Members present:                                                        David Benner
                                                                                       Donna Conaway
                                                                                       James Bauder
                                                                                       Stephen Bergman
                                                                                       Nancy Detwiler
Alternate member:                                                      James Conley

Zoning Inspector:                                                        Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                          Amy Saba

CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Benner called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

WORK SESSION - PROPOSED ZONING RESOLUTION TEXT CHANGES
Mr. Benner referred to the handout presented by Ms. Poindexter.

SECTION 201.2 DEFINITIONS
OUTDOOR WOOD BURNING FURNACE
Any equipment, device or apparatus which is installed, affixed or situated outdoors for the primary purpose of combustion of fuel to produce heat or energy used as a component of a heating system providing heat to a principal residential structure or any other site structure on the residential premises.

Mr. Bauder asked if these furnaces were allowed to be used in residential districts.

Ms. Poindexter stated that no, this type of furnace is only allowed to be used in R-R Rural Residential districts.

Mr. Benner brought the conversation back to consideration of the approval of the definition.

The commission approved this definition as written.

SECTION 401.3(A)
OUTDOOR WOOD BURNING FURNACE
An outdoor wood burning furnace may be permitted within the R-R Rural Residential District on lots that are five (5) acres or greater.  An outdoor wood burning furnace shall not be permitted within any other zoning district.  All wood burning furnaces, shall meet the following requirements:
1) Must be located in the rear yard only.
2) Must be setback 200 ft. from all property lines.
3) No outdoor wood burning furnace shall be utilized as a waste incinerator.
4) Fuels are limited to seasoned hardwood, corncobs or wood chips.
5) Must comply with Stark County Building Department regulations (building, mechanical, electrical, heating) and Ohio EPA Air Pollution Control Division.
6) Fire Department approval of furnace location.
7) Minimum stack height shall be 20 ft. from the ground at unit base.

No person shall cause, allow or maintain the use of an outdoor wood burning furnace without a valid zoning permit.

Mr. Benner asked for input on this proposed new section.

Mr. Bergman said he was concerned about number seven, where it states the minimum height of the smoke stack.  He thought that 20’ might not be high enough to avoid the smoke becoming a nuisance to a neighbor if the neighbor’s house was taller than 20’.

Ms. Poindexter stated that there is a 200’ setback for the furnace.

Mr. Benner said he thought the 200’ setback was a good distance.

After further discussion about the stack height and the setback requirement, the commission agreed to approve the new section as written.

SECTION 201.2
Add “Recreational Use- A use designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreational activities.  This does not include a recreational use that is an accessory to a residence.”
Ms. Poindexter clarified that the rationale for this text being added was because there is no existing language in the resolution that refers to outdoor recreational use.
Mr. Benner asked for other input.
No one offered any.  The commission approved this new text as written.
At 5:00 pm the work session was tabled for the commission to return to it at the end of the meeting.

SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2007
Mr. Benner asked for comments about the selection of members for the posts of Chair and Vice-Chair.
Mr. Bergman moved to reelect Mr. Benner and Ms. Conaway as chair, and vice chair, respectively, based on the fact that they’ve done a fine job.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was:  Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Benner-yes
Motion approved.

AMENDMENT 555-07
Mr. Benner read the following amendment application information:
Paul Tomko, 6741 Big Creek Parkway, Middleburg Heights, OH 44130 agent for Stump
Hill Farm, 6633 Klick St. SW, Mass. OH 44646, property owner, proposes to rezone R-2
(Multi-Family Res. District) and B-3 (Commercial Business District) to R-3(Residential
Planned Unit Development District) 12.7849 acres, more or less, located on the north side
of Castlebar NW, Parcel 1700145, Sect. 36SE Jackson Twp.

Mr. Benner stated that the Stark County Regional Planning Commission reviewed the request and had approved it.  He read the ten facts from the RPC report that were considered in making the decision.

Mr. Benner asked for anyone present to come forward to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Steve Marcino (2222 Duncanon Ave NW, Canton, OH 44708) came forward.  He said he lives two blocks west of the proposed site and he didn’t see any reason why the rezone shouldn’t be granted.  He has lived there for many years and from 1968 to 1978 he rode his dirt bike throughout the area that some are now saying is a wetland.  He said that it was fairly dry when he rode his bike back there.
Ms. Conaway asked if there are more homes in the area now, than there were during the time he was riding his dirt bike.
Mr. Marcino said yes, there are.

