Members Present:                                                                    Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                                    Donna Conaway
                                                                                                    James Bauder
                                                                                                    David Benner
                                                                                                    Stephen Bergman
Alternate Member:                                                                    Nancy Detwiler

Zoning Inspector :                                                                     Joni Poindexter

Zoning Planning &
Development Director:                                                            John Phillippi

Ms. Magyaros stated that the first matter of the meeting is the nomination of Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2005.

Mr. Bergman made a motion for Ms. Magyaros to continue as Chairman for 2005.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Ms. Conaway made a motion for Mr. Benner to continue as Vice Chairman for 2005.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Ms. Magyaros asked for comments or a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held November 18, 2004.

Mr. Bergman made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held November 18, 2004.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

AMENDMENT #546-05 – The Jackson Township Board of Trustees, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 propose text amendments to the zoning resolution to add an (R-T) Research and Technology District with amendments to Chapter II, Sect. 201.2(B), to add the definition of Light Industrial and Chapter IV, Sect. 411.1, 411.2, 411.3, 411.4, 411.5, 411.6, 411.7, 411.8, 411.9, and 411.10 and add Appendix “B” (Industrial Use excluded from the R-T District-Research and Technology).

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board will not get to the rezoning itself until they get through the text amendments.

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

Ms. Magyaros:  The first item is the definition of light industrial.  I will ask for anyone that is in favor of how of the definition is worded and then ask for anyone who is in opposition to the definition.

Ms. Magyaros:  Number one is section 301.2B that deals with adding the definition of light industrial which reads, Number One ,“Light Industrial: An industrial use that meets the following criteria: An industrial use which is wholly enclosed within the building except for parking and loading facilities, and outside storage accessory to the permitted uses and which in its operation does not ordinarily result in emission from the building of odors, fumes, noise, cinder, vibrations, heat, glare, or electrical interference; and, number two, a building or part of a building housing a use primarily engaged in manufacturing, predominantly from previous prepared materials, of finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of such products or components, but excluded basic industrial processing.

Ms. Magyaros asked who would like to speak in favor of the definition.

Mr. Steve Paquette, 116 Cleveland Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44702: I am in support of the text of light manufacturing because in reality if you look at research and development campus there is a certain light manufacturing that is part of research and manufacturing protypes.  So, you cannot do research without some light manufacturing and this is why we support the text.

Mr. Clark Richards, 5290 Schario Rd. NW:  I am a member of the comprehensive planning committee.  I am in support of light industrial zoning because it is the spirit of the comprehensive plan to offer an opportunity to allow the zoning commission to down grade industrial zoning to a lower class of industry that allows us to preserve some of the water and conservation areas within Jackson Township.  Currently today we do not have anything to date that allows us to lower industrial zoning to a much lesser class.  So that was the intent of light industry and there are some other text we need to go over, but I want people to understand that was the reason for it; it was to lower the industrial use that is currently in areas so that gives the township an opportunity to lessen the potential harm or destruction or whatever that industrial could use and that is why we have a lower class.  That is why I support that.  Thank you.

No one else spoke in favor of the change.

Ms. Magyaros asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the change.

Mr. Bill Criss, 228 Oak Dr.:  I moved to Jackson Township to get away from industry.  I grew up in the southeast end of Canton.  I wanted to get my family and grandchildren away from commercial.  We don’t need industry out here.  We have enough income.  We have enough possibilities out here and we don’t need it.  All we’re going to do is pollute our ground and pollute our well systems and everything.  We don’t need it.  Thank you.

Mr. Craig Conley, 6105 Pinecreek NW: I don’t have any particular objection to this definition although as an attorney I see it’s got plenty of wiggle room.  Ordinarily it says.  I’m not sure what ordinarily means but I could make hay with that if I were representing a light industrial use.  Incidental, and processing and fabrication, of course acid etching of metal is a process that involves a very hazardous material.  So I think if you’re really dedicated to this notion of light industrial you probably need to tighten up that language.  I’m just not certain that the language itself is necessarily required because we don’t have any heavy industry in Jackson Township of which I’m aware of.  We don’t have a Ford motor company or a Timken steel plant or republic steel or whatever.  Those companies are out of business and maybe this is a little premature but what I would suggest is that what you should be looking at is taking the current industrial regulations and applying this type of lingo to those regulations because we don’t have heavy industrial in Jackson Township anyway.  I’m 55 years old and I suspect in my lifetime we won’t have it.  It’s moved to China and Mexico and North Carolina and as Yogi Bear might say it ain’t coming back here.  So, I guess my general comment, and I apologize if it’s a little bit premature, is that I like the notation of industrial areas in Jackson Township being light industrial areas, which they really are in fact so why not memorialize that by using this type of language to modify the current zoning district instead of creating a new zoning district with a touchy feely name like research and development or research and technology.  Take the current industrial district and rename it.  Call it one of those touchy feely things like research and technology and delete from it the heavy industry that doesn’t exist anyway.  Nobody’s going to complain because nobody is doing it and nobody wants to do it in this part of the country anyway.  That’s my comment with the light industrial definition.  Thank you.

Ms. Conaway:  I have a comment that I’d like to speak to in this first section.  I actually highlight what you spoke about, “that does not ordinarily”.  That bothered me a little bit to because that doesn’t really; I mean that could mean anything.  So I would like to see that changed to read, we’ll start with, “permitted uses and which in its operation shall not result in emission from the building of odors, fumes, noise, cinder, vibrations, heat, glare, etc.”  I think that makes more sense to say shall not and I think that protects you a little bit more.  I would like to see that changed in the language if everyone agrees with that.

Ms. Magyaros:  I would agree with that comment.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition of that definition?

Ms. Diane Ward, 97 Spruce Dr. NW:  I think I’m repeating a little bit but this whole thing kind of has me blown away.  I just heard about it today.  I should have been reading up, but I just can’t image a beautiful area where we live in that you would even consider doing anything like this and worrying about changing little words like does not ordinarily because sometimes its years when you put places like this in until we see the damage.  My dad is dying of lung cancer now because of something that somebody said that won’t hurt you.  So I think most of us are worried about what they are going to dump into our wells and what they are going to put there to ruin our beautiful neighborhood that we moved into for a natural surrounding.  I’m sick about this so hopefully you will do something to keep this mess out of 100 ft. away from us.  Thank you.

Mr. Gus Eliopoulos, 144 Spruce Dr. NW:  I have a problem with this if it’s not going to make any mention of bio-chemicals in it.  There was reference of that in some other paper work and you’re not putting anything in here besides building odors and fumes.  If you’re going to have bio-chemicals then you’ve got to have that defined and spelled out in here and how it applies and how you’re going to protect against it.  I don’t like the fact that the zones that we’ve seen and this is going to dump into our water system and near our water system.  We’re all on wells and you’re going down stream to Nimishillen into the well and drinking water of Summit County.  Those people need to be present and appraisable of what is going on.  Has Green been talked about and do they know about this?  I think more information needs to go out to some of the outlying areas that are going to be affected by this change as well.  Maybe they have some verbiage as well of what you’re trying to do.  I talked to Green today and they have no knowledge of this.

Ms. Magyaros:  I did have one observation and Mr. Phillippi if I’m not correct please jump in and correct me.  I did notice that we actually don’t have a definition of industrial in the zoning code.  We have a section that talks about the purpose of industrial but we don’t even have a definition of industrial so, I thought maybe to be consistent if we’re going to do this we need to first find what we consider industrial in addition to the finding of what we consider light industrial so we have that distinction in the resolution.  Am I correct that it’s not in the current book?

Mr. Phillippi: There are a lot of deficiencies in the resolution.

Ms. Magyaros:  That is something that I would like to have noted.  Donna, I do agree with your comment that instead of this language “does not ordinarily” it should read “shall not”.

Mr. Benner:  My experience has been that it is very difficult to list all of the things that you don’t want to have.  I know once the camel’s nose is in the tent it hard to get him out so I have a problem with the listing of things.  We can try to be specific, but I don’t think we can cover all the basis.

Ms. Conaway:  You could almost, instead of mentioning odor, fumes, noise, cinder, etc., almost make it something general, if you want to make it general, but it would cover everything; something that would say a nuisance, hazard or something like that rather then trying to be specific about these items.  Bio-chemicals is a very valid concern but if you start naming each thing I think then you run into problems.  But, if you say something that all of the things apply to, in other words a nuisance or hazard, then I think you might have a little bit more leverage.

Mr. Bauder:  I concur.  How do we list the things?  I like the idea of being more generalized.  That way they can’t say you’ve left something out so I can do it.

Mr. Benner:  What if we change the first paragraph to say something like emissions of anything other than clean air and clean water?

Ms. Magyaros:  What about if we would put in the definition and I’ll start with, “emission from the building anything but not limited to odors, fumes, etc.” and then spell out what we can envision at this point but not limit ourselves to that.

Mr. Bauder:  I think what we should do is put in there that we don’t want any nuisances or hazardous materials emitted or significant amounts of materials because even our houses will emit very small quantities of hazardous waste.  So when one says no hazardous materials, that is unrealistic in any stoke.

Mr. Donald Nichols, 43 Cherry Dr. NW:  What I’ve heard the group saying essentially is you’re as confused about what all that means in your definition as many of us are in terms of specifics.  My suggestion would be in that first paragraph, because I think what people are saying is they don’t want something hazardous where they live nor do they want something hazardous where they have wildlife.  I would suggest this wording and you can work on it, beginning at that third sentence down, “permitted use and which in its operation does not affect humans or wildlife in a hazardous way.”  I think that is what most of us are concerned about; that both the human environment and the wildlife environment is not endangered by the programs geared toward the light industry that you are talking about putting in.

Mr. Benner:  What about saying “deemed potentially hazardous by environmental agencies.”

Mr. Nichols:  I am open to that but what I’m hearing people say is industry doesn’t bother them so long as it doesn’t affect their homes, wildlife, water, children etc.

Mr. Benner: So do we having wording for that.

Ms. Magyaros:  He had added does not ordinarily, which we are considering changing to shall not result in harm to humans and to wildlife.

Mr. Kevin Hovan, 263 Oak Dr.:  What I am hearing is one of the main concerns is the water supply and water tables.  We had an experience with a small development that caused a problem with runoff and that was on a very small scale so I can’t imagine what something on a large scale would do.  I would suggest something in the wording that would specify emissions that would harm water tables or water supply.

Mr. Bauder:  We could insert environment with humans and wildlife because environment covers those.

Ms. Conaway:  I like that.

Ms. Magyaros:  I’m trying to write these down as we go so we can get a definition to put into the record.  Where did we want to add environment?

Mr. Bauder:  Humans, wildlife and the environment.

Mr. Shawn Leslie, 6351 Hillfield:  I guess my question is why does this plot of land that is surrounded by residential need to be zoned commercial.

Ms. Conaway:  We’re not talking about that at this time.

Ms. Magyaros:  We not to that point yet.  We’re going to limit our comments right now to the text proposals.

Mr. Leslie:  Okay.

Mr. Monty Fox, 65 Cherry Dr.:  Talking about the runoff issues, the problem we have at Willowdale Lake is not just toxins, but we’ve had a major runoff with soil filling the lake up so part of the definition should have restrictions against any runoff of soil that would fill the lake up.

Ms. Magyaros:  Maybe we could add that to the definition where it states odors, fumes, noise, etc.

Mr. Bauder:  Sediment would be fine.

Ms. Leslie Markejohn, 113 Spruce Dr.:  I’m concerned with the comments that you want to widdle the definition down to more generalized as opposed to more specific.  I’m in complete disagreement with that.  From the comments a lot of the people have made we are already getting into specifics and if you leave it too general I think it’s going to leave room for all sorts of confusion in the future as far as the definition.  If you just say hazardous you’re going to have lawyers arguing over what is hazardous and what is not.  I think the definition needs to be as specific as possible and there needs to be as many things covered that you can possibly think of.

Mr. Benner:  If we try to identify all the specifics and we don’t know all the specifics; that’s why we say not limited to.

Ms. Conaway:  What we’re saying is you can’t be specific because we can’t think of everything.  There’s going to be something that we don’t think of and then it will come along and we’ll say look at what’s happening.  We’re not saying we don’t want to be specific totally, but we want to make sure we have it worded so it protects all of us.  We’re here to protect you so don’t think we aren’t.  Just remember that when we’re working on this we want the same things you want.

Mr. Bauder:  I would propose that we include in our definition, nuisances.  We don’t have it right now.

Ms. Conaway:  I agree.

Mr. Glenn Ward, 97 Spruce Dr.:  You have all this light industrial but what about American Sand & Gravel.  What are they considered?

Ms. Conaway:  We’re not talking about that right now.  We’re talking about the definition.

Mr. Ward:  Will they be able to use these definitions?  If you change the definitions they will be able to use them?

Ms. Magyaros:  Everybody in the township will be bound by the definition and what is passed and approved by the trustees.

Mr. Ward:  What do you consider a gravel pit?  Is that light industrial?

Ms. Magyaros:  Mr. Phillippi what are they currently zoned right now.

Mr. Phillippi:  They are zoned rural residential but American Sand & Gravel is under a conditional use permit, which is a separate section of the regulations.

Mr. Ward:  So they won’t be able to move their boundaries.

Mr. Benner:  This is the second part of what we’re trying to deal with which is any kind of rezoning of any piece of property.  What we’re trying to deal with here is to come up with any determination of the wording of the changes that have been proposed to them.

Mr. Ward:  I’m trying to find out what it would cover under the mining clause.

Mr. Bergman:  I think what we’re trying to ask and I’d like to ask John, what would American Sand & Gravel be normally zoned as.

Mr. Phillippi:  The extraction of the sand & gravel is a land use.  It’s not a zoning classification.  It’s not considered to be a light industrial use.  It’s a conditionally permitted use within various districts such as where it is now.  It would be considered to be a heavy industrial type of land use, but it is actually resource extraction and done under a special permit issued by the board of zoning appeals.  Even in the industrial district it is a conditionally permitted use with certain restrictions.

Ms. Janet Adams, 6057 Redford Rd.:  It’s seems like there is a lot of confusion about the wording.  I think I would agree with Mr. Conley’s suggestion that we look at the current industrial zoning classification and take out what we don’t want.

Ms. Magyaros:  That kind of goes back to my comment that the zoning resolution currently does not define industrial so it is hard for us to make that comparison.

Ms. Conaway:  Am I wrong or is it not a possibility that since we don’t have a definition for industrial that this could very well, if we work on this and hopefully do a good job, that we could maybe put this in place of it.

Mr. Benner:  We have to keep in mind that there are other areas of the township that are zoned industrial but the use of that land is not industrial.  For example, a good piece of the area around the strip is zoned industrial but the use is B-3.

Ms. Joyce Fox, 65 Cherry Dr.:  When you were asking for specifics, is it appropriate in a definition to be as specific to say that the permitted uses and operations would not adversely affect property values in neighboring residential areas?

Mr. Benner:  That’s a part of the general zoning requirements.

Mr. Phillippi:  It’s in the Ohio Revised Code and in the zoning resolution.  It lists various purposes for township zoning.

Ms. Magyaros:  Any other comments on the definition of light industrial?  If not I’m going to try to read this and hopefully I’ve incorporated everything.  I’m going to start with the third line down where it says permitted.  It would read “permitted uses and which in its operation shall not affect humans, wildlife or the environment and result in emissions of any nuisances from the building including but not limited to odors, fumes, noise, cinders, vibrations, heat, glare, sediment or electrical interference.  I think that covers most of our comments and concerns.

Ms. Magyaros:  We have a number two to that definition.  I did read that into the record.  Does anybody have any comments in favor of the language that is contained in paragraph number two?

Mr. Bergman:  That really was discussed earlier in the presentation.

Ms. Magyaros:  Anyone that would like to speak in opposition to paragraph number two?

Mr. Craig Conley:  I think the problem that you’re having with most of the members of the audience is they are looking at these definitions as though the map change that is proposed is a done deal, and I’m presuming it’s not a done deal and god willing it won’t be a done deal and I’m not a religious man.  I think that is the problem.  From my standpoint if this particular light industrial use, even if it has a touchy-feely name of Research Development or Technology, I guess I don’t give a dam what the definition is as long as it’s not next to my house.  So I think that is the problem.  A lot of the members of the audience don’t perhaps understand you’re initial speech and that is you’re talking about generic text changes and we’re all thinking we better be darn careful about this text change because we might have it shoved down our throat.  This brings me back to my original comments as to why don’t you look at the present industrial definition or lack thereof, but it is kind of defined because it tells you what uses are allowed.  If you look in the book I notice every one of the uses that you are talking about in this new touchy-feely zone is already allowed in an industrial area and it’s already allowed except for one or two points in a B-3.  I find reinventing the wheel so we can make some university professor happy, I find troublesome and I think you should be looking at industrial and call it what it is.  You want to put a different title on it but it’s still an industrial use.  Hopefully when you get through that and you start to talk about the map change you opt not to bring it to our neighborhood.

Ms. Conaway:  I know we’re being tedious when we’re going through this and this doesn’t mean just because we’re working on the text amendments, which we have to do because we’ve been asked to do this by the trustees so we do need to work through that.  I know we’re going through this tediously and there’s a good chance this might not even end up in your backyard but it is important to us because it may end up in someone’s backyard.  It is important to us as a commission that we provide protection to all residents of the township.

I agree with what you’re saying but you do have to understand that this is our responsibility to protect you.  It may be your backyard that we are talking about tonight but for us, we do this and we don’t care whose backyard it is.  We look at this like it’s our backyard.

Mr. Benner:  The reason this has to right is because if this goes into the zoning code, it could be anybody’s back yard and anything that is put in the book is open for anyone to request rezoning so we don’t want to slop it in.

Mr. Ed McDonnell, 6265 Sandava NW:  I noticed eventually you’re going to get to section six which lists permitted uses and section ten and later on you’ll be looking at appendix “B”.  Maybe a way to attack this as opposed to a general definition is to define the uses in six and ten and exclude the uses that won’t be there and then come back and make a general definition to fit the uses.

Ms. Magyaros:  That may be a good idea.  What I think we’ll do is leave the definition as is but subject to revision once we work through item six where it talks about permitted uses because we may want to limit the definition of light industrial once we discuss the permitted uses.

Mr. Benner:  The comment that I would like to have included in the definition somewhere is the basic industrial processing.  I don’t really have an understanding of what that is and I have a feeling that could cover a multitude of things that I wouldn’t want to live next door to.

Ms. Magyaros:  Do you want to leave it as is for right now.

Mr. Benner:  Yes.

Ms. Magyaros:  We’re ready to move on to item number two, purpose.  The purpose of this district is to create an environment to accommodate and promote the establishment and expansion of businesses in the field of advanced research, technology, product development, prototyping, and light industrial uses along with those facilities which provide goods and services in connection with such uses.  It is the intent of the R-T District to provide an environment conducive to the development of such facilities.  It is the intent that this district shall be utilized as part of an overall regional economic development strategy.  To achieve maximum regional economic impact, the township specifically encourages that location and expansion of businesses in the fields of power and propulsion, bioscience, advanced materials, information technology, and instruments, controls, and electronics.  Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of that definition?

Mr. Steve Paquette:  I think that is absolutely critical for Ohio, Stark County and Jackson Township.  This is where the jobs are going in terms of development and research and having a place for our kids when they grow up and the kind of jobs that will be here in the future.  This is consistent with the Stark Development Board and what the county is trying to do.  I think this positions Jackson Township of having the kind of research campus that can attract the kind of companies to provide jobs for the future.  Not just any jobs, but high paying jobs for the kids in Jackson Township so I support it.

Mr. Benner:  Has it been the experience of other communities in other places that have formed these kinds of districts without the supporting infrastructure, in other words if we were to declare this kind of a district and it sounds real good, but what about the infrastructure underneath that, the roads, sewer, electric, gas, etc?  How does that fit into the picture?

Mr. Paquette:  Our belief is you are here on a zoning change tonight and looking at rezoning property but you also have control as Jackson Township Planning and Zoning to also look at the specific project and ask those tuff questions.  How are you going to provide water and sewers etc.  I think you will find as the project develops, specifically, that 99% of those questions will be answered because the infrastructure would have to be put in place to have this project.  Not only to help protect the citizens, but to commit that somebody would even want to put a facility there.  It’s a good question, but I think it is early to even ask that because this isn’t a specific project yet.

Mr. Clark Richards, 5290 Schario Rd.:  As a member of the committee what’s important is the understanding of what the township is trying to do.  They are trying to make a better community in trying to establish a comprehensive plan.  I am in support of research and technology because of the lower classification use.

Mr. Ed McDonnell explained the process of the Steering Committee.

Mr. Ed McDonnell:  The purpose for the district as the comprehensive plan steering committee saw it is to provide an opportunity for the people of Jackson, both those that currently live here and the children we’re raising and educating in this township, to have an opportunity to come here and work and live.  What the community saw and what the input from the residents was that a lot of our young adults are leaving and going elsewhere because the opportunity does not exist here.  That was the intent and the reason.  Those are the issues and concerns that were brought to the committee and those are the reasons that the committee determined that it was in the interest of the township to develop and have this type of district; to provide the high tech jobs and high paying jobs that will allow our young adults to stay in the township.

Ms. Sue Wallace, 6116 Redford NW:  Could we also add after light industrial, which is about the forth sentence, “and to provide substantial green space as a buffer in between this zoning and residential areas to maintain current property values”.

Ms. Magyaros:  That’s a good point and that will be addressed in the section that deals with buffering.

Mr. Craig Conley:  I like the definition pretty much as it is.  It’s got some of the those touchy-feely words that college professors like.  I think the notion of this type of definition or district in lure of the present industrial district is certainly appropriate.

Mr. Donald Ragon, 6381 Hillfield NW:  I like the definition a lot.  I’m would like a little more expansion on what an overall regional economic development strategy is so we know that it falls within to achieve maximum regional economic impact.  I don’t know what the regional strategy is, if we have one.  Do we have one?

Mr. Magyaros:  I can’t sit here today and tell you that we have one.  That may be something the Steering Committee is working on.

Mr. Bergman:  You should probably refer to RPC for that strategy.

Mr. Benner:  RPC has indicated that there is one.

Mr. Phillippi:  As we have gone through over the last number of months in putting this together that specifically refers to the regional strategies that are in place and have been put in place through the Stark Development Board.  There is some meat to those words because they do have some strategic plans that are in place.  The bottom line on that phraseology is to get people to acknowledge and understand that this involves more than Jackson Township.  It is a regional effort and something that has been developed in conjunction with not only the regional planning commission but specifically the stark development board and the economic development professionals that are working within the region to actually bring individual companies into the area as opposed to something that is nebulous.  So it is very important to understand that it is a regional approach, and that is one of the reason that the general area has been identified, it’s because of the location factor.

Ms. Janet Adams, 6057 Redford NW:  When I look at this R-T district I am wondering why we even need to create a new zoning classification.  It looks like all of these things that are included under the light industrial would fit into the current industrial zoning classification that we have.  In proposing this has anyone looked at any surrounding communities that have a specific R-T district and if so is there any data that shows by creating a new R-T district that this leads to significant job growth.

Mr. Bergman:  I don’t know that necessarily we need this yet but we did have to do something, as Clark said earlier, to be able to down grade the industrial to make sure whether we adjust the industrial or B-3 or come up with a new district we have to be able to restrict it so that some of the industries that we don’t want in the straight industrial can be eliminated and limited and we can limit the district so it is only in the R-T.

Joyce Fox:  I want to thank the commissioners for their response about my back yard.  I’m glad to hear that you looked at the whole township because I’m concerned about my back yard but this is the community that I live in and I want to know that what’s being done in one place isn’t going to adversely effect somewhere down the line, not just what’s in my back yard.

Russ Baker, 237 Oak Dr. NW:  Pertaining to purpose, it sounds good and I agree with the attorney that the wording is great and it has some nice terms and things in it for promotion of the area but we’ve got a downtown in Stark County that they are trying to revitalize and it seems like that might be a great place for a research and technology park.

Mr. Benner:  This is going to go as section “G” on 411-58 and section “E” is the purpose for the industrial district and it has a lot of overlap.  Not to necessarily support some of the comments that have been made but I have a feeling if we leave this the way it is we are going to have a purpose for a district that overlaps with another purpose for a district and we’re going to have to change the one if we keep this the way it is.  What I would be willing to do is to hold on to that thought until we get to the end and then ask that we include that at that point in time because there is a lot of the same activities available in there.

Ms. Magyaros:  I do like the end of the definition where they become more specific and they spell out exactly what type of businesses that are being encouraged.  That does provide us some specificity there, but other than that I would agree and I did notice that did overlap with the industrial term.  So I would agree that we come back after we further define what will be permitted in the district and then we can word on the purpose a little bit further.

We will move on to item number three, Section 411.2 Use Regulations.  Change sentence to read “In the B-1, B-2, B-3, PBRD, I-1, R-T, and C-P District, land and structures shall be used or occupied, and structures shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, moved or structurally altered, only for a permitted principal use specified for such district in Schedule 411.3, below, a permitted conