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

Zoning Inspector:                                                          Joni Poindexter
Law Director:                                                                Neal Fitzgerald

Mr. Benner noted that there were several people in the audience and asked if they were there for the amendment request.

Ms. Poindexter stated that they were in attendance for the work session because they would like to discuss a text change.

Mr. John Weber, 3405 Lindbergh NW stated that he would like to discuss the fence issue being 4 ft. permitted in the front yard.  There are three reasons why he would like to see a change.  He is in an older area of the township and if in looking at the fences in the area not one of them would pass.  Mr. Weber stated the person to the north of him has a fence that is about 7 ft. in height.  Mr. Weber stated that he would like to put a fence up around his yard that was recommended by the Jackson police due to an abusive neighbor who has done numerous things.  The Jackson police said they can’t be there all the time and recommended putting a fence up.

Mr. Weber stated a 4 ft. fence in the front does him no good because every time he comes out of his house the neighbor is there.  Mr. Weber stated that he has a retarded son who is in a wheel chair and when the MRDD bus comes the neighbor harasses the bus.  Mr. Weber stated that this is on record with the police department.

Mr. Weber explained if he had the six foot fence then neighbor could not look over and see what is going on at his house and a six foot fence would balance off with the neighbor’s fence to the north.

Mr. Weber stated that he asked for a variance and was turned down.  No one in the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the variance.  The board agreed with the police but they said zoning is 4 ft and they would not go against it.  Mr. Weber said that he thought it was totally ridiculous and that is why he is at the meeting.

Mr. Benner asked what the reasons were for not granting the variance.

Ms. Poindexter stated the board felt there wasn’t a practical difficulty or hardship with the land itself to warrant to facts and they also said they cannot consider special circumstances that the property owner may have because the variance stays with the land and once the owner moves away the variance remains.

Mr. Weber stated the fence on the north is 7 ft. tall and when put up over 6 years ago he reported it to the trustees at that time and they were suppose to send an inspector out but he never heard from them.

Ms. Poindexter stated that Mr. Revlock looked at the existing fence upon Mr. Weber filing a variance and Mr. Revlock concluded the fence had been there a long time due to the condition.  Mr. Weber knew that the zoning commission was considering text change so he wanted to speak to the commission regarding modifying the regulation to allow a fence at a higher height in the front yard area.

Mr. Bergman stated that he didn’t know how the board could write something for special circumstances.

Ms. Poindexter stated once a regulation is written, it is written for everybody.  They can’t put in a regulation that says it’s for special circumstances.  If the commission agreed fences should be a higher height in the front yard and the regulation was written, that means anyone in the township that is in a residential district would be permitted to do that.  The commission needs to consider if they would want something like that for the entire township.

Mr. Bergman stated that is his concern.  He understands where Mr. Weber is coming from but what ever they do will be township wide.

Mr. Benner stated that side and rear yard fences can be eight feet according to the regulations.

Ms. Poindexter stated that it correct, and explained what is considered as the side yard area.

Mr. Benner asked if this could be part of a conditional zoning permit that is renewable every year.

Ms. Poindexter stated no, because a fence is not a conditional use permit.

Mr. Weber asked Mr. Fitzgerald if there could be an addendum to the regulations that says if the police are involved and they say a fence should be put up then it would be allowed.  Mr. Weber stated that police chief told him he better put up a fence.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated under the zoning code the zoning commission recommends changes to the zoning code but those changes apply to everyone.  To get relief from the code a variance is applied for.

Ms. Poindexter stated Mr. Weber has the right to appeal to Board of Zoning Appeals decision to the court of common pleas.

Mr. Weber stated no one has ten thousand dollars to do it unless they are a business.

Mr. Bauder stated this may be more of a health and safety issue that in some way should supersede zoning.

Ms. Poindexter stated, not that it has anything to do with this board, but she spoke with Chief Neftzer and he confirmed the police have been out to the property several time and he said in this case he wished the board would have granted the variance, but if the regulations are changed anyone could put a fence 6 ft.  One of the problems with fencing is we do not require a permit for a fence so if someone calls and asks if a permit is required we tell them no, but we also tell them what the requirements are.  We have no way of knowing if a fence was installed illegally if we don’t know when it was constructed.  Ms. Poindexter stated the commission may want to look at issuing a permit for a fence.

Mr. Bauder stated that this is a safety and health issue and maybe a variance by the Board of Appeals could be done with something like renewable permit.

Ms. Poindexter stated she didn’t think that would be a good idea.

Mr. Bergman asked if the police chief provided Mr. Weber with any information when he went to the Board of Appeals.

Mr. Weber stated no.

Mr. Bergman asked if the police chief could send a letter to the Board of Appeals asking the variance be approved.

Ms. Poindexter stated the Board of Appeals already made their decision.  In order for it to go back to the board Mr. Weber would have to file a whole new application and start the process over again with new evidence.

Mr. Weber stated he doesn’t want to waste $200.00 again.

Mr. Bergman stated he feels for Mr. Weber but does not know how to write something for zoning.

Ms. Conaway stated the reason for the 4 ft. requirement was so the fence would not block the view of someone pulling out of a driveway.  It was for safety reasons.

Mr. Bergman stated an alternative could be for Mr. Weber to put in large shrubbery.

Mr. Weber stated he looked into this.  The fence he wants to put up would run about $10,000 and it would cost about $500 to $600 more to add shrubbery.

Ms. Colleen Feichter, 1010 Stuart NW stated that she too has a neighbor problem.  As she listens to the commission say they can’t come up with a solution she is thinking that she couldn’t come up with a solution within five minutes either, but she does think the commission needs to address the issue.  It’s on the news everyday that neighbors do not get along.  She too wants to erect a six foot fence along the side of her property that extends to the front portion of the property.  Ms. Feichter stated a six foot fence up to the front corner of her home doesn’t do her any good because the neighbor uses his side door as access to and from the house.  There is almost 21 feet from the inside of the curb to the grass area of her front yard so she doesn’t think it would hinder anyone’s view.

Ms. Feichter stated she understands the decision they make will affect the entire township but they certainly are not alone.  M. Feichter stated they need help desperately.  The police have been called over and over again and she sees her tax dollars going up year after year.  She doesn’t mind paying for the police wages; however, she thinks that money could be better spent in their wages if they weren’t constantly coming to these petty, ridiculous neighbor concerns that in time and will probably grow into a severe volatile situation.  Ms. Feichter stated their option is not moving nor should they have to.

Ms. Feichter stated she should be able to go in her yard without being verbally abused or having her picture taken.  They have had to install security cameras as a defensive matter and it is ridiculous to have to live this way.

Ms. Feichter stated her husband went to put the trash out and he was verbally abused.  Ms. Feichter stated that she came into the zoning office and that’s when she was told that she was the second person in one week with this problem.

Ms. Feichter stated if erecting a fence 6 ft. could defuse a horrible situation then why not come up with some text for it.  Ms. Feichter stated she is begging for a change to allow the fence in her front yard.  Four feet is not high enough.  Put it so it has to be 25 ft. from the right of way.  Ms. Feichter stated she hopes the board will look at this and urges the board to change the wording because she, along with Mr. Weber, needs some help and if the board has the power to stop potential violence why would they hesitate.

Mr. Ralph Feichter stated that he is Colleen’s husband and this problem has been going on for a number of months.  He thought it would go away after the neighbor won their lawsuit but it hasn’t.  The previous owner of the house asked if we had problems with the neighbor and said if they didn’t, they would.  Mr. Feichter stated if it is township wide, why not if it’s going to prevent a problem.  It should at least be considered to get some wording in that would take care of it.

Ms. Susan Finsel, 2320 Amherst NW stated that she is a friend of the Feichter’s and has also had problems with the same neighbors in which they removed the property pins.  She too has had the police out and they said they should install a security camera.  She has been abused by the neighbor also and asked that the board consider the request.  If it can calm the situation down they may leave her alone also.  Ms. Finsel stated she could connect onto the Feichter fence which would be her back yard so she would be okay with the height without any variances but thinks the issue should be addressed.

Ms. Poindexter stated she thinks the board understands their concerns and they are at a point where the board will have to discuss the matter at their work session to decide what they want to do.

Mr. Weber, Mr. & Mrs. Feichter and Ms. Finsel thanked the board for their time.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that Ms. Poindexter and he met with Mr. Benner a couple of weeks ago to review some zoning items.

The board was given a hand out to review.  Discussions included reasoning for connecting allotment roads, order of presentation, method of voting, alternate participation, R-3 PUD written analysis, seminars to attend, and the trustees having no authority to remand a case to the zoning commission.

The board briefly discussed the fencing issue.  Ms. Conaway stated the 4 ft. was a safety issued when they put in the 4 ft. requirements.

Ms. Detwiler stated along with the safety issue you’re into the fact that yes these people will put up a nice vinyl fence but that doesn’t mean everyone will.  The residents have the option of putting up natural things that won’t be an eyesore.

Mr. Benner stated that the regulation says that all fences shall be constructed in a professional manner.

Mr. Bergman asked if there is a way the board could propose that all the text changes could be approved under one vote.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes.  The board would review each proposed change then vote.  During the work session if there is anything that is proposed to be changed and the board doesn’t want to change it then it would not be included in the actual amendment.

The board agreed to continue the work session, which was announced at the end of the meeting.

Amendment 559-07-Jackson Township Zoning Commission, agent, for the Jackson Township Board of Trustees, property owner, proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Two-Family Residential District) 1.39 acres, more or less, located on the northeast corner of Portage & Lake O’Springs. Sect. 11SW Jackson Township

Mr. Benner read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for approval and the facts considered in their recommendation.

Ms. Poindexter stated the property was reviewed for rezoning from R-R to R-4 in 2000.  At that time RPC recommended denial of the rezoning and they felt that the overall area should be looked at due to the many different uses in that area.  On June 15, 2000 the zoning commission stated that they felt the R-4 would be out of place, but felt the R-2 was a logical step down.  The applicant then modified their application from R-R to R-2 and the zoning commission recommended approval of the modification.

Ms. Poindexter stated that RPC was asked to give a recommendation on the R-2; however, it was RPC’s staff’s point of view that rezoning of the R-2 would probably not change their recommendation because again they felt an overall rezoning of the area should be done by the township.  There were approximately five trustee meetings held for the rezoning of this property which was partly due to the issue of the Portage road widening project.  The property would be greatly impacted by the widening of Portage road and it was found in order to save the home that was on the property, a retaining wall would have to be built which could cost more than what the home was worth, which was being sold for $129,000.  The township decided it was better for them to purchase the property instead of building a retaining wall.  The township purchased the property and the amendment was withdrawn, therefore, the trustees did not make a decision on the rezoning and the house was torn down.

Ms. Poindexter stated the township is now requesting the property be rezoned to R-2, as approved and amended by the zoning commission in 2000, which would allow for the construction of duplexes.  The property will then possibly be sold at public auction.

There was no one else in the audience to speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. Benner asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Richard Everhart, 5922 Portage NW, stated that he has owned his property for 50 years.  He’s seen this property change over the years and has argued with zoning probably before some of the zoning commission members were even in Jackson Township.  Mr. Everhart stated that two government houses where permitted to be built on property that wasn’t big enough years ago.  He was told back then the road would never be widened.  The township had to buy the property to widen Lake O’Springs road.  Over the years there has been nothing but problems with apartments.  Mr. Everhart stated he is strictly opposed to the rezoning strictly from the problems that he has had to put up with now to get in and out of his driveway.  He had to put a drive through his other lot to get out onto Wallbrook because of the traffic situation.

Mr. Benner asked how he goes onto Wallbrook if his property is on Lake O’Springs.

Mr. Everhart stated that he owns two lots on Wallbrook so he made a drive through the property.
He knows the township would like to make as much money as they can off of the lot.  He had the chance to buy the whole section from Lake O’Springs to Oakcrest in 1958 but at that time he couldn’t afford it.  It is nothing but misery when he tries to turn north out of his drive to go west.  He doesn’t know how anyone in their right mind could okay putting three dwellings on the property that would have more drives coming out onto Portage and they don’t need any more apartments because they are a lot of trouble.

Mr. Brent Everhart, 6959 Elaine Ave. NW stated that he grew up across the street from the property.  He was at the previous owner’s house and spoke with her regarding the situation and she told him that she is having her daughter pull all the records and papers and talk to their attorney about the situation because they were denied having the property changed to R-2.

Ms. Poindexter stated the rezone was not denied.  It was withdrawn.

Mr. Everhart stated that is why they are pulling their paper work because they are upset that now the township is changing the zoning when they were denied the right to have the property sold.

Mr. Fitzgerald confirmed Ms. Poindexter’s statement that the application was withdrawn.

Mr. Everhart stated Regional Planned turned them down for R-2.

Ms. Poindexter stated Regional Planning denied the R-4 rezoning and did not give the township an official recommendation on the R-2 rezoning after the application was modified.  The zoning commission recommended approval for the R-2 zoning.

Mr. Everhart stated that it was said RPC would not change their position as R-2.

Ms. Poindexter stated a letter was written to RPC asking them if they could look at it as the R-2 and they said “It should be noted that RPC’s recommendation for denial also included a suggestion that an overall rezoning plan be considered for the area.  Such a recommendation is consistent with past RPC recommendations when amendments have been requested in this area and at least from the “staff’s” viewpoint, rezoning this one tract to R-2 would probably not change our recommendation.”  They did not give an official recommendation.  The zoning commission did recommend approval for the R-2.  Before the trustees made a decision on that it was withdrawn by the applicant.  So the township did not deny the rezone.

Mr. Everhart stated that the property that is on the opposite side, where the two government homes are located, was brought before the board to be rezoned and it was also turned down for duplexes.  This is literally straight across the street and we are talking about changing it.  Right behind it is a single family home and the house on the northeast corner is a single family home.  Across the street are four single-family homes and across Lake O’Springs is a single family home.  There could be three driveways onto Portage and if trying to make a left hand turn it will be a problem.  You are asking for people to be in accidents.  It’s pretty sick to think that you will allow somebody to put three driveways there just to make a profit.  The property should be just for a single family home and it is foolish to put that many driveways and cars onto a street when there is light there.

Ms. Detwiler asked if there is any way they could have a driveway onto Lake O’Springs.

Mr. Everhart stated that Lake O’Springs has a wall because of the hill, plus, he heard they are going to be widening Lake O’Springs more to the north.  The property should stay R-R just the way it is with a single family home.

Mr. Richard Everhart stated there are wells on the property that his son took care of for the township free that will be exposed when the property is built on.

Mr. Todd Piero, 5916 Portage St. NW, stated he is representing his mother.  His mother’s driveway comes right out across from the apartments and coming in and out of there is suicide.  His concern is safety.  If more driveways are coming out of Portage in that area it’s going to be a shooting gallery.  The apartments have been nothing but a nightmare.

Mr. Piero stated that he knows the corner had been turned down with the federal homes before for duplexes over the years so it is not a new issue.  That intersection is getting bigger.  Mr. Piero stated he can’t help thinking why would you put in something that’s going to cause more traffic on that wide of an intersection.  There is no room for more traffic coming out of a driveway.  There have been a lot of people killed at this intersection before the light.  His concern is safety.  A residential home would be preferred there and would increase the value.  The total value of the area and safety is his biggest concern.

No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Bergman stated he is not in favor of approving the amendment.  This proposal was made by the Trustees.  If they vote, and everyone might disagree and vote to approve it and that would be fine, however, if the board agrees with him and they vote against this the trustees still have the opportunity to pass their own request, which he is very concerned they will do.  Mr. Bergman stated that he moves to table this recommendation until such time as a firm development plan can be presented.

Mr. Benner asked Mr. Bergman if he could hold that motion for a minute until they have the rest of the discussion.

Mr. Bergman stated yes, but that is the motion that he will be making.

Mr. Bauder stated that he is concerned about the possible density if they change it to R-2 and with the driveways coming onto Portage.  It would be more appropriate for the driveway to enter onto Lake O’Springs to serve the unit or units that would be built there.

Ms. Detwiler stated that she tends to agree with Steve because she too thinks the only possible thing would be to take the entrance onto Lake O’Springs, if at all.  She was there at a quiet part of the day and crossing two lanes of traffic is a nightmare.

Mr. Bergman stated over and above the table motion he can’t image more than one house there.  Last month when it was brought up one of the members talked about the possibility of it being used as a park, which may or may not be a good idea given the location, but he can’t image more volume of traffic.  Anytime traffic is increased in the township we are asking for sirens.

Ms. Poindexter stated as far as Mr. Bergman saying that he would like to table it until a development plan is submitted, and to confirm with Mr. Fitzgerald, the board cannot do this because a development plan is not required for rezoning to an R-2.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated legally the board could continue the hearing to another date if they want more information but they can’t put the decision on hold until there is a full blown development plan.  That’s for any case not just this one.  Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Bergman if he was asking for information of how it could be used.

Mr. Bergman stated yes, because his problem with it is this came from the trustees.

Mr. Benner stated notwithstanding where it came from the board initiated it.

Mr. Bergman stated at the request of the trustees he actually initiated it.  His concern is if they decline this it still goes as a recommendation to the trustees.  He is not going to argue in favor of it at this point.

Ms. Poindexter stated in the R-2 you can only put a single family home or a duplex.  A triplex or a multi-family apartment building could not be put on the property.

Ms. Conaway asked what the Township’s intention is.  She would like to know how many drives would be coming out.

Ms. Poindexter stated when the property is sold they do not know what someone is going to build.  If rezoned to R-2 the property could possibly be split into three lots.  Someone may purchase it and put one duplex per lot or one single family home.  It could have a duplex with one drive or two.  We have no way of knowing at this time so the question cannot be answered.

Mr. Bergman stated that’s the problem.  If they don’t know who the purchaser is or the plan for it then how can they appropriately discuss what the correct utilization is.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the Township doesn’t know who the purchaser would be because any property sold by the township has to go to auction and anyone can bid on it and purchase it.

Mr. Bauder asked if the board could request a deed restriction for access to Portage.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated they cannot put a condition on the zoning.

Mr. Benner stated, to address Mr. Bergman’s concern and question, as Joni stated they can’t really know what someone is going to do if it is zoned R-2 or whatever.

Mr. Bergman stated the problem they are in right now is a technical problem that they created for themselves.  They are in a lose-lose situation no matter how they vote unless they continue this and table it.

Mr. Benner stated that is not sure what Mr. Bergman means by lose-lose but they were asked to consider it and if they consider it the vote comes out to be whatever it is.  It is a recommendation.

Mr. Bergman stated that is his problem right now.  He thinks it is somewhat incongruous to pass a recommendation onto a group that has requested the change.

Mr. Benner stated that’s the way it happens when the township owns property.  If there is a request for rezoning there is not much any other way they can have that happen.  Mr. Benner stated that it is encompass upon the board to vote on it and if it turns out to pass or not pass there is going to be another hearing in front of the trustees and that’s the place to go and say why we think it should or shouldn’t be overwritten.  Mr. Benner stated this is his suggestion.  He doesn’t know what other information they could be given that wasn’t presented tonight that would change anything.

Mr. Bergman stated he moves to continue the hearing until a member of the trustees appears to describe their intentions in complete in accordance with what they are going to do with the property.

Ms. Conaway stated they are going to sell it.

Mr. Benner stated Joni told us their intentions.

Mr. Bergman stated that he is trying everything he can do to keep this from going forward.  This is what he is trying to do.

Ms. Poindexter started regarding the driveway issue, if developed as R-R it is possible that two driveways could still come off the property.

Mr. Benner stated there is a motion on the floor and asked for a second.

No one seconded the motion therefore it was withdrawn by Mr. Bergman.

Mr. Benner asked if there was any other discussion on the matter.

Ms. Conaway stated the only choice they have it either to vote yes or no for what has been put before them.

Mr. Benner asked for a motion to approve amendment #559-07.

No one gave a motion.

Mr. Benner asked for a motion to deny amendment #559-07.

Mr. Bauder moved for the motion to deny the rezone.

Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

Mr. Benner stated the board has a motion to deny the rezone therefore a yes vote is to deny and a no vote is to allow it.

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

Mr. Benner stated by a unanimous vote the board has turned down the request for a rezone, which goes as a recommendation to the trustees.  A tentative date for the hearing will be April 9th; however, anyone that is an adjoining property owner will receive an official notice.

Ms. Poindexter asked the board to adopt the rules and procedures as amended with the meeting time changed.

Mr. Benner made a motion to approve the amended rules and procedures.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.  All was in favor.

Ms. Poindexter asked if everyone reviewed the proposed text changes and if there were any concerns with the proposal.

Ms. Detwiler stated the she realizes temporary storage pods will be from a company and asked if the advertising on them needed to be addressed.

Ms. Poindexter explained that signage will probably be on them because they come from a company.  It’s no different than a dumpster being delivered for a temporary period of time with the name of the company on it.

Ms. Detwiler asked if the signage should be limited to the company name.

Ms. Poindexter explained that is the only advertising that would be permitted.  No other signage would be permitted.

The board discussed how many would be permitted per year in the residential districts because someone could move it for a day and then get another one.

The board agreed to add to section 401.12(I) that only two (2) per calendar year would be permitted per lot or parcel in a residential district.

The board stated they would like to think about the fencing issue that was discussed at the beginning of the meeting.

Ms. Poindexter stated if the board wants to think about the fencing issue she would like them to hold off on initiating the text changes until the next meeting.

Ms. Conaway stated she likes the thought of the residents coming to the meeting to discuss text changes.

Ms. Poindexter explained that Ms. Fiechter came to her office to discuss a problem with not allowing a fence height of 6 ft. in the front yard and asked how it could be changed.  It was explained that the zoning commission reviews text changes and she was told of the meeting.  Ms. Fiechter called Mr. Weber to inform him of the meeting also and subsequently they came to address the board.

Ms. Poindexter explained the variance that Mr. Weber applied for and the board’s reasoning for denying the appeal.

Ms. Conaway stated she has a concern about high fences cropping up everywhere.

Ms. Poindexter explained the front yard height and how it is considered.

Ms. Benner stated maybe the board should consider how the houses are located.

Ms. Poindexter explained some language that could be developed for fencing but cautioned the board if fences were permitted in the front yard at a height of 6 ft. it will be for the entire township.  Does the township really want this.

Ms. Conaway stated, if changed, the board would really need to think about it because there are two situations that was brought before the board tonight and Ms. Conaway doesn’t want to give everyone free rain to put in a spite fence.

Ms. Poindexter explained how Mr. Weber’s neighbor was permitted a fence at a height greater than 4 ft. and that a permit is not required for fencing, which maybe should be reviewed.

Ms. Conaway stated she thinks there needs to be something on file that says when a fence was erected.

Ms. Poindexter stated that it may be a good idea to require a permit, with or without a fee, so the township will know when a fence is erected and that it is within the regulation.

Ms. Conaway stated fencing should be addressed but they would have to make sure it doesn’t obstruct someone’s view or become a safety issue.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is a concern and the board has to look at do they all the sudden want possibly hundreds of people in the township putting a 6 ft. fence up in their front yard area.

Ms. Detwiler stated there are always going to be people that have disagreements.  That is the exception, not the rule, and to penalize everybody where safety issues are involved just to protect a couple of people, she doesn’t know.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to continue the work session until April 19th at 4:30 pm.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.  All was in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Inspector