Mr. Paul Tomko (OKMOT Real Estate Company) came forward.  He said that on February 7th, he had met with adjacent property owners to address some of their concerns and unveil their plan.  There are two phases.  Phase I will not involve any development in the area that is a possible wetland.  Phase II does have some ambiguity in it as far as determining if it is a wetland.  The hope is that Phase I could be fully approved along with a contingency plan for Phase II, based on the information that they receive from the geologist and the board testing, etc., as far as the study of the wetlands.  The geologist and the engineer are both in attendance to answer questions.

Mr. Bauder asked if there was a botanist present.

Mr. Tomko said no, but they could get one, if necessary.  The geologist tested six wells that go down 100 ft., in the area, on adjacent properties, and found there to be nothing but rock and stone.  The geologist felt, from this study, that there was no wetland.  The wetland illustration that was given by the state of Ohio has a disclaimer on it that the area was never actually tested.  It was done by aerial topography.

Brent Huntsman (Hydro-geologist, Terran Corporation, Dayton, Ohio) came forward.  Mr. Huntsman stated one of the questions regarding this property is whether it’s drainable.  The well logs that are available on public record show that there are cane deposits in them, which are nothing more than poorly sorted sands and gravels, and it goes down to a very significant depth.  Bedrock in the area is over 160-180 ft. down.  The actual ground water table with the regional water levels, based upon the wells that were drilled and well records, shows it to be about 40 ft. below the surface.  So there is actually 40 ft. of dry sand and gravel and that’s where water collects in the low area.  It infiltrates and gets down into it.  The area used to be a sand and gravel mine.  These cane deposits were very good sources of sand and gravel especially in the 50’s and 60’s.  There were a lot these little gravel pits that were out there.  As part of the operation, they would wash some of the gravel and the fine materials would be washed off and then put downstream usually into the lower areas.  In this case, probably the areas that are retaining water that has a fair amount of silt and fine material, say, over the last 40 or 50 years, there are several areas that have a potential emergent wetland.  Those have been identified on the National Wetlands Inventory by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  That is what Mr. Tomko has referred to as Phase II.  They will have a regular wetlands delineator go out in the spring, not this time of year, and that person will determine what really is wetland and what is just essentially a scrub area that has water-loving plants in it.  To have a wetland, there must be three things present.  1. Water present part of the time.  2. Hydric soils.  3.  The right vegetation.  There is emergent wetland there because on the National Wetland Inventory it is marked as such.  The intention is for an actual delineator to determine where the wetland is and then any necessary changes would be incorporated into Phase II.  If there is a protected area or one where the wetland might be retained, then where the pond area is might be changed so as not to disturb the wetland vegetation and soil.  That’s something that will have to be determined in the spring.  Phase I is truly all up on high, dry land.  In fact part of the land hasn’t been disturbed for possibly about 100 years.  Phase II would be any of the areas that could potentially be determined as wetlands.

Mr. Bauder asked if there was a picture showing the two different regions.

Mr. Huntsman answered yes, and that he thought it had been included with the application and the site plan had a dotted line separating the two areas.

Mr. Benner asked about the location of the ponds on the map, with respect to information that Mr. Huntsman had given.

Mr. Huntsman verified where the existing ponds are, and where one or more ponds will be created.

Mr. Bergman asked where were the wells that were studied?

Mr. Huntsman provided the well reports, along with the addresses where they are located.

Mr. Bauder asked what the depth of 40 ft. was in reference to.

Mr. Huntsman said that was the water level that was reported on each of the well logs that appeared on completion of the 24-hour test.  There are indications on the well reports of the actual water levels.  The surface water level is at 1097, so 40 ft. below that.

Mr. Bauder said that there is a variation in height of the topography of the area.

Mr. Huntsman said yes, but he is just going on what the well logs showed and the three homes that are on Castlebar are a little bit higher, but no more than 10 ft. higher.  For example, the well at 4805 Castlebar has sand and gravel going all the way down to 220 ft. and even if it was off by 10 ft. it’s still a tremendous thickness of sand and gravel.

