larger lot sizes than their neighbors. Ms. Richardson stated that she likes the PRD’s and the smaller lot sizes because people are looking for smaller lots with no yards. Ms. Richardson stated that a PRD would work because the smaller lots could work into the larger lots.

Ms. Richardson had no further comments.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated the work session would have to be continued until the next meeting due to an amendment case hearing.

Mr. Napier stated that he recommends that the work session be tabled until the conclusion of the hearing and picked back up at the end of the meeting because he thinks this can come to a quick resolution. Mr. Napier stated that he is not in a position to scrap the space shuttle before it is launched and does not think that the results of PRD have been seen but they do have a mandate from the trustees that, in the point that Ms. Miller made, was that an adjacent property owner who lives in an R-R district should be entitled to live across from the same size lot. Mr. Napier stated that a simple solution to this would be a requirement of 15,000 sq. ft. lot anytime it is adjacent to an existing parcel. Mr. Napier stated that he thinks the main concern that was talked about could easily be fixed.

Ms. Conaway stated that she would rather table the hearing until the next meeting so they have more time to review the proposals.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated the next meeting is March 15, 2001.

Mr. Napier made a motion to continue the work session until March 15, 2001 at 7:35 pm and Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Magyaros-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.

Ms. Miller stated that the trustee needed to adjourn.

Mr. Meeks made a motion to adjourn and Ms. Miller seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Miller-yes and Mr. Meeks-yes. Mr. Pizzino excused himself earlier in the meeting.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated the next matter on the agenda is the minutes from December 14, 2000 and asked if there was motion.

Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the minutes of December 14, 2000 and Mr. Winkhart seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

AMENDMENT #494-01 – Tri-Doc Inc., Dave Daugherty of 2953 Carrie Hill Cir. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Jack Helmick, property owner, of 4656 Meadowview Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 proposes to rezone R-1A (Single Family Residential District) to R-2 (Two Family Residential District) 1.66 acres, more or less, of a 2.35 acre tract, on the north side of Hills & Dales, 360 ft., more or less, west of Kipling, Section 33SE Jackson Township.

Mr. Clatterbuck read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval and the facts that were considered in their decision.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Dave Daugherty of Tri-Doc 2953 Carrie Hill Cir. NW stated that the entire parcel is 2.35 acres and of that parcel, .70 acres is already zoned R-2 so he is asked for the other 1.66 acres to be rezoned to R-2. Mr. Daugherty stated that to the north is Quail Hollow which is zoned R-4, to the west is R-4 and also about 120 ft. to the west is R-R. Mr. Daugherty stated the R-R piece of property is bound by high density. To the east is R-2 and to the south is one piece of R-1A which would act as a buffer.

Mr. Daugherty stated that in an R-2 district there could be a maximum of six units per acre. He is proposing to take the 2.35 acres along with .79 acres, that is also owned by the same property owner, for a total of 3.19 acres and combine the two parcels. Mr. Daugherty stated that this would allow 18 units per zoning but he is proposing five buildings, which would be ten units. The duplexes would be ranch style with a two-car garage. Mr. Daugherty stated with the elderly and handicapped in mind the duplexes would have 36-inch doors and if the occupant needed a ramp they would install this up to the doorway with grab bars.

Mr. Daugherty stated that Tri-Doc has several developments and the buildings would be very nice.

Mr. Daugherty had no further comments and the board had no questions.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if anyone wanted to speak against this amendment.

Ms. Rose Dibartolo of 7703 Hills & Dales Rd. NW stated that Jack and Kathy Helmick and herself bought 2.3 acres of land at an auction in July of 1997. The property is located to the north and east of Ms. Dibartolo’s property. Ms. Dibartolo stated that she was going to purchase all of the property herself because she did not want the property next to her to be rezoned. Ms. Dibartolo stated that during the auction Mr. Helmick approached her and asked her if she wanted to split the property in half and she asked him what his intentions were. Ms. Dibartolo stated that Mr. Helmick promised her that he would keep it single family so she agreed to split the land with him. Ms. Dibartolo stated that she spent $22,000 for her share of the land which is .60 acres to keep the multi family units out of the neighborhood. Ms. Dibartolo stated that she has lived in her home since 1987 and has put approximately $90,000 in to her home not including what she paid for it. Ms. Dibartolo stated that if the property is rezoned her property values would go down.

Ms. Dibartolo stated that people who rent, have no respect for others property. Ms. Dibartolo stated that she requests that the commission not rezone the property.

Ms. Judy Beans of 7745 Hills & Dales Rd. stated that she is not a landowner. Ms. Beans stated that she is at the meeting because everyone that lives in the surrounding area has been caused grief because of the apartments that she has managed for 25 years. Tenants are not responsible and have driven through people’s yards. It does matter how beautiful the buildings are, it is the people who live in them.

Mr. Scott Beebe of 7727 Hills & Dales Rd. stated that in the past he has fought a zone change for this property and it is still not wanted. Mr. Beebe stated Mr. Helmick promised that nothing would be built on the property except single family homes. Mr. Beebe stated that the single family homes were there first and asked why should they sacrifice their home and values for someone else to come in that is not even going to live there. Mr. Beebe stated that the only reason they want to build apartments is to make money.

Mr. Beebe stated that tenants don’t care about anything and apartments draw some of the worst people that he has ever seen.

Mr. Beebe stated that the last time Mr. Helmick wanted to rezone the property that his own mother was against it.

Mr. Beebe stated that if the property were zoned R-2 or R-4 when the neighbors and he moved in then they would not have a leg to stand on, but it wasn’t. It was zoned R-R when they moved in and this is how they want to keep it.

Mr. Beebe asked that the zoning commission not make the property owners sacrifice what they have by rezoning the property to R-2.

Mr. Garnet Iceman of 7489 Hills & Dales Rd. NW stated that she owns property in front and back of the property in question. Ms. Iceman is concerned about what type of buffer would be put up and what guarantee there is that they would only build five buildings.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Daugherty is not bound by what he says regarding the amount of buildings. Mr. Daugherty is only bound by the resolution and what the maximum density is per the resolution.

Ms. Iceman stated that this is her biggest concern. Ms. Iceman stated that traffic is also a problem and when the road is widened the value of her house will decrease more.

Mr. Joe Burton of 7677 Hills & Dales NW stated that there is constantly a battle with traffic and tenants driving through yards and throw trash onto the properties. Mr. Burton stated that many zone changes have been fought against rezoning the property and thinks it is too dense of an area for rezoning.

Mr. Ronald Beebe of 7727 Hills & Dales stated that he owns property next to his fathers and his property was purchased as a buffer because they do not want multi family next to them. Mr. Beebe stated that the rezoning would not be a good thing and all points brought up by the residents are valid and asked that the commission listen to them.

No one else in the audience spoke against the zone change.

Mr. Napier stated that he looked at the property and there is quite a mismatch of zoning. Mr. Napier stated that he thinks there is merit to multi family because of the adjacency, but the whole area needs to be looked at because of the multiple uses in such a small area. With the widening of the street, sooner or later something is going to happen with the rest of the properties being rezoned to a more appropriate use for the area. Mr. Napier stated that he does not believe right now is the time to make the change but is something that could be referred to the map committee for review of areas like this. Mr. Napier stated that he is not convinced that the change would be appropriate at this time.

The board had no further comment.

Mr. Napier made a motion to vote on amendment 494-01 and Mr. Winkhart seconded the motion.

Mr. Phillippi stated that what is requested would constitute a group dwelling development and would have to be approved by the board of appeals as a conditional use permit and there are a number of specific requirements that would have to be met including buffering. Also as a group dwelling development, it would have to be review by Regional Planning and the County.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that group development is a new term being thrown at him.

Mr. Phillippi stated that under the current zoning, any development that includes more than one building on the same parcel would be considered a group dwelling development and needs approval by the board of zoning appeals.

There was no other discussion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-no, Ms. Conaway-no, Mr. Winkhart-no and Ms. Magyaros-no.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated the board had voted four to one against the proposed rezone and this is just a recommendation that goes to the trustees.

Mr. Napier made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary