Members Present:
Rodney Napier
Aletha Magyaros
David Benner
Alternate Member: David Clatterbuck
Absent Member:
Donna Conaway
James Bauder
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator: Joni Poindexter
Assistant Law Director: Dave Ferrell
Due to the absence of Mr. Bauder and Ms. Conaway, the alternate member, Mr. Clatterbuck, participated in the hearing of all cases for this meeting.
Mr. Napier asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from January 17, 2002.
Ms. Magyaros made a motion to approve the minutes from January 17, 2002 and Mr. Benner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
RULES OF PROCEDURE – Mr. Ferrell stated that the board has a final copy of the rules of procedures. The last time the rules were considered the two things the board talked about was the reconsideration and the provision regarding the alternate.
Mr. Ferrell stated regarding the reconsideration, what the board chose to do and what was concurred by the trustees was that if there were only four members present at a meeting and there was a tie vote any member of the board, after the tie vote, could make a motion that the amendment be reconsidered. Mr. Ferrell stated that this would have to be done immediately. Assuming that at least three of the four members concur with this then the matter would be reconsidered and scheduled for another time for the entire case to be heard from the beginning. There would not need to be any public notice because the new hearing date and time would be set immediately and announced at the meeting.
Mr. Ferrell stated that the other provision the board had discussed was the role of the alternate. Mr. Ferrell stated that the wording was changed to make it clear that the alternate would be expected to sit with the other board members unless excused by the Chairman or Vice Chairman. In this case the alternate could sit with the public and make their views known as a member of the public.
Ms. Magyaros stated that she thought when they first started reviewing the rules that there was not a term in them as far as how long the alternate would serve on the commission. Ms. Magyaros stated that she thought they talked about a one-year term and now sees that the language is for terms to be determined by the trustees.
Mr. Ferrell stated that this is statutory.
Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion to adopt the rules of procedures and Ms. Magyaros seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Mr. Ferrell stated that there is not requirement for the rules of procedures to go to the trustees so the rules are in effect immediately.
Mr. Napier stated that the first item on the agenda is the nominations for Chairman and Vice Chairmen.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would like to nominate Mr. Napier as Chairman of the commission.
Ms. Magyaros seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Mr. Clatterbuck nominated Ms. Magyaros as Vice Chairman for the commission.
Mr. Napier seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
The board went off record for 15 minutes due the next hearing not being scheduled until 7:30 pm and the time was only 7:15 pm.
The board went back on record at 7:30 pm.
Mr. Benner stated as quoted, "At the January meeting of the commission I was asked by a petitioner to recuse myself from hearing the request. The basis of the request was my participation in an assembly of Jackson Township residents, a public speaking activity and a letter I had written to the editor of a local newspaper. Members of most commissions, review panels and even the Supreme Court, are sure to have opinions on many issues. Justices are usually on one side or the other of moral issues such as the death penalty or abortion. However, they all still participate in the process. To freely express those opinions in public forums is on of the cornerstone elements of our constitution’s Bill of Rights. The beauty of the privilege is that it does not have to be popular, or the same as yours. Having an opinion and expressing it does not preclude mine or anyone’s ability to participate in a legislative process. If it did, we would be hard pressed to find 535 legislators for our Congress. Listening to the presentation of issues by concerned parties, asking questions of those parties and offering input to the other commissioners with all of ones cognitive capabilities and pre-existing knowledge is what I plan to do. If that’s construed as being biased, then I have to conclude we all are biased. I was appointed by the Trustees to participate on the Zoning Commission for the benefit of Jackson Township. Unless the Trustees feel otherwise, I expect to join the Zoning Commission meeting tonight, and to attend as many meetings as I can for the next five years."
AMENDMENT 507-01 – Hammontree & Associates, Limited of 5233 Stoneham Road, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Jackson Portage LLC, property owner, of 6501 High Mill Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) a 3.950 acre tract located at the northwest corner of Portage & High Mill, Sect. 7SW Jackson Twp. (Continued from 1/17/02).
Mr. Napier read the application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for denial and the facts considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Napier asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Ms. Barb Bennett stated that she is a register engineer and Surveyor with Hammontree & Associates and is representing Jackson Portage LLC & Steve Smith.
Ms. Bennett stated that she thinks it is important to lay the facts out and using data, facts, and figures instead of speculation.
Ms. Bennett gave each board member a booklet to help the zoning commission through the presentation.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #1 is the background on the zoning. In 1999 the developer submitted for a B-2 and B-3 zoning at the northwest corner of High Mill & Portage. The developer went door to door of the adjoining neighbors to get their opinions and concerns on the B-2 & B-3 zoning.
