Members Present:
David Clatterbuck
Rodney Napier
Donna Conaway
Thomas Winkhart
James Bauder
Alternate Member: Aletha Magyaros
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Clerk/Secretary: Joni Poindexter
Trustee Members-Present
for Work Session Only:
Patty Miller & John Pizzino
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the board had any discussion on the minutes of February 15, 2001.
Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the minutes of February 15, 2001 and Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Winkhart-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
AMENDMENT #495-01 – Sean Sanford of 3951 Convenience Cir. NW, Suite #301, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Mildred Burkett, property owner, of 2207 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 proposes to rezone R-1A (Single Family Residential District) to B-1 (Suburban Office & Limited Business District) .75 acres, more or less, also known as 2207 Wales Ave., on the northwest corner of Wales and Taggart, Sect. 32SE Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file)
Mr. Clatterbuck read the application file and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial and the facts that were considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Sean Sanford of 5445 Whipple Ave. NW stated that the purpose for the rezone is because the area has grown. Across the street is B-3 as well as B-1 and B-3 to the south of the property in question.
Mr. Winkhart asked if the home is currently occupied.
Mr. Sanford stated no.
Mr. Sanford stated that directly across the street are several office buildings that were rezoned several years ago for office use. Behind these office buildings are approximately $250,000 to $300,000 homes, which have not been affected by the offices and Mr. Sanford believes the home values beside the property in question would not be affected.
Mr. Sanford had no further comments.
Mr. Randy Compton of 1033 Maple View stated that he recommended to the owners of the property that they get the property rezoned due to the fact, that in his experience of selling real estate, there is a limited amount of people that would purchase a home along a busy intersection and surrounding businesses. Mr. Compton recommends the property be zoned to commercial.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the proposed zone change.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if anyone wanted to speak against the proposed zone change.
Mr. Ed Daily of 1338 Taggart St. stated that he lives two houses down from the proposed zone change and this would affect the property values. Mr. Daily stated that he is currently looking to sell his home and the lady that wants to purchase his property is waiting to see what happens with the zone change. Mr. Daily stated that the resale value of his home would be affected if the property were rezoned
Mr. Daily stated that people use Taggart St. as a cut through and speed through the area. Mr. Daily also believes that there would be an increase in crime and vandalism. Mr. Daily stated that he doesn’t believe the property owner has tried to sell the property because he has not seen a for sale sign in the yard. The reason the home is less attractive to sale is because the owners have allowed the house to get run down.
Mr. Daily stated that his main concern is safety and if the property is rezoned, Mr. Daily wants to know where it would stop.
Mr. Daily had no further comments.
Ms. Burkett stated that she is the owner of the property and is in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Burkett stated that there are teenagers from Pizza Hut that drive her crazy and she is a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood and she is tired of it.
Ms. Burkett stated that the other residents have their privacy but she doesn’t. Ms. Burkett stated that she believes her property is a perfect place for rezoning and an office building would be very attractive and would not take away from the neighborhood.
Mr. Kim Watts of 1345 Taggart stated that he is against the rezoning. Mr. Watts stated that he lives directly across the street from the property in question beside Pizza Hut. Mr. Watts stated that he has lived at this location for 20 years and would like to go on record that he is against the zone change.
Mr. Watts stated one reason is traffic. Taggart is already a busy street and it will only get worse with the hospital being built and Bordner’s going in at Wales Square.
Mr. Watts stated that he is concerned with drainage. During moderate rainfall the intersection at Taggart and Wales floods and Mr. Boger can attest to this. Mr. Watts stated that a zone change would create more runoff, increase the danger and create more back up on the road.
Mr. Watts stated that he is surrounded by businesses. If any business goes in across the street it will kill he and his neighbor’s property values. Mr. Watts stated that there is enough vacant property around him that is already zoned for business and Mr. Watts believes rezoning of the property would be close to spot zoning.
Mr. Watts stated that he nor the other residents were ever approached with any definite plans or designs for the property so how could Mrs. Burkett or her agent think that the neighbors would be in favor of a zone change. This shows that they have no concern now or in the future for the neighbors.
Mr. Watts stated that Mrs. Burkett attempted to rezone the property in 1990 and it was rejected at that time. Mr. Watts wants to know what has changed in the area to approve the rezoning now.
Mr. Watts stated that if the rezone were approved, the next step would probably be a conditional use permit on the property or later asking for B-2 or B-3. Mr. Watts stated that the zoning commission has a chance to save the integrity of the neighborhood and urges the commission to vote no on the amendment.
Ms. Vicki Kemp stated that her father owned the property at 1344 Taggart and in 1990 her father spoke against the zone change. Since this time he has passed away and now she and her sisters own the property. If the property is zoned B-1 a parking lot could go in right next to her bedroom window. Ms. Kemp does not believe there is a reason for B-1. Ms. Kemp stated that there are other buildings right across the street that are empty and asked why the area would need more. Ms. Kemp stated that she does not believe rezoning the property is a good idea.
Mr. Ralph Doty of 1022 Taggart stated that he has lived at this location for 30 years. Mr. Doty stated that he moved to the township because he did not want to live in Massillon. The more the property is improved, the more Massillon will want to annex it. Massillon keeps encroaching on Jackson’s territory and Mr. Doty does not want this to happen.
Mr. Doty stated that the houses behind Wales Square were built after the shopping center so the people who bought the homes knew what they were getting into. Mr. Doty stated that he feels if rezoning keeps taking place, this area in Jackson will become part of Massillon.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Doty is right about annexation and this is a big issue. Unfortunately the township is at a disadvantage in regards to annexation. However, there is presently a legislation to change the annexation laws but Mr. Clatterbuck does not know where this will go.
Mr. Haas of 1306 Taggart stated that he has lived at this location since 1954 and he represents a number of residents that want to voice their objections. Mr. Haas stated that he was also opposed to the zone change for the Pizza Hut but it went through anyway. There is plenty of land to the south and east of Wales for commercial development. Mr. Haas and the residents that he represents would like to maintain the integrity of the residential area.
No one else in the audience spoke against this amendment.
Mr. Winkhart stated that he agrees with Mr. Haas and thinks there are some very defined lines of residential areas and if the commercial B-1 use starts nibbling away at it then it will progress.
Mr. Bauder stated that he agrees with Mr. Winkhart.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that many times proposals have come in for properties along Wales. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he has pretty much stated his position that Wales is the line where the commercial is going to stay on the east side and residential on the west side. Mr. Clatterbuck stated there was a problem between Concord and Caroline for businesses, which are a non-conforming use because it was there before zoning. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that when the property was rezoned for Pizza Hut it was his understanding that this is where it would stop. Mr. Clatterbuck stated he would like to keep the property in question residential.
Mr. Napier stated this is another prime example of the map review committee being needed. Mr. Napier does not believe it is an unreasonable request for B-1 especially with a B-3 immediately next to it. Mr. Napier stated that he is in favor of blending business uses into residential but this is a situation where the map review committee needs to look at it and if any action is taken then the entire strip needs to be considered. Mr. Napier stated that he is opposed to the rezoning at this time.
The board had no further comments.
Mr. Napier made a motion to vote on amendment #495-01 as submitted.
Mr. Winkhart seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Bauder-no, Mr. Winkhart-no, Ms. Conaway-no, Mr. Napier-no and Mr. Clatterbuck-no.
AMENDMENT #496-01 – A. J. Diana Sons Inc., Timothy Diana of 1916 Erie Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Jeff & JoAnn Barber, property owner, of 2503-57th St. NE, Canton, Ohio 44721 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to B-1 (Suburban Office & Limited Business District) the rear portion of a .54 acre tract, also known as 3445 Whipple Ave., Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file)
Mr. Clatterbuck read the application file and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval and the facts that were considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Timothy Diana stated that he is representing A. J. Diana and the Barbers. Mr. Diana stated that the property is all zoned B-1 except for a small portion that is pie shaped and located at the rear of the property. Rezoning this piece would bring the property into conformance with the rest of the property that is already zoned B-1.
Mr. Diana has no further comments.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this amendment and no one in the audience spoke against this amendment.
The board had no comments and Mr. Napier made a motion to vote on amendment #496-01 as submitted.
Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Bauder-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.
WORK SESSION – Review, discussion and proposed revisions of the Jackson Township Zoning Resolution 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 the next matter is a continued work session. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Phillippi had put together another proposal for the board to look at regarding PRD’s.
Ms. Miller stated that the Township Trustees would call their meeting to order.
Ms. Miller and Mr. Pizzino are in attendance for the work session.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the work session is an open forum so those who would like to speak may do so.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would like to look at the proposals as a package unless the board would like to go through it paragraph by paragraph.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he does not think that the draft should be looked at paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Ferrell stated that he thinks the idea is to discuss the boards and publics view of using the PRD as a conditional use permit as opposed to what has been done in the past. When the PRD’s where first talked about a few years back, the idea of a PRD being a conditional use was discussed. However, it didn’t get very far possibly because they thought some of the other options were more appropriate at that time but now things have changed. Mr. Ferrell stated that his thinking on this is to discuss the idea of a conditional use and get a feel for if this is the direction that the board wants to go.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated a number of years ago the BZA had more or less made a statement that they felt that they had too much zoning put into the discretion of the BZA, so more or less this was kept away from them because this was the their request. Not necessarily this particular item, but they did not want everything to be a BZA issue. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that this needed to be looked at as a whole and then be put into a draft.
Mr. Ferrell stated a conditional use permit establishes a public hearing and also certain criteria for the BZA to look at. Another significant change that Mr. Phillippi is proposing for discussion purposes, is whether or not to enlarge the site plan review committee from the current three to possible adding two more experts to the committee. Another is to have an initial step before the filing of the application for the conditional use permit. One of which would be an informal meeting with the zoning administrator and another being some type of meeting between the developer and the adjacent property owners. Mr. Ferrell stated that the changes came up from discussions that were brought up at the last meeting.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that they like it when the developers have meetings with the neighbors and asked if the board has the authority to mandate a meeting.
Mr. Ferrell stated that it would be a precondition as part of the application. The way Mr. Phillippi has it written now, it would come after the application is made. Another option would be if the meeting was required before the application. Mr. Ferrell stated that what they want, is more communication between the developer and the neighbors.
Mr. Ferrell stated a lot of people are opposed to something because they do not know what it is about. However, once they know what it is about they may still be opposed but at least they are educated.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Ferrell is saying that they do have the authority to mandate a meeting.
Mr. Ferrell stated right.
Ms. Miller asked how a meeting could be required before making an application.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it would be part of the criteria for the application.
Mr. Ferrell stated on the application form, one of the things that they would have to produce is that they had a meeting with the neighbors as a precondition and if they don’t have this then they don’t have a complete application.
Mr. Phillippi stated the reason that he put it in after the application was filed, was simple so that when they held the meeting with the residents there would be something for the residents to actually look at and review. Certainly this is not written is stone. He is just trying to get a consensus on the way they want to go and what the commission would like to see drafted up.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would like to hear comments from the public.
Mr. Napier stated without talking about specifics, but talking about the proposal going before the BZA.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks the whole concept should be looked at.
Mr. George Smerigan of 10 W. Erie, Painsville, Ohio stated that he is representing the BIA of Stark County. Mr. Smerigan stated that he is opposed to any change to the PRD as a conditional use permit by right within the residential district. Mr. Smerigan stated the commission and zoning committee spent a great deal of time developing the regulations. As a result of their efforts, standards and recommendations were developed in terms of the way to approach development within the community. One of the goals was to encourage development to be done in such a way that it created more permanent open space. This is the concept of the PRD. The developer maximizes the open space in exchange for clustering the units. If there were not an incentive for maximizing or preserving the open space than the technique would not be use and the open space would not get preserved. Mr. Smerigan stated that the way the system is now and the way PRD’s work, provided a basis for doing that in Mr. Smerigan’s, the BIA’s and the consultant’s opinion and at least at one time the commissions opinion.
Mr. Smerigan stated the technique is being used and his concern is if it were changed and additional hurtles were created, they may get a less desirable technique and then it would not be used. Mr. Smerigan stated if the idea is that they do not want anyone to do PRD’s then this is one thing but Mr. Smerigan thought that this was a preferred form of development, to preserve permanent open space.
Mr. Smerigan stated in his and the BIA’s opinion the PRD needs to be kept in the format that it is currently in. Mr. Smerigan stated that it is difficult for him to understand how a residential development can be pulled from a residential use and made a conditional use in residential district.
Mr. Smerigan stated that he has severe reservations about the citizen participation that is outside of the public process. Mr. Smerigan asked if it were in the conditional use process, would it be for all conditional uses in the R-R and R-1 district or only for someone would wants to build single family homes. It seems to Mr. Smerigan that the standards would be applied in a very unfair fashion. Mr. Smerigan stated that the township and the law provide for a public process and the BZA goes though this on a regular basis. Mr. Smerigan does not agree with a parallel process separate from the formal official process. If the developer wants to meet with the neighbors and answer their concerns he has the option but Mr. Smerigan does not see how this could be mandated. Mr. Smerigan asked if they would later end up defending claims that the meeting did not happen in a proper manner.