Mr. Bauder said that he did not doubt that but he was wondering what was the approximate elevation of the water table.

Mr. Huntsman replied that he could only estimate based on the well logs and it is assumed to be about 10,960, which would be 40 ft. below 1,100.

Mr. Bauder asked for clarification that 1,100 was the Army/Navy building, so 40 ft. isn’t much deeper than the surface of the ground, in Phase II, where the wetlands are.

Mr. Huntsman replied yes.

Mr. Bauder asked if any investigation had been done on the southern portion of Phase I, the areas below the level of Castlebar Street.

Mr. Tomko and Mr. Huntsman both answered no.  Mr. Huntsman said that he had noticed that the sewer line was 9 ft. below the land surface right at Castlebar and it was dug dry.

Mr. Bauder said that the area north of Castlebar floods.

Mr. Huntsman said that since it is sand and gravel and he believed that the water table is below the surface level there the infiltration from any type of standing water, if it was cleaned of the fine materials, if the retention pond is more of a dry well, flooding would probably not be much of a concern.

Mr. Bauder asked if an EPA permit would be required.

Mr. Huntsman said that Mr. McCullough would have to answer that question because he is the civil engineer, but he did not believe so.

Mr. Benner asked if they believed that they would be able to drain water through the soil, rather than directing through a sewer.

They both answered yes.

Mr. Benner said that this is something that the county is going to have to approve.

William McCullough (100 Santa Clara NW, Canton, OH) came forward.  He stated that he is the civil engineer on the project.  He reiterated the fact that there are two phases in the project.  Phase I is up on higher, dry land and Phase II is the portion that has some questions about whether it’s developable or not developable.  The plan with the storm water in Phase I is to build a pond for recreation and detention on the Army/Navy Club property.  Phase I will not drop any water into the Phase II area.  With Phase II, until the soil tests are done and other studies, the decision will not be made about whether it will be possible to develop it as it is, or whether there will be necessary modifications to make.  What’s on the site plan is considered maximum density for development and that could be modified.  One of the problems is that there is no outlet in the area.  Everything is developed surrounding the property and that keeps dumping water into there.  The intention of this developer is to keep all the water that’s there, on the property.

Mr. Bauder said he had serious concerns about Phase II.

Mr. McCullough said that the weather has prevented them from going out onto the central area to survey it, but that since it’s gotten colder it will be possible now to go there and that they will be doing that probably next week.

Mr. Bauder asked if the area in Phase II was determined to be actual wetlands, how that would affect the project plans.

Mr. McCullough said that there are options and that he is not a wetland expert, but that they are planning to wait until all the studies can be done, in the spring, to determine what will have to be done in order to develop there.

Ms. Conaway asked if the units will have basements.

Mr. Tomko said in the higher areas, yes, but most likely not in the Phase II area.

Mr. Bauder asked what would happen if there should be a 100 year storm event, how high would the water rise?

Mr. McCullough answered 86, which is what it is right now.

Mr. Bauder clarified, that he meant 100 year frequency.

Mr. McCullough said that’s as high as it gotten on that lift station.

Mr. Bauder said that by the plans, the area of detention was going to be decreased.

Mr. McCullough said yes, only in the Phase II section, but it will have to be accommodated by providing more volume or providing a proper detention.  The county will require a detention plan and a 100 year study.

Mr. Benner asked for anyone else in favor of the amendment to come forward.

No one replied.

Mr. Benner asked for anyone in opposition to the amendment to come forward.

Ms. Judy Seckler (2226 Woodlawn Ave NW Canton OH 44708) came forward.  Ms. Seckler stated she and her husband own three lots on Woodlawn Avenue.  She said that she had been living there approximately 45 years.  She said that she had been excavating and taking care of the lots, planting grass, and making it like a park.  Jackson Township gave her a community service citizenship award for beautifying the lots.  She said that while walking around the Army/Navy Club last week a gentleman told her that the property was not a wetland, and in order for it to be declared a wetland it has to have cattails in it.  She replied to him that there are all kinds of cattails there.  She said that she went back into the area early today to take pictures of the cattails.  She showed some pictures to the members of the commission.  Then she showed some cattails that she had with her, in a bag.  She said that she doesn’t want to lose the wetland area, and neither do any of the neighbors.

Mr. Rick Dye (2314 Woodlawn Ave NW Canton OH) came forward.  He stated that his main concern is Phase II, and what’s going to happen with all that water.  The neighborhood already has some water drainage issues.  Also, he is concerned about the legitimacy of the wetlands and how that would affect the habitat of all of the plants and animals that might perish.  He is also concerned about the traffic flow and the possible property value degradation.  Even if Phase I is approved, how will that development affect the wetlands area?

Mr. Bergman stated that the commission is concerned with the fact that the property is already zoned R-2 and B-3, so a developer could come in right now and build on it, without ever having to come before the commission.  If the property is rezoned, the commission will have some control over what might be developed.  He asked Mr. Dye if he understood that, and if so, did he still want to oppose the zone change?

Mr. Dye said that he would like to explore that question more.  He asked if the area is actually declared a wetland, if it legally can even be developed.

Mr. Bergman said he didn’t think so.

Ms. Poindexter said that she spoke with Julie Berbari, who said she thought it may be a Category 2 Wetland, but she did not know that for sure and if it was, whether it still could be developed, but there are more hoops that would have to be jumped through in order to do it.

Mr. Dye said he doesn’t oppose development but he wants it to be looked into further before any rezoning takes place.

Mr. Huntsman returned to the microphone to address the question of the wetland area.  He said that the presence of cattails does not constitute the declaration of a wetland.  There’s no question that wetland vegetation is living in the area.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed this area as a potential Category 2 Wetland area on its inventory.  This means that the area has been disturbed before and it may not have always been a wetland.  It’s not like Jackson Bog or something that has been established for hundreds of years.  It now is wet part of the time and it has some wetland vegetation.  It’s a very low grade type of wetland.  The design that’s proposed is preserving as much of the open water area as possible.  Until a wetlands delineator actually looks and sees what areas need to be preserved everyone is just talking in speculation.  The area is a wetland, but it is not known how big it is, or what category it is, or how high of a class of wetland it is, but there is every indication that’s low grade.  There are things that can be done with a Category 2 Wetland to build around it, and mitigate on site, move the wetland material to a certain area, on site itself.  That’s a common way of preserving the wetland.  The argument isn’t whether the area will require more work or attention.  Phase II will definitely require it.

Bob Shilling (2300 Woodlawn Ave NW Canton OH 44708) came forward.  He said he’s lived at his home approximately 13 years.  In those 13 years, it went from a few inches of water at the beginning and every year the water level has risen and stayed there.  He said he appreciated the early meeting with the developers who presented the plan to the neighbors.  The gentleman at that meeting said that prior board hearings had approved the Preserves, the Storage Areas and all that water had come into the area called the wetland.  Perhaps if better decisions had been made in the past, today’s decision wouldn’t be so difficult.  Prior board hearings have made decisions that have allowed the water to increase.  He suggests great caution before approving anything that will create an even bigger monster.

Mr. Benner asked Mr. Shilling to answer the question that was posed earlier.  The rezone that is requested is to R-3 PUD, which the design of those pieces are a little bit easier for the Zoning Commission to control (within the legislation), than it would be if the zoning were not changed.

Mr. Shilling said he thought it should be put on hold until all of the studies are done.  It’s all dollars and cents and he understands that more properties will bring in more revenue for the township.  He said he bought his property because he enjoyed the wetland area.

Ms. Seckler returned to the microphone to share that the ballpark near Castlebar used to get flooded all the time.

Mr. Marcino returned to the microphone to say that he questions the safety of putting in clean fill because of the risk of raising storm water drainage.

Mr. Benner asked for anyone else to speak in opposition to the amendment.

No one replied.  He closed the floor to public comments and asked the commission to share their thoughts.

Mr. Conley said it was worthwhile to repeat that Mr. Tomko could currently build duplexes or put in a commercial property that would be less pleasing to the surrounding neighbors and this rezone seems to be an improvement on that possibility.

Mr. Bergman said he agreed and said it’s unfortunate the property cannot be separated.  He expressed concern that even Phase I would have an affect on the watershed.  The flip side is that the plan is a good one, there would be more control over it, and in the end everyone in the area would end up with a better neighbor, potentially, if it’s not rezoned.  However without the watershed plan that makes it clear that the wetlands will not be denigrated, along with the surrounding property, the decision to rezone is not prudent at this time.

Mr. Bauder concurred with Mr. Bergman.  The suspicion is that the wetland area is much larger than anticipated.  I’m concerned that if this commission approves the zoning change and development starts, the situation may turn out where the company becomes financially insolvent and then what will be left is a disturbed area.  It might be better to leave it as it is.  The upland area there is very good.  And the low area of Phase I is filled with muck and unknown soil, so that doesn’t sound good for a building site.  The development of the high ground is going to increase runoff into the lower areas and it will increase potential flooding levels.  This is a very difficult site to go into without having more information.

Ms. Conaway said that she is disappointed that the developers haven’t done more homework and have more answers.  She said she doesn’t like the thought of doing Phase I, and then just …see what happens.  She said she doesn’t think that’s what the commission likes to see happen in Jackson.

Mr. Benner said that a lot of the questions that are evolving come around to needing more answers and more information.  This does affect a pretty good sized area.  If it is found that the area is indeed wetlands that the federal government says cannot be developed, then all of this effort has been for nothing.  The answers need to be produced before this commission can make and informed decision.

Mr. Benner asked for final comments.  No one replied so he asked for someone to present a motion.

Ms. Conaway moved to approve the amendment as requested.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Ms. Detwiler-no, Mr. Bergman-no, Mr. Bauder-no, Ms. Conaway-no, Mr. Benner-no

Motion (unanimously) denied.

Mr. Benner reminded all of the interested parties present that this decision is a recommendation, and that the Jackson Township Trustees have the final word on the issue.  Their next meeting will probably take place on March 12.

AMENDMENT 556-07
Mr. Benner read the following amendment application information:
Hammontree & Assoc., 5233 Stoneham Rd., North Canton, OH 44720 agent for
Nelson Troyer, 8555 East Lincolnway, Orrville, OH 44667, property owner,
proposes to rezone R-2 ( Two Family Residential) & R-1 (Single Family Low
Density) to R-1A (Single Family Residential) 4.819 acres located east of Harris &
west of Cornwall, Parcel #1617096, Sect.  34NE Jackson Twp.

Mr. Benner stated that the Stark County Regional Planning Commission reviewed the request and had approved it.  He read the eight facts from the RPC report that were considered in making the decision.

Mr. Benner asked if anyone present would like to come forward to speak in favor of the amendment.

Ms. Barbara Hammontree Bennett (Registered Engineer with Hammontree & Associates, Limited) came forward.  She stated that she is also the manager of their land development engineering department and one of the managing partners at the company.  She talked about the history of the project, saying that her company has looked at this property at least three times for different developers over the course of the past ten years.  The other developers that she worked with in the past were looking to put in higher density condominium-type projects.  The single family residential (R-1A), with public streets, was a difficult sell because of the way the stub streets go into this property right now.  The current developer, Northwood Construction, actually considered a cul-de-sac type development without connecting Groton Street and that was not looked at favorably by the RPC.  The good news is that Northwood is going to pursue public road connection between Groton and Harris.  It’s highly desirable by both the Jackson Township Road Dept. and the Fire Dept. that this road goes through.  The road and lot layout submitted to RPC was conditionally approved.

Ms. Bennett referred to maps, photographs, and drawings, using the overhead camera.  There are some existing duplexes and multi-family regions nearby.  The proposed project is compatible with RPC’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as Jackson Township’s Comprehensive Plan.  Part of the plan is a “down-zone” from two-family (R-2) to single family residential (R-1A) and typically that would mean owner-occupied versus rental.  The project will require 700 ft. of new road.  The minimum lot size is 12,000 sq. ft., and some are greater.  The minimum lot width is 80 ft.  Adjacent lots on Harris and Lynleigh are around 90 ft. wide.  Because the property is a funny shape and because there are some difficulties with the construction of the road, the proposal is for 12 lots, even though 14 could actually fit.  It is a substandard yield for the developer, who is willing to put in the extra effort and cost for the road and not go for the higher density condos.  It’s the best chance that the township has had in many years, to get this road connected.  She talked about the traffic study.  According to the Stark County Area Transportation Committee, in 2006, there were 1,400 cars that travel up and down Harris every day.  Hills and Dales has 16,200 cars that travel from the west of Harris Ave. and 18,800 cars that travel east of Harris every day.  The good news is that the county has improvement plans, including drainage improvements, gutter, and road widening along Hills and Dales.  Currently a traffic signal is not warranted at the corner of Hills and Dales and Harris, but future traffic counts may warrant a signal.  The transportation infrastructure is there to support this 12-unit subdivision.  Regarding drainage, the developer is mandated to provide detention in the subdivision.  The design will go through the county subdivision engineer’s office.  Post-development rate of runoff cannot be increased and creep over into the neighbor’s properties.  The improvements are also bonded as another security that the installation will be proper and that the downstream neighbors are protected.

Mr. Benner asked where the storm water runs right now.

Ms. Bennett said that the central part had been filled in and soil borings had been taken.  There is a planned storm sewer for Harris Ave. that would tie into Groton St.  Right now it looks, from the contours, that everything makes its way down to Harris.

Mr. Benner asked if there was anyone else present who wanted to speak in favor of the amendment.

No one replied.

Mr. Benner asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak in opposition.

Jim Jackson (6465 Lynleigh Circle NW Canton OH 44708) came forward.  He stated that his first concern was that he didn’t know who owned the property.  Does Ms. Bennett speak for the owner?

Mr. Benner said that Ms. Bennett works for the engineering company that helped design the proposed project.  The owner is Dennis Mulqueen.

Mr. Jackson said that there have been a number of proposals for this, none of which have come to fruition.  He said that it was his understanding that once the rezone is approved, the developer doesn’t have to build what’s proposed here tonight.  He said that the majority of the property is being requested for a change from R1 to R1A, which allows for smaller properties, so it is not an improvement.  And the road that’s being put in is for the R-2 part.  Why not go with R-1 for all of it?  Maybe 12 lots wouldn’t fit, but 10 or 11 might.  Why not just change the zoning in the R-2 part?  That would keep the area similar to what he owns.  When considering a rezone, there is supposed to be some obvious benefit to the change.  There doesn’t seem to be any benefit for the neighbors.  What kind of houses are going to be built?   What is allowed under R-1A?

Mr. Benner said that R-1A requires lot sizes to be a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft., which is 3,000 sq. ft. less than what’s required under (current) R-1 zoning.  Mr. Benner asked about the different sizes of the lots on the site map.

Ms. Bennett came up back up and stated the sizes of the proposed lots, while pointing to them on the map.

Mr. Benner asked what the size and value of the homes will be.

Mike Boylan (1727 Sedwick Ave. NW, Massillon OH 44646) came forward.  He said he represented Bardon Homes, the company that will be building the houses.  The houses will be approximately 2,500 sq. ft. with 3 bedrooms and the price will be approximately $300,000, maybe a little more.

Troy Julian (6525 Lynleigh Circle NW, Canton OH 44708) came forward.  It’s true that the lots on Lynleigh are 90 ft. wide but no one said anything about the length.  He said the proposed lot behind his is 48 ft. shorter than his.  He showed a site map of an earlier proposal for a cul-de-sac off of Harris Ave., with 10 lots on it.  This idea was much more pleasing to the neighbors.  The reason this was scrapped was because the fire department is going to require that Groton go through.  He explained that he understood that the road needed to be built, but why did that mean that 12 lots needed to be built?  Why not 10, or even eight lots?  Why does the construction of the road mean there must be an increase in the number of the lots built?

Ms. Conaway asked Ms. Poindexter why it was determined that Groton needed to go through if the property was developed?

Ms. Poindexter stated that there is a sanitary easement through there where no structures could be built anyway.  It’s not just RPC, or the fire department that wants the road.  It’s also the road department and the trustees.  This plan is the one the township likes the best.

Ms. Bennett said that the proposal with the 10 lots is actually preferred by the developer because there would be less road to construct, and it would cost less.  If the entire area was zoned R-1 it would reduce the construction possibilities by 25% and would mean 3 less lots.  That would mean that the project wouldn’t be pursued because it wouldn’t be cost effective.

Julian Hallworth (6505 Lynleigh Circle NW, Canton OH 44708) came forward.  He said his concern was that it’s all about money and the adjacent property owners that are butting up against what is currently R-1 wonder whether this rezone request is really an improvement.  He said that he had researched what might be possible for the property in question prior to deciding whether to buy his home.  In the past, other rezone requests had been turned down and that was a factor in helping him decide to purchase, because he felt the trend was that rezone requests would not be approved.  He said he questioned the fire department’s decision that Groton needed to go through.  He hoped that the property behind his would remain similar to his own, the way it was when he decided to buy.  He hasn’t heard any compelling reason why the rezone request would benefit him and his neighbors.

Keith Jacobsen (6539 Lynleigh Circle NW, Canton OH 44708) came forward.  There was a buffer zone originally designed for this property.  Why couldn’t the new road be considered a buffer zone and the zoning stay the way it is, or change the R-2 to R-1, or even R-1A.  This would not change the value of the properties that butt up against those on Lynleigh.  He questioned how the developer would be able to sell homes for $300,000 that are across the street from apartments.  He said that he learned there was a water issue with the property and that it had been filled in before he purchased his home.  His backyard is the lowest point right now and that he receives a considerable amount of runoff.  This is a concern that should be addressed.

Mike Reiger (3585 Cornwall Dr. NW, Canton OH 44708) came forward.  He referred to a previous rezone request that generated articles in the newspaper, as well as an opposition petition, on which he and his wife had worked to gather over 250 signatures of neighbors.  At that time he learned that the people who live on Groton really don’t want the road to go through.  The ten lot plan was the best thing presented.  It’s nice to have the lot vacant, but if something has to be built, that would be the preferred plan.

Andrew Filo (student from Jackson High School) came forward.  He asked if the rezone request would degrade the property values of the adjacent homes.

Mr. Bergman said that it’s speculation but with the kind of housing that being proposed it would appear that it would not.

Joan Greist (3497 Harris Ave. NW, Canton OH 44708) came forward.  She said she has lived there for about 19 years and has felt blessed to have a vacant lot across the street.  She thinks there are a lot more cars traveling Harris daily than 1,400.  There are cars cutting through the apartment parking lot now and if Groton is built, it will also become a cut-through for people avoiding the traffic on Hills and Dales at Harris.  Why can’t the developers design a plan that would not require a rezone of the R-1 section?  This rezoning is going to benefit the developer, maximizing their profit, rather than taking into consideration everyone with homes surrounding the property.

Mr. Boylan returned to the microphone and said that they proposed the 10 lot plan and it was turned down by the RPC.

Mr. Benner said that he believed that the issue seen by the RPC and the Trustees, is concern for public safety.  If the fire department says there is a reason for that road and they need to have more than one access into wherever that road goes, generally this commission listens to the kinds of the things that they report because they are the people who provide public safety for the citizens.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the road will have to be built no matter what the area is zoned.

Ms. Bennett said that the fire department always explores alternative routes in case the main route is blocked for some reason.  She said that when the trustees meet to consider this amendment, the fire department should be there, and these questions about the road could be asked at that time.

Rick Holland (Northwood Construction) came forward.  He repeated Mr. Boylan’s remark about the other plan that would have only ten lots.  It was the preferred plan to begin with, but the RPC recommendation was not to approve it.  The effort is to try and work with the RPC and the neighbors in order to come up with the best solution for everyone involved, and one that will be of some profit as well.  It will be a very nice community.

Mr. Boylan said that there will be restrictions on the building specifications regarding the size and quality of the homes.

Mr. Jackson stated that Dennis Mulqueen owns the property now and that Nelson Troyer is the prospective buyer.  He’s not here tonight but the builders work for him.  Several plans have come and gone over recent years and once the zoning is changed there is no guarantee that what’s proposed here tonight will actually be built the way they say it will.

David Maltese (4010 Falcon Circle NW, Massillon OH 44646) came forward.  He stated that he represents the owner.  The property has been on the open market, the neighbors have had the opportunity to buy it and then they certainly could decide what is done with it.  There is not a significant difference in the lot size between what’s being proposed and the existing lots on Lynleigh Circle.
Ms. Griest returned to the microphone to say that when she bought her home she was told that the property in question was divided into 5-acre tracts.  When Mr. Mulqueen bought it, it was common knowledge that he planned on building one house for himself and a couple homes for his family.  He never bought it with the intention of developing it.  But slowly it’s been pieced off and once the R-1 is undone, it’s undone.

Mr. Bergman asked if the commission could override the recommendation of the fire department and RPC to make the road go through.

Ms. Poindexter said no.

Mr. Benner asked if there was anyone else present who wanted to speak against the amendment.

No one replied.  He closed the floor for public comments and asked the commission to share their thoughts.

Mr. Bergman said he thinks the most confusion surrounds the road going through.  If it has to be built then it might be better to have the whole thing be R-1A, then to have the potential for any R-2 properties going in.  As far as traffic is concerned this proposal would certainly be a better idea for helping to prevent more cars in the area, than if multi-family units were built.  It’s not clear exactly why that road has to go through and if that could be side-stepped then the R-2 could be rezoned to R-1 and this issue would be closed.

Ms. Detwiler said she wasn’t clear about the building of the road being the responsibility of the developer.

Ms. Conaway said that she understood that whoever builds on the property will be responsible for building the road.  She said that if she lived in that neighborhood she wouldn’t want the rezoning to be approved.  The road going through is unfortunately confusing the issue.
Mr. Benner said that the road is not a zoning issue.

Mr. Bauder said he wouldn’t want to buy a house for $300,000 that sits across the street from apartments.

Mr. Bergman moved to approve the requested amendment as written.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Ms. Detwiler-no, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-no, Ms. Conaway-no, Mr. Benner-yes
Motion denied, 3-2.

Mr. Benner reminded all of the interested parties present that this decision is a recommendation, and that the Jackson Township Trustees have the final word on the issue.  Their next meeting will probably take place on March 12.

AMENDMENT 557-07
Mr. Benner read from the file that the applicant had withdrawn the request for rezoning.

AMENDMENT 558-07
Mr. Benner read from the file that the applicant had withdrawn the request for rezoning.

INITIATION OF MAP AMENDMENT
Ms. Poindexter explained that this issue comes from the Jackson Township Board of Trustees and they would like the commission to initiate their request for a rezone of 1.39 acres at the corner of Portage and Lake O’Springs.  Because the property is owned by the township the change would technically be a map amendment.  The trustees would like to have it rezoned from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Two-family residential).

Mr. Bergman asked who would present this.

Ms. Poindexter said that The Jackson Township Zoning Commission would be the applicant for the rezone.  She said she’s not sure who will present it, but perhaps the legal department.

Mr. Bergman said he looked at the property and it makes sense to rezone it, but he doesn’t think it’s appropriate for a board member to actually present it.

Mr. Benner said he wanted to discuss the issue before voting on it.  He said that most of the surrounding property is residential and it might be a good place to put a park.  Jackson doesn’t really have enough public parks.  He’s curious about why the township is in such a hurry to rezone it and sell it.

Ms. Conaway agreed that it’s a shame there aren’t more parks in Jackson.

Ms. Poindexter said that if the commission initiates the rezoning tonight, these questions could be addressed at the amendment hearing.

Mr. Bergman moved to initiate the map amendment, or rezone of 1.39 acres on the corner of Portage and Lake O’Springs in Jackson Township.

Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Benner-yes
Motion approved.

POSTPONEMENT OF WORK SESSION ON PROPOSED ZONING RESOLUTION TEXT CHANGES
Mr. Benner said that it was very late and asked if there was a motion to postpone this work session until the next meeting.

Mr. Bergman moved to postpone the work session.

Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

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

Motion approved.

Ms. Poindexter reminded everyone that the next meeting will be March 15, 2007, at 4:30 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Conaway moved to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

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

Motion approved.

The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Amy Saba
Zoning Data Coordinator