Ms. Bennett stated that page two is a traffic impact information report from Northstar Planning & Design. The developer went to the expense to pay for a traffic study to see how the traffic would be impacted on Portage and High Mill. Ms. Bennett stated that page 3 states that the conclusion was that the proposed rezoning would not significantly increase traffic volumes on Portage or High Mill, but could contribute to reducing traffic volumes on other township streets, shortening the average length of vehicular trips, reducing traffic congestion at existing commercial centers, and reducing vehicle emissions. Ms. Bennett stated that the other pages in section #1 contain a quote from Alan Blau, certified appraiser, four letters from property owner stating that they had no objection to the rezone, and quotes from two of the trustees from the 11/9/99 trustee meeting.
Ms. Bennett stated section #2 contained a colored map of property showing the setbacks that are required for the R-4 zoning, an ariel view of the property in question and surrounding properties, and the RPC recommendation for proposed rezoning. Ms. Bennett stated that to the west is a non-conforming use of duplexes and the property to the northwest is owned by Cortia Childs and is part of the Gaslite Villa. Adjacent to the north is a single family residence owned by Michael & Cheryl Carnes and to the east of High Mill Ave. is the Jackson Portage LLC property. To the southeast of the intersection of Portage & High Mill is the property that is zoned B-3. On the south side of Portage St. are two single-family homes. Ms. Bennett stated that the map shows the required setbacks for an R-4 zoning and it is important to note that the distance from the Carnes property to the closest building would be 130 ft.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #2 also contained a copy of the minutes from the Regional Planning Commission meeting on January 8, 2002. Ms. Bennett stated that Gerald Bixler, Executive Director, had stated at that meeting that the staff is not totally opposed to this type of development in this area and it’s probably a good use for that area.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #3 contained a list of the adjoining property owners and a sample letter that was sent to the adjoining property owners inviting them to attend an informal meeting on the zone change request to be held on January 14, 2002 at 6501 High Mill Ave. NW. Ms. Bennett stated that she also faxed a letter to Mr. Phillippi stating that he could attend the meeting if he thought it was appropriate. Ms. Bennett stated that the only people who attended the meeting were Steve Smith, Michael & Cheryl Carnes and herself. Ms. Bennett stated that she typed up the minutes from the meeting and submitted them to Mr. & Mrs. Carnes and a copy is in the booklet in section #3.
Ms. Bennett stated that residents were invited to an informational meeting on February 6, 2002 at the Stark County Library and the only ones who attended were Steve Smith, Jim Bennett, Mr. & Mrs. Zander, Joy Mathews and herself. Ms. Bennett stated that again minutes were typed up for this meeting. Ms. Bennett stated that at the meeting Mr. Bennett wanted to know why single family homes were not feasible. Ms. Bennett stated Emerald Estates has close to 500 homes and 150 are on over ½ acre lots selling at $80,000 per lot minimum. Ms. Bennett stated that this type of development couldn’t be sustained at the corner of Portage & High Mill.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #4 contained past newspaper articles regarding the area in question and a traffic impact study for the area. Ms. Bennett stated that the intersection has the stigma of a deadly intersection and has been known to be a speedway and the development will not significantly increase traffic.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #5 contained a map showing the drainage flow at this time and a second map showing how the proposed drainage would flow.
Mr. Benner asked how much of the tract of land would be covered with buildings, sidewalks, and parking lots.
Ms. Bennett stated that she couldn’t answer this because she does not have the calculations. Ms. Bennett showed the board an architectural sketch of the property and the development. Ms. Bennett stated that there would be two buildings with a lot of open space.
Mr. Benner asked if there is some type of formula used to decide the size of the retention basins.
Ms. Bennett stated that the county has regulations that they would have to abide by. Ms. Bennett stated that any type of development would go through Stark County Regional Planning if apartments, and if Condo’s it would remain within the township. In both instances the county and the township would have the luxury of reviewing the drainage calculations and plans.
Ms. Bennett stated that the buildings would be beautiful with balconies and would have the same elevation view on all sides.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #6 contained the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 from Jackson Township, however this has not been adopted. Ms. Bennett stated that the plan says that there is a trend towards an older population in the township. Ms. Bennett stated that on page #7, Future Population, is says that the planned improvements to infrastructure such as sewage treatment facilities and expansion of water lines in the northwest portion of the township will encourage increased residential development. Ms. Bennett stated that in the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan it says the according to the Stark County Auditor’s Office records and Stark County Regional Planning Land Use Inventory, the prevalent land use appears to be residential and agricultural. However, in reality the major land uses in Jackson Township are residential and commercial. Ms. Bennett stated that the land use section also says that construction of multifamily and two family dwellings has remained relatively consistent since 1980, with an average of 65 units built per year. The trend is toward condominium developments with smaller lot sizes, less maintenance and community open space. Ms. Bennett stated that the total number of households have increased from 1970 to 1994 by 64%.