Mr. Smerigan stated that the city of Kent tried to formalize the citizen participation requirement and did adopt some standards that said that it was mandatory for someone proposing to do a project to meet with the neighbors in this kind of separate process. It has since been abandoned because they found that it was completely unworkable. Mr. Smerigan stated that he believes if the township tries to proceed in this fashion that they will find the same thing.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Ferrell if the conditional use permit would be discriminatory in any way and can they require an informal public hearing.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he has not seen any cases one way or the other. The whole idea of the conditional use is because there are separate conditions depending upon the use that is being put in.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the PRD is already in place and units have already been approved. There has already been some precedence set in areas, which means there is some criteria and guidelines. Mr. Clatterbuck believes there is some value in allowing the public having some input and by it going to the BZA it may be a reasonable way to go.
Mr. Smerigan stated that within a residential district one has the right to build single family homes at a certain density and as long as the criteria is met one can move forward. This is the way the PRD should be handled. The process should be the same as a subdivision. Mr. Smerigan stated that if doing a residential development in a residential district and meeting the criteria, the process should be the same. As soon as you make the process different, more difficult and time consuming, you discourage developers from pursuing that option and force them to the other option which doesn’t produce what he understood to be the desired end result, which is the permanent open space.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he does not see any discouragement the way Mr. Phillippi has it written. One of the things that was an issue before was that they did not dictate any lot size. In the proposal there is a minimum of a 7,500-sq. ft. lot size. Mr. Clatterbuck stated where the green space is can be an issue and Mr. Clatterbuck thinks this could be worked out.
Mr. Smerigan stated it is in every body’s best interest to do the projects well and thinks the concern is what are the hurtles that one has to go through and do they make sense. Mr. Smerigan stated that he thinks the whole idea behind doing the clusters and a PRD are that they would control the development by density. If allowed 2 units per acre and they have a 50-acre site then they can build 100 units. If this is reasonable and can be handled as far as soil and streets then it doesn’t seem to Mr. Smerigan that it makes a great deal of difference how it is done internally within the site as long as there is still the control of the maximum density. If the lots are made smaller than there is more open space, Mr. Smerigan does not see how this is a bad thing. Mr. Smerigan stated internally if the lot is small but backs up to a larger open space, the effect of the lot is larger. Mr. Smerigan does not know what could be gained by a minimum lot size.
Mr. Winkhart is not sure he has an opinion on the public input, but it is his experience that successful developers usually meet with the neighbors if they feel there is a problem.
Mr. Smerigan stated his issue is holding a meeting that is not in a public forum and not controlled by public officials. Mr. Smerigan stated that there is no way of controlling the process.
Ms. Miller stated that the meeting in not suppose to be a formal hearing, it is suppose to be a meeting with the neighbors to give them an opportunity to see the plans that are being submitted. Most of the time when a developer is trying to do a good job, they do not need to be told to do this.
Mr. Smerigan stated that he does not disagree with this but it would be a mandatory requirement and a hoop that the developers would have to go through. Mr. Smerigan stated he has no problem with them saying that before someone submits a formal application they would have to come in and meet with the staff and go over the procedures and the process. If it is put in that it is suggested that a meeting be held with the property owners, then this is fine. But when it is made mandatory, the nature of it is changed and it is a matter for concern.
Mr. Pizzino stated that he believes the board understands what Mr. Smerigan is saying, however there are others is the audience that would like to voice their opinion.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he believes Mr. Smerigan’s point in valid, that it could be a judicial problem, but it does not mean that it could not be overcome. Maybe it should be looked at in steps in terms of public participation. Details could be worked out later. First it needs to be decided if the meeting is appropriate.
Ms. Conaway stated that she believes public participation is important and this is what is lacking.
Mr. Dave Brenner of 6379 KilKenny stated that he likes a lot of the points that were brought up and does not see anything that would prevent a developer from doing a PRD with the proposed changes. Mr. Brenner thinks it is good that Mr. Phillippi has taken upon himself to take a look at some of what he believes are inadequacies and what a lot of residents have expressed are inadequacies in the way PRD’s could be done today. Mr. Brenner stated that there is not a public forum so the public can make their feelings known.
Mr. Brenner stated that lot sizes are important.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Brenner if he would be satisfied in coming to a BZA hearing.
Mr. Brenner stated he does not see why the developer could not meet with the residents and have a BZA meeting.
Mr. Paul Blackiston of 9164 Hocking St. asked why, when talking about open space, would they give credit for unusable land regarding wet lands, gas easements, etc.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated because it is land that is not developable.
Mr. Blackiston stated that open space should be something that can be utilized.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the decision was made a long time ago to make the attempt, but to make that all utilized land would be almost impossible. It used to be that 50 % of it had to be useable and Mr. Phillippi’s recommendation is to remove this and just have it open space whether it is in the natural state or a drainage ditch.
Mr. Blackiston stated why not go to a concept of greenways where it would actually tie into different communities and open spaces and have paved trails.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated this is where he believes the government would have to intervene or buy easements.
Mr. Blackiston asked why the developer couldn’t do this.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated he does not believe this could be mandated. Mr. Clatterbuck stated he thinks roads could be done but he is not sure about parkways or greenspace. They do not know what the next person will do with adjacent acreage.
Mr. Blackiston stated why not make this for any residential development.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would love to see the whole community go to a smart growth plan which would be clustered living intermixed with commercial here and there and connecting greenspaces, but Mr. Clatterbuck is not sure anyone has ever agreed with this concept.
Mr. John Dugas of 7232 Thatcher stated that he thinks the proposal is great by providing a method for the public to give their input. Mr. Dugas stated that he may have opinions that are too strong but at least this would give him a chance to voice them. Mr. Dugas stated possibly there could be mail in results so the contractor don’t have to actually conduct a meeting.
Mr. Dugas stated that he believes minimum lot sizes are a great thing to have and his personal feeling is that he would like to see the minimum lot size larger than 7,500 sq. ft.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Dugas if he would be satisfied with a BZA hearing.
Mr. Dugas stated as long as he has an opportunity to say something and would like to see the plan prior to the meeting.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the plans are available for the public to view.
Ms. Conaway asked if Mr. Dugas would prefer one or the other as far as a meeting.
Mr. Dugas stated that he would prefer both but could accept only the BZA meeting.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board did put something into the regulations that states that the adjoining property owners needed to be notified of a PRD.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the regulations say that the developer will supply the names and addresses of the adjoining property owners and the zoning administrator would notify them. Mr. Phillippi stated that when this was done he received a lot of calls and the first question asked was what was being proposed. The plan was available to them but they were very frustrated to the fact that they were notified but had no input.
Ms. Stephanie Scourfield of 9501 Pondera St. stated the when the PRD’s were officially approved, one of the trustees said lets try it and see what happens because it is new and deserves a test. Less than a month ago a second trustee said, regarding Emerald Estates, that this is the first allotment out of the box and everything that they could have done wrong, they done wrong. Ms. Scourfield stated that this needs to be kept in perspective when listening to what the builders are saying in terms of what they approve of and their suggestions.
Ms. Scourfield stated the next logical step it seams to her is that they set forth the trail and error and found the error. So it appears. Ms. Scourfield stated that she is thankful that the trustees brought this to the zoning board to do something about it and correct the loopholes and how people are circumventing the system to get what they want.
Ms. Scourfield stated that she urges the commission to take into consideration the residents interest and make sure the residents have a say.
Ms. Scourfield stated that she likes a minimum lot size, however she thinks it could be larger.
Ms. Scourfield stated, in reference to when the residents should be notified, she thinks it is important that it happen before any kind of official process goes on because it has been her experience that once something has been propose to any official body, it is cast in stone according to the builders.
Ms. Scourfield stated that she liked what Mr. Phillippi had suggest the first time, but believes a compromise is a necessity and this looks like a first step.
Mr. Ferrell stated that a previous speaker suggested mail responses and asked Ms. Scourfield if she has any thoughts on this matter.
Ms. Scourfield stated that she believes things get handled more efficiently if it is person to person, but if there were a meeting with the developers she would like to see someone from the township sit in on it.
Mr. Ferrell asked if there is an alternative to a meeting because he can see some value in giving people a plan and letting them put their thoughts on paper.
Ms. Scourfield stated that she prefers face to face because she believes people come to an understanding more easily rather then shuffling paper.
Ms. Scourfield asked Mr. Ferrell if he found anything on the issue whether it is possible for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Ferrell stated that his position is the same and does not believe there would be problem especially if done as a conditional use.
Mr. Phillippi stated they were trying to get a consensus to if the conditional use process would be something that the township wanted to pursue. All details would have to be worked out and there is nothing to prevent more than one meeting. Mr. Phillippi stated that he envisioned that he would be present at any meeting that would be held because he would need to be aware of the residents concerns.
Ms. Scourfield stated in reference to Mr. Smerigan’s concerns as to if he had a meeting and no one showed up. She is under the opinion that if a meeting is held and the residents are given a reasonable opportunity to attend, she does not think anyone could defend the fact if reasonable steps were taken and people simply didn’t care to show up then they loose the privilege of having any input.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated if the structure is formalized, then one has to formalize the notice process.
Ms. Scourfield stated the notice process is already in the code.
Ms. Pam Richardson stated that she is the manager of Lake O’Springs Park and her land would be impacted substantially because of the way they can develop and sell their property.
Ms. Conaway stated that she believes Ms. Richardson situation is different because the area is different.
Ms. Richardson stated unless they are considering changing some areas and not others they would be negatively impacting her property.
Mr. Phillippi stated the whole concept of the PRD is to allow a particular piece of ground to be utilized to its potential and don’t have to have cookie cutter type lots.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated they would only cut down the minimum size of a lot to be 7,500 sq. ft., which means the overall density could still be met but they would have to change other lot sizes.
Ms. Miller stated she does not think this would affect Ms. Richardson. What they are saying is her area would be a good place to do a PRD.
Ms. Richardson stated except that they would be increasing the minimum lot size.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that most developers would not build all 7,500 sq. ft. lots.
Ms. Richardson stated that she thinks what is being considered would negatively impact anyone that owns parcels of land rather than a lot and she is not sure this is fair.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Ms. Richardson is talking about the 10-acre minimum.
Ms. Richardson stated that she is talking about anyone who owns parcels.
Mr. Pizzino asked if she is talking about the 7,500 sq. ft.
Ms. Richardson stated that she is talking about changing the PRD one more time for more hurtles for the developer to go through.
Ms. Ann Markel of 9737 Pondera St. stated that she does not understand why the developers would be reluctant to include the public in the process. A lot of people have good thoughts and just the thought of someone being able to speak how they feel goes along way. Ms. Markel stated that she does not believe a meeting would be a hornet’s nest. Ms. Markel stated that she thinks if everyone comes to table honestly and straight forward and with the plan in hand, its either you like it or you don’t. It can become very personal when it is in your backyard.
Ms. Markel stated that it is almost an insult if someone does not want you part of the process and Ms. Markel does not know why anyone would want to exclude the public. Ms. Markel stated that she is all for public meeting and thinks someone from the township would need to be present. If Mr. Smerigan thinks that it would get out of hand perhaps it needs to be in front of a public forum. Ms. Markel stated that she thinks the PRD going to the BZA is a good idea. The BZA follows the rules to the letter and are very objective.
Ms. Markel stated that she personally believes the PRD needs to go beyond the BZA and the zoning regulations themselves need to be amended. Ms. Markel stated that she likes some of the recommendations that were made at the last meeting and does not understand why they are being ignored.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated they went through them at the previous meeting and had asked Mr. Phillippi to put something new together in more of a proposal form. What they are discussing is an outcome of what was asked at the last meeting.
Ms. Markel stated the board is completely disregarding the previous recommendations.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he does not believe they are. It was talked about and they came to the conclusion that they would like to see a proposal. Mr. Clatterbuck does not see where anything is being disregarded.
Ms. Markel stated that nothing has been said about density.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that density does not seem to be an issue. It has not been approached.
Ms. Markel asked if this would be discussed.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he is only willing to discuss what they have now, which is the re-computation of the greenspace, they are not approaching anything else as far as density.
Ms. Markel asked why.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated, personally he does not think it is necessary. He is very content with the proposal that they have now and how the requirements are used to determine density.
Mr. Napier stated that he agrees.
Mr. Phillippi stated the reason it is not in the proposal is because based, on the discussion at the last meeting, he got the impression that it was the intent of the zoning commission when the regulations were put together that that would be the appropriate density and there should be bonus or incentive for a developer to do a PRD.
Ms. Markel stated that she only heard Mr. Napier and Mr. Clatterbuck comment on density.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board had a conversation regarding density at the last meeting. The whole concept of the PRD is to preserve the green space but for a developer to have an incentive to do this there has to be bonus to the developer. Otherwise we are back to laying out square streets and putting in half-acre lots.
Ms. Markel asked why the builder needs an incentive.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated why would they build fewer lots on the same costly land. It is a simply matter of economics.
Mr. Markel does not understand why an R-R zoned area is not all the same density with the option or why there needs to be an incentive for the developers.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that land cost so much and when developers are laying out the land and getting ready to build the houses they have to build a certain amount of houses to get a return on the investment that is made on the land. If we change the density but tell them they have to still have green space, you have the same amount of land and before they could build, just picking a number, 100 house and now they could only build 80 houses if using the concept.
Ms. Markel asked why they couldn’t build 100 houses just like they do in the R-R district.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the problem he is hearing is that people do not want the small lots.
Ms. Markel stated in a PRD you get 2.2 units per acre and this is not logically possible in an R-R district. Unusable land is included in the green space in a PRD but not when density is figured in a regular R-R. No home can be built on a gas line in an R-R. It is obvious that the 2.2 density is an incentive but Ms. Markel can’t understand why the market drive that she keeps hearing about is the incentive.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the people want to buy into this but it is a matter of if the developer can afford to build what Ms. Markel is talking about.
Ms. Miller stated that she believes one of the issues that the board was trying to address is to save tree lines, ponds, water and some of the wonderful land features that we have. This was the concept of save the green space so when you have that concept and require so much green space to be saved, this is where they come back with an incentive. Ms. Miller stated that this concept was actually proposed by residents who wanted to see green space saved.
Ms. Markel asked how it got to be gas lines, retention ponds, etc.
Ms. Miller stated that she thinks Mr. Phillippi was asked by the board to come up with what he believed are some of the real issues of PRD and how they are addressed. Ms. Miller stated she thinks the biggest issue is public input.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the process is the number one issue that needs to be resolved and in doing that they are trying to address other issues also.
Mr. Richard Friedle of 5440 Fulton Rd. stated there is no question that the wet lands cannot be developed but creating a water feature is a legitimate open space consideration. If developing a water feature on the property and saying this is only 50% open space, should not penalize them. A lot of times they would like to put a walking path around the water feature but if they would be penalized for that then they would not do it.
Mr. Friedle stated to him that a retention basin is a pond that retains water. The detention basin holds back water during a storm and allows it to drain out after a storm. This may be usable open space for recreational purposes and also adds to the fact that the down stream problems are helped. This is not always required but sometimes the developers do it and they should not be penalized for this.
Mr. Phillippi stated in the proposal it indicates that full credit could be given by the BZA for detention basins based on the open space benefit. This could also apply to other features such as retention basins.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he agrees. Mr. Clatterbuck can’t see if there is a lake or storm water detention or retention pond, why it could not get 100% because they are looking for green spaces. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Phillippi is suggesting eliminating, "a minimum of 50% of the common open space shall be capable of being used for active recreational uses for the residents of the project". Mr. Clatterbuck thinks this is fine. Mr. Clatterbuck stated the he could see the green spaces as just being trees grown up with no particular use.
Mr. Ferrell stated an option could be to make the percentage based on the size of the body of water or whatever so that a small body of water could be at 100% and as it would increase the percentage would decrease.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Ferrell would have some kind of formula on this or if it could be researched.
Mr. Ferrell stated he has some research on the open space.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he wants to make clear to the public that the idea of the incentive did not originate with Jackson Township. Incentives are used in a lot of places.
Mr. Friedle stated that in a previous memorandum Mr. Phillippi suggested reducing the 20,000-sq. ft. requirement in the R-R district and asked if this is under advisement.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it is not currently being proposed. It could be done but it was under the proposal if a PRD became a separate district, because then you would have to provide an option to simply developing 20,000 sq. ft. lots. Under the conditional use proposal it would not become a separate zoning district so it is not critical then to do this because the PRD can still be done without a zone change.
Mr. Friedle stated that he thinks this is an important issue because previously if there is sewer and water, there was almost an automatic zone change to R-1 because the 20,000-sq. ft. was for septic systems. The zoning was changed and the 20,000-sq. ft. was left, which represent a third of the township.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Friedle if he thinks it should be smaller.
Mr. Freidle stated what he is saying is more and more of the township is getting sewer and water and 20,000-sq. ft. is not needed anymore.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the trade off, in the original proposal that came through several years ago, was that the township be rezoned into one-acre requirements. This met with much opposition, so they decided to back off of the one-acre and come down. They decided to go to 20,000 sq. ft. lots and maintain this square footage even where there is sewer and water. It was a compromise.
Mr. Freidle stated as he sees it, when the change took place then the developers considered the PRD’s.
Ms. Miller stated under the one acre, it was to encourage all developments to go into PUD’s and PRD’s.
Mr. Friedle stated if this is the purpose then fine. Conventional developments work OK but to require them to go to 20,000-sq. ft. is ludicrous.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the intention was to force them into PRD’s or PUD’s. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would love to see the whole township develop into a PRD.
Mr. Smerigan stated that it seems there is a misunderstanding of what he tried to say. Mr. Smerigan stated that the issue is not the fear of a public meeting or public scrutiny. The point is that there was a big discussion that the preference was to have all developments done as a PRD. This is why the square footage was increased to 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Smerigan stated that the key is not if there is a public meeting, the issue is if a subdivision is planned the residents do not get any notice. There is no input and no meeting. There is a review process for the PRD and the commission wanted to send out notices. Mr. Smerigan stated when this was decided he made the statement that he thought it would cause more harm then good because people would be disappointed when they found out there was nothing that they could do about it anyway. This has come true.
Mr. Smerigan stated that he had heard Ms. Scourfield and others say that if there is going to be a meeting that they wanted it to be in front of some one from the township. This is the only appropriate way to do this. If there is an unofficial meeting there will be problems.
Mr. Smerigan stated that he is concerned if PRD’s are the preferred development style in Jackson Township and we are trying to create open space, why are we treating the preferred form of development as the un-preferred form. It seems to Mr. Smerigan that the whole thing is backwards.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks Mr. Smerigan does have it backwards. In the R-R or R-1 district the public is not involved. But the public knows what the regulations are and that they are uniform. Under the PRD the whole concept is for flexibility, therefore the residents have no idea what the design of the development would be.
Mr. Smerigan stated that they have no idea what the design of a conventional subdivision is going to be.
Ms. Miller stated but they do know what the lot size next door to them is going to be.
Mr. Smerigan stated that in a PRD they know there is going to be a certain amount of density, open space and perimeter buffer.
Ms. Miller stated that she believes Mr. Smerigan answered his own question because all of that is flexibility and the residents need to know how that is going to affect them.
Mr. Smerigan stated that he thinks the preferred development is being treated in a less preferred manner. If in fact this is what the township is going to do then have a process that makes sense. Have a single hearing in front of the BZA. By having the other process, it makes no sense and Mr. Smerigan thinks a disservice will be done to everyone.
Mr. Napier stated they should try to focus on the main issue, which is the meetings and then the other issues such as lot sizes could be addressed. Mr. Napier stated that he thinks a consensus should be taken as to if they want one or more meetings and in what form.
Ms. Miller stated that the trustees would adjourn from the meeting.
Ms. Pizzino made a motion to adjourn and Ms. Miller seconded the motion.
The trustees were no longer in attendance for the work session.
Mr. Napier stated that Mr. Smerigan stated that he didn’t mind technical scrutiny. Technical scrutiny under the plan right now would be under the zoning administrator and the site plan review committee. Mr. Napier stated that he thinks this needs to be expanded to the BZA so it would include public notice.
Mr. Napier stated that a conditional use cannot be arbitrarily denied and this is where they have to be careful. The BZA is made up of professionals that are trained and experienced in handling the technical issues. Mr. Napier stated that he thinks by doing a single meeting under the BZA, gives the public notice and technical scrutiny and would propose that the board try to come to a consensus as to if they think this is adequate.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that BZA meetings are advertised in the newspaper and notices are sent out.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he agrees with Mr. Napier and asked if the board is at a consensus as far as the BZA process.
Mr. Bauder stated that he feels the extra meeting with the developer is not necessary and he agrees with Mr. Napier.
Mr. Winkhart stated that he agrees with most of Mr. Napier’s comments and the next time the commission meets they would need a draft regarding conditions for the conditional use.
Mr. Phillippi stated that they would need to incorporate what is in the PRD guidelines and regulations that are currently in the code and develop them into the conditional use conditions.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Winkhart agrees that a BZA meeting would be efficient.
Mr. Winkhart stated yes.
Ms. Conaway stated that she agrees with Mr. Napier’s comments.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board pretty much agrees that he BZA would be a good way to go however they are not voting on it, they are only proposing it.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated there are other issues to be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he wants to make sure that the public knows that nothing has been concluded and this is only a work session. Everything that was discussed is not set in stone. Over time something will be agreed to be initiated and then it will go through a review just like everything else.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the work session would have to be continued May 17, 2001 because of a conflict in dates for April.
Mr. Napier made a motion to continue the work session until May 17, 2001 at 7:35 pm.
Mr. Winkhart seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes and Mr. Bauder-yes.
Ms. Conaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Winkhart seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Winkhart-yes and Mr. Bauder-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Clerk/Secretary
Zoning Data Coordinator