Ms. Bennett stated that the comprehensive plan also says that large lot zoning is discouraged and not considered an option since increasing lot sizes promotes the use of more land to be consumed by housing and is land consumptive. Ms. Bennett stated that the comprehensive plan concludes that the surveys indicate that residents feel Jackson Township is a good place to live. The Jackson Township Trustees will continue to strive to make Jackson Township a great place to live in the 21st century.
Ms. Bennett stated that section #7 contained multifamily myths and facts from the HomeBuilders Association and section #8 contained a summary of the whole booklet.
Ms. Bennett stated that the summary of the booklet is as follows:
Mr. Napier asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Jim Bennett stated that he lives approximately ¼ mile north of the intersection where the proposed rezoning would take place. Mr. Bennett stated that by and large there is currently in effect a good plan for the development of the township with respect to zoning and there has been established a map review committee for review of that plan. Mr. Bennett stated that the map review committee was formed on the advice of the Stark County Regional Planning Commission on or about October 3, 2000 and was later formally established on the recommendation of the zoning commission. After a year of deliberation, the map review committee has issued a recommendation for the area under consideration. Mr. Bennett stated that the recommendation as submitted stated that the area in question should remain as rural residential in our code. Mr. Bennett stated that the direct quote from the recommendation is that "The current use and zoning of the Northwest Quadrant is primarily residential and agricultural. The map review committee has found no compelling reason to recommend anything other than the current R-R zoning in this area."
Mr. Bennett stated that the recommendation in the past and even now is solidified by the opinion of Stark County Regional Planning who stated that the proposed multifamily units do not fit in with the adjoining homes in the area.
Mr. Napier asked where the quote that Mr. Bennett was speaking of came from.
Mr. Bennett stated that he does not have a copy but he is quoting from a paper he received in the mail.
Mr. Napier stated that it does not appear that the quote was in the recommendation that he has for the record.
Mr. Bennett stated this was from what he received from Ms. Sommers.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the map review committee members have been looking at the township and have been requesting that each member submit their comments or suggestions in writing and then they are provided to the other committee members. Mr. Phillippi stated that he believes this is what Mr. Bennett is referring to. The comments do not constitute any type of a recommendation and no formal action has been taken by the committee to endorse any specific zoning or pattern of development.
Mr. Bennett submitted several photos of homes in the area and five computerized photos, which were marked as exhibit #2-Bennett. Mr. Bennett stated that the photos shown were taken approximately ¼ mile north, south, east, and west from the property in question. Mr. Bennett stated that the photos show nearly all-single family homes with significant quantities of land surrounding them with one exception being the southeast corner of the intersection. Mr. Bennett stated that members of the zoning commission have on two occasions mentioned that the zoning permission was probably a mistake.
Mr. Bennett stated that it is relevant that the photos show three barns pictured, lending credence to the rural atmosphere. Mr. Bennett stated that the rural atmosphere has been pointed out before by a group of pictures of farm animals located within a mile of the intersection in any direction. Mr. Bennett stated that for his efforts he has been labeled as a "cow-counter" who is not open to change and nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Bennett stated that he would be more than willing to see the southeast corner of the intersection changed from B-3 to the current usage of B-1 with the unused portion reverting to R-R as recommended by Stark County Regional Planning.
Mr. Bennett stated that one of the photos is the home of Mr. Kelleher and he would like the commission to keep this photo in mind for later consideration.
Mr. Bennett stated that there is a very bad problem with erosion and water runoff from the Emerald Estates property. Everyone from local residents to the township trustees to the county officials recognize that there is a problem and there currently exists litigation concerning that problem. Mr. Bennett stated that the zoning commission as well as the township trustees was forewarned by local residents and hired consultants about the problem long before the development was approved. Mr. Bennett stated that much of the forewarning was done by the same residents who are present at this meeting hoping to prevent any further deterioration of our locality.
Mr. Bennett stated that if the intersection is dangerous, how could three to sixty more cars entering be safer than three to six for single family homes.
Mr. Bennett stated that the erection of multi-family units of any type would only exacerbate the problems already surfacing. Until the erosion problems and the pending litigation are corrected, no request for rezoning should even be addressed for this area.
Mr. Bennett stated that for the third time the reason given for the rezoning request claims that the market is non-existent for the R-R use because of existing conditions caused by the intersection. Mr. Bennett stated that the current owner knew of the R-R designation when he purchased the property and it should not be up to the residents and township to subsidize his investments. The intersection directly to the west is nearly an identical situation with homes on all four corners.
Mr. Bennett stated that the Kelleher family, who built both homes on the southeast corner, is quite satisfied with their lot selection. Mr. Bennett stated that Mr. Kelleher had stated to him that he had no problem marketing the first home, with subsequent sale to a rather wealthy individual who could chose most any property he wished.
Mr. Bennett stated that the computerized photos shows a number of multi-family units that could be constructed on the lot in question and Mr. Bennett thinks the board would agree that the units certainly could not be construed as fitting in with the current structure.
Mr. Bennett stated that the bottom line is that there are zoning provisions in the township, the current laws have been reinforced by a committee established to make such recommendations, and the Stark County Regional Planning Commission has maintained that the current zoning is a protection for the neighborhood. Mr. Bennett stated that there has been nothing at the hearing to warrant anything by the current R-R regulations now in effect. The rezoning as requested would benefit only one person to the detriment of an entire section of the township. As the Stark County Regional Planning Commission stated in their recommendation for denial, and as Attorney James McHugh found to be true when a rezone request came before the board on October 21, 1999, rezoning of the property could be construed as spot zoning which is unlawful in the state of Ohio. Mr. Bennett stated that rezoning of township land should only be approved for proven needs of the township as a whole, which is not the case in this instance.
Mr. Gary Sommers of 9914 Portage stated that his driveway would be directly across from the entrance way and retention pond. Mr. Sommers stated that there are water problems with Emerald Estates and he is concerned with water damage cause by the proposed development. Mr. Sommers stated that condo’s might be a viable option. However, one doesn’t request an R-4 zoning for condo’s but requests what is appropriate which would be an R-2. Mr. Sommers stated that if apartments are built he does not believe the water could be safely contained to not cause additional problems. Mr. Sommers stated that there are 22 storm drains from the intersection of High Mill & Portage since the improvements were done last summer running through an 18-inch pipe to a 24-inch pipe and into his creek. The creek is 25 ft. in back of his house. When there is a hard rain there is a lot of silt runoff from Emerald Estates and it ends up on High Mill and in the catch basins and then into his creek. Mr. Sommers stated with multiple densities across the street there would be more run off into the road and ditches and the water will end up in his yard.
Mr. Napier asked how long Mr. Sommers has lived at his property.
Mr. Sommers stated he has lived at his residence for 13 years.
Mr. Napier asked how long the duplexes have been at the location across the street.
Mr. Sommers stated approximately 25–28 years.
Ms. Cheryl Carnes of 6979 High Mill stated that she owns the home that is literally being washed off of its foundation and they have suffered thousands of dollars in property damage along with legal fees due to the Emerald Estates project.
Ms. Carnes stated that she and her husband recently met with Steve Smith and a representative from Hammontree and they discussed at length all the drainage problems in the area. Ms. Carnes stated even though Mr. Smith states that he is not directly affiliated with the Emerald Estates project, she would like to remind the commission that he is using the very same engineers and designer.
Ms. Bennett stated that she takes great issue with this.
Mr. Napier stated that Ms. Carnes has the right to speak at this point.
Ms. Carnes stated that this is the very same engineer and designer that designed Emerald Estates. Ms. Carnes gave the board several photos showing the water flow from the Emerald Estates project.
The photos were marked as exhibit #1-Carnes.
Ms. Carnes stated that the photos show the water from the retention basins that were put in. Ms. Carnes stated that she is concerned about water that is going to run off of roofs and parking lots that is going to be only 130 ft. from her home.
Ms. Carnes stated that the design is not functioning and has caused thousands of dollars in property damage to her personally along with a lot of other neighbors. Ms. Carnes stated that for this reason alone she thinks they need to start being conservative about the development in the area. Ms. Carnes stated that she has learned first hand how difficult it is to enforce corrective measure once the damage is done.
Ms. Carnes stated that there has been nothing submitted in writing and Emerald Estates has cost the taxpayers of Jackson Township a fortune, not to mention much anguish and distress and someone needs to start being accountable to the property owners.
Ms. Carnes stated that this is not personal. Mr. Smith has been very accommodating to her personally. However, she now owns a property that has been totally destroyed by overgrowth and careless development. Ms. Carnes stated to allow another project of this magnitude would be ludicrous. Ms. Carnes stated that she would like the board to take a look at the full-scale plan of the remaining undeveloped area of High Mill and Portage. Ms. Carnes stated that she is talking about the northeast corner that has not even been proposed to the board yet. Ms. Carnes stated from what she understands, the plans include a church, more homes and another water retention basin. Ms. Carnes stated that she thinks they have had enough.
Ms. Carnes stated that she had a conversation with Steve Meeks this past fall when he visited her home to see first hand the destruction of her property. Ms. Carnes stated that Mr. Meeks said that he was sorry and would do what ever he could to help them but she needed to remember that his hands were tied. Ms. Carnes stated that Mr. Meeks said as a township there is not much that they can do. Ms. Carnes stated that she told Mr. Meeks, "That’s right Steve there’s not a lot you can do now, however your hands were not tied back in the beginning zoning & development phases of this project." Ms. Carnes stated that she told Mr. Meeks that when the project came to the trustees for approval of the mess is when they had to the chance to prevent this from happening and they did not do this.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Ms. Bennett stated yes, they are the designers for Emerald Estates and she takes great issue with the comment made from Ms. Carnes that Emerald Estates was not designed properly. Ms. Bennett stated that she finds this slanderous and all she has is her good name and reputation. The company name is her maiden name and they have no control over the contractors of Emerald Estates. They do what the developer tells them to do and they comply with the regulations. Ms. Bennett stated that Emerald Estates is not the issue. The issue is Mr. Smith’s Jackson Portage LLC tract.
Ms. Bennett stated as far as the drainage is concerned on Mr. Smith’s tract and Emerald Estates, she does not understand how Mr. Sommers is getting runoff from Emerald Estates and finds it physically impossible when looking at the topographical map.
Mr. Napier stated that Ms. Carnes property is located to the north of the property in question and asked if she had the home built.
Ms. Carnes stated that she bought the home three years ago. Ms. Carnes stated that she would like to clarify the reason she is saying that the design is not functioning correctly is because the retention basin is not large enough. When it rains and overflows, the overflow drops into the county ditch, which runs directly into her backyard. Ms. Carnes stated that when she contacted Regional Planning and the Stark County Commissioners, everybody told her that the plan is not correct.
Ms. Carnes stated that she understands that they submitted new plans to enlarge the basin but the plans were never carried through. Mr. Carnes stated that if they designed it correctly in the first place, why did they have to go back and redesign it.
Mr. Napier stated that if no one else wished to speak that he would like comments from the board.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that if his understanding serves him correctly, all of the drainage has to be controlled and approved by the county.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes, the county approves the drainage plans. This has gone through some changes since the original design of Emerald Estates. The county engineer was previously responsible to serve as the subdivision engineer and now there is a new subdivision engineer that has been hired by Stark County Regional Planning.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if this is the basis regarding the lawsuit that Mr. Bennett was referring to.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he has no knowledge of any lawsuits but does know that the current subdivision engineer is critically evaluating the plans.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that they were talking a lot about the drainage and water and unfortunately this is not a zoning problem.
Ms. Carnes stated that the plans do go through Stark County Regional Planning before they are approved. What the new Regional Planning director explained to her was that there was a different director and that director was willing to approve the plan and the plans are not working. Ms. Carnes stated that because something is designed on paper does not mean that it necessarily will function correctly once it is actually done.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Ms. Carnes affirmed what he said, that this is at a county level and zoning has nothing to do with the drainage.
Ms. Carnes stated that in order for the board to make a decision they need to take these issues in consideration.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that this is always a consideration but the consideration that the zoning commission has to have is that the county will do their job. This issue needs to be taken up with the county not the zoning commission.
Ms. Carnes stated that she agrees however thinks that the board still needs to take these issues into consideration.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board couldn’t control the drainage issue.
Mr. Benner stated that the Regional Planning Commission has recommended denial for the rezoning based on it almost being spot zoning. Mr. Benner stated that RPC has alluded to comments about the map review committee, which is in the process of walking through the various quadrants of the township. Mr. Benner stated that recommendations have been floated for three of the quadrants of the township as far as rezoning. One of the big areas that there was a consensus on for the northwest quadrant was that this is pretty much a rural residential area with the exception of a couple of spots.
Mr. Benner stated that the intersection does, according to the documents that the petitioner has brought, have a fair amount of traffic but it does not appear from the way he counts to have any more traffic then the intersection to the east.
Ms. Magyaros stated that her comments are along the same line as Mr. Benner. Stark Regional Planning brought up a valid point that it seems to be spot zoning.
Mr. Napier stated that he has focused on several areas. Due to the fact that the duplexes have been there for twenty some years, he does not think that anyone would be opposed to an R-2 zoning. Mr. Napier stated that several years ago when the rezoning was brought up he was in favor of B-1 zoning in anticipation of the intersection being opened. Mr. Napier stated that he has now seen the intersection open and doesn’t think that it has changed as much as he thought it would so he is less inclined to believe that commercial would be appropriate in this area. Mr. Napier stated that he believes R-2 would be appropriate and can’t imagine that there would be much opposition because duplexes were in the area before zoning.
Mr. Napier stated that he thinks the multi-family is probably unreasonable for the area and the board is going to have to come to grips that they can’t always rely on regional planning always saying that it’s the map review committee’s job. It is not fair to Mr. Smith or anyone else to have to wait years for a map review committee to make a decision. Mr. Napier stated that his patience is wearing thin with the map review committee’s recommendations and if they don’t take the action in situations like this then the board will have to so property owners won’t be deprived viable use of their land.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Smith if he has ever considered an R-3 PUD.
Mr. Phillippi stated that a PUD would have to go through the PUD process, which would be a zone change approved with a specific plan.
Mr. Steve Smith of 6465 High Mill stated that he has explored options and looked at a different number and types of buildings. Mr. Smith stated that he had seven proposals brought to him by the architect and this is the plan that he thought would best be suitable. Mr. Smith stated that he is making a commitment that this is the plan that one would see if this were approved.
Mr. Smith stated that the two buildings that are shown have less rooftop, hard surface, and runoff then the other building that were explored. This building has more green space to be offered to the residents. With the plans that are shown the buildings have a very residentially architectural look. Mr. Smith stated that if he were to do duplexes under an R-2, he would have more hard surfaces on the property then what he has proposed.
Mr. Smith stated that he would submit to the board that after seven different plans with a significant amount of time and energy over the last three weeks, this is the best plan for the area. Mr. Smith stated that he is very interested in what the neighbors have to say as evidence by all the meetings that he has had. Mr. Smith stated that he is at a loss after two years of seeking direction from the township, zoning inspector, township officials, regional planning and numerous meetings. Mr. Smith stated that he has owned the property for about four years and the character of the intersection has dramatically changed.
Mr. Smith stated that the traffic study indicates that the impact on the area is not significant.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked how many units would be in each building.
Mr. Smith stated that it is set up for 36 units. However, he will do what ever is necessary but he would prefer to have the flexibility to use the rate as shown. Mr. Smith stated that he has not made a decision as to if they would be condos or apartments. Mr. Smith stated that he has been talking to a real estate firm about marketing the properties and how the land could be best used.
Mr. Napier stated that the fact that they are looking at an R-4, it is not required that the plan be site specific. Mr. Napier stated that he has no doubt that this is what Mr. Smith would build but if he decided to sell the property a developer could put in any type of apartments. Mr. Napier stated that he recommends Mr. Smith look at an R-3 and he would be in favor of an R-2 because there are duplexes in the area.
Mr. Smith stated with this in mind he believes he has the opportunity to change the request. Although he has not reviewed the R-3 he knows what the commission is saying and understands their concerns. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to request a change to R-3.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Smith could ask for a continuance to submit an R-3 for consideration because a plan would have to be submitted.
Mr. Napier stated that the request could be modified to an R-2 at this point.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that if a plan is submitted under the R-3 then the board has the power to hold them to the plan.
Mr. Smith stated that he would respectfully submit the drawings at this time for the record because this is the plan that would be done. Mr. Smith stated the drawing shows the look of the buildings and he has the floor plans if the board needs to see them. They would be one and two bedroom condos or apartment. Mr. Smith stated that he has shown the buildings and the drainage and if he can not make the change to an R-3 then he would like to move ahead with the R-4.
Mr. Napier stated that it is his understanding that the request cannot be modified to an R-3, it could only be modified to an R-2.
Mr. Smith stated that for an R-2 with the studies that have been done, does not produce viable use of the land based on the irregular shape of the land. Mr. Smith stated that an R-4 is the best use of the land.
Ms. Sommers of 9914 Portage St. stated that she is on the map review committee and Mr. Napier had made the statement that he is becoming impatient with the map review committee because it has been years. The committee was formed in January of 2001 and appointed only one year and one month ago and to say that it has been years is an exaggeration.
Mr. Napier stated that there was a committee prior to the present committee.
Ms. Sommers stated that she wanted to make sure the people know that the present committee was only formed a year ago and is very committed to getting the work done and they are almost completed with their recommendations.
Ms. Sommers stated that she is against the R-4 density. The plan is a beautiful design but it is not appropriate at the proposed site.
Ms. Scourfield of 9501 Pondera stated that she wanted to clarify that an R-3 PUD requires four acres and the property in question is only 3.950 acres.
There were no further comments.
Ms. Magyaros made a motion to vote on amendment #507-01.
Mr. Benner seconded the motion.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he is in favor of some type of plan or multi use of the property. However, he is not sure as to what they could do as far as submitting something different. The board did vote at one time for B-1 for the property and now they seem to have difficulty voting for an R-4. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that his vote is no, but he is definitely in favor of some type of multi family on the property.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-no, Mr. Benner-no, Ms. Magyaros-no, and Mr. Napier-no.
Mr. Napier stated that the board has recommended denial for amendment 507-01.
AMENDMENT 508-02 – Hammontree & Associates, Limited of 5233 Stoneham Road, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Pine Ridge Group, LTD, property owner, of 7694 Strausser St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) 6.836 acres, more or less, located on the east side of Jackson Ave., south of Knight St., Sect. 34SW Jackson Twp.
Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for a modification of the proposed rezoning to R-2 (Two Family Residential District) and the facts considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Napier asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Ms. Barb Bennett stated that she is a register engineer and Surveyor with Hammontree & Associates and is representing Pine Ridge Group LTD.
Ms. Bennett showed the board a colored map of the tract in question and explained the site. Ms. Bennett stated that to the south is open space.
Ms. Bennett stated that there are multi family units on Jackson Avenue.
Ms. Bennett stated that there is creek that runs along the property and drains to the south and from the west to the east. Ms. Bennett stated that there would be four unit buildings with a maximum of 36 units, the access would be from Knight St., and they would like to avoid any access on Jackson Ave due to a lot of traffic and poor visibility due to hills in the road. Ms. Bennett stated that the natural drainage pattern goes to the creek.
Ms. Bennett stated that the property in question is next to the Aberdeen Ridge & Aberdeen Glen PRD development.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if there are gas lines that run along the creek.
Mr. Fred Tobin stated that there are gas wells on the property that is on the open space of the PRD development.
Ms. Bennett stated that according to the census data of the comprehensive plan it states that there is a trend towards the older population in the township. The most significant increase in age groups occurs between the ages of 60 and 79 where an 89% increase is shown. Ms. Bennett stated that condominium developments in the township are interspersed with single family development throughout the township with the exception of the northwest portion, which are primarily single family and large lots with the need for septic systems.
Ms. Bennett stated that empty nesters, ages 55 to 64 would make up a large part of the growth spurt in Jackson Township within the next few years. They will be looking for more compact quarters and their choice of housing will include infill development and condominiums.
Ms. Bennett stated that it is estimated that Jackson Township will have enough land available to meet new housing demands, both single and multi-family for more than 100 years.
Ms. Bennett stated that with the zoning setback requirements and the site being adjacent to open space the most impact will be on the property owner himself.
Mr. Fred Tobin of 7694 Stausser NW stated that he has been a resident of Jackson Township since 1970 and is a managing member of the Pine Ridge Group and the developer of the project. Mr. Tobin stated that in the Aberdeen Ridge development there are seven homes that are under way in the $450,000 to $650,000 range. Mr. Tobin stated that on the Aberdeen Glen side is 29 lots that will probably be in the $180,000 to $200,000 price range.
Mr. Tobin stated that they are trying to come up with an alternative choice. Mr. Tobin stated that he is doing a project in Massillon that is very nice and the proposed project will be almost the same.
Mr. Tobin stated that the sizes proposed are 16 x 29-ft. great room, 12 x 13-ft. sm. Bedroom, and a 14-1/2 x 14-1/2 Master bedroom. Mr. Tobin stated that they are also looking at security issues. Mr. Tobin stated that he has been building in Jackson Township for 23 years is the developer and the builder of the project so it would be done very nice. Mr. Tobin stated that the four unit buildings would be wheelchair accessible.
Mr. Napier stated that it seems that most of the impact would be on Mr. Tobin’s own property.
Mr. Tobin stated this is correct because he owns the property next to the proposed rezone.
Mr. Benner asked Mr. Tobin if anyone who lives across Jackson Ave. had been in contact with him.
Mr. Tobin stated no.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the amendment and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he has no trouble with the R-4 request. There will be roads on three sides and green space. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Tobin owns the adjoining property so it would not be a disadvantage to anyone else and Mr. Clatterbuck does not think this would be spot zoning.
Ms. Magyaros stated that she has the same comments as Mr. Clatterbuck and Mr. Tobin owns 57 acres beside the property in question and would only be impacting himself.
Mr. Benner stated that R-2 was mentioned by Regional Planning and it is in proliferation on the west side and all through the area. This would be complementary if this section were zoned R-2.
Mr. Napier stated that he would echo the comments on the impact and thinks this is a well thought out plan and will be beneficial to the township.
Ms. Magyaros made a motion to vote on amendment 508-02.
Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Mr. Napier stated that the board has recommended approval for amendment #508-02.
AMENDMENT 509-02 – Larry St. Jean of 6979 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 & Barbara Johnson of 4722 EchoSprings NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agents for Vincent Manno, property owner, of 4544-9th St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 proposes to rezone R-1A (Single Family Residential District) to R-2 (Two Family Residential District) Parcel #16 22017, .27 acres located on the northwest corner of Bob O-Link and Frank Ave., Sect. 11SE Jackson Twp.
Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for denial and the facts considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Napier asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Larry St. Jean of 6979 Frank Ave. NW stated that he lives adjacent to the property in question. Across the street is zoned industrial and most homes on Frank within the block are duplexes.
Mr. St. Jean stated that his family lives on both sides on the property to the left and right and the property would be well kept.
Mr. St. Jean stated that he spoke with Mr. Phillippi regarding the variance that would be needed for the lot size and was told that if the variance did not go through, the property could still be used for a single family home.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the amendment and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that this was a recommended area for the map review committee to look at and the zoning fits right in. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks it makes a great natural buffer and has no problem with this amendment.
Mr. Benner stated that this is an area that the map review committee has looked at and the recommendation for the area is to change the zoning all along Frank between Whippoorwill and Bob White to R-2 so he does not have a problem with this.
Ms. Magyaros stated that she agrees that R-2 fits in this area.
Ms. Magyaros made a motion to vote on amendment #509-02.
Mr. Benner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Mr. Napier stated that the board has recommended approval for amendment #509-02.
AMENDMENT 510-02 – Christine & Dean Costilow, property owner, of 3720 Bel-Air Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to B-1 (Suburban Office & Limited Business District) .39 acres, more or less, also known as 3720 Bel-Air Ave. NW, Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp.
Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for denial and the fact considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Napier asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Dean Costilow of 3720 Bel-Air NW stated that his house sits on an island between Fulton, Bel-Air, and Miles. Mr. Costilow stated that his house is the only one that abuts the businesses on Fulton Rd. and he has a very small back yard.
Mr. Costilow stated that the property is surrounded by streets, which could be used for the buffer area. Mr. Costilow stated that he tried to sell his house and some of the comments were because of the close proximity to the businesses, no one wanted to buy the home. Mr. Costilow stated that there is a row of pine trees along the property line for the property located at Bel-Air and Fulton but just last week he was told that the pine trees are going to be removed.
Mr. Napier asked if any of the current businesses adjacent to Mr. Costilow’s property approached him to purchase his property.
Mr. Costilow stated no. However, he did have a call once from a lawyer asking if the property was zoned B-1 and when told no, he said he wasn’t interested.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Napier asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Dwight Tschantz of 4000 Miles stated that he has lived at his residence since 1975. Mr. Tschantz stated that the property in question is right across the street from him and he opposed to any rezoning. Mr. Tschantz stated that they have been through this before with Reverend Johnson in the mid 1980’s.
Mr. Tschantz stated that the neighborhood has been through the Fulton development and they did not want any B-2 or B-3’s moving into the neighborhood and they organized to the point where they thought B-1 would be a good buffer. Mr. Tschantz stated that it is very important that the B-1 stay on the main drag, which is Fulton.
Mr. Tschantz stated that he would consider this to be spot zoning and by rezoning it, it would be coming into an area that is all residential.
Mr. Larry Linn of 3995 Bel-Air stated that he is submitting form letters to the commission from people who could not attend the meeting but are opposed to the rezoning request. Mr. Linn stated that the B-1 was a buffer for the allotment and should remain as so. Mr. Linn stated that he and most of the neighbors do not want B-1 encroaching into their allotment. Mr. Linn stated that the property owners want to protect their investment and asked that the request be rejected.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he was a part of the original project and this is one time that the map review committee really did their work. There were a lot of battles regarding property along Fulton and Reverend Johnson was very instrumental in putting together a good group. The map review committee at that time came up with a recommendation and conclusion that if you go into one piece of property then you have to go into another and so on. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he feels for Mr. Costilow but he is not in favor of rezoning the property because the access would be through a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Tschantz stated that the Costilow’s do not have any buffering for their property in the back and asked how the B-1 properties got away with not putting in a buffer.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he can’t speak as to what was done in the past but now when residential properties are converted to commercial the current zoning requirements are applied and they have to meet the current requirements as close as possible or have to ask for a variance.
Mr. Benner asked if approved, would parking spaces be required.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the number of parking spaces is based on the use of the property.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if it is correct that a commercial business cannot have access through a residential street.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it would require approval of the township trustees.
Mr. Napier stated that when he first looked at the property on paper he thought that it was part of an island. The unfortunate thing is that the developer at the time didn’t extend his property line down farther. Mr. Napier stated without having ingress or egress from an arterial street is something that he would not feel comfortable with in changing the zoning.
Ms. Magyaros stated that she thinks to rezone the property to B-1 would do away with the buffer zone that was created along Fulton.
Ms. Magyaros made a motion to vote on amendment 510-02.
Mr. Benner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-no, Mr. Benner-no, Ms. Magyaros-no, and Mr. Napier-no.
Mr. Napier stated that the board had recommended denial for amendment 510-02.
Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ms. Magyaros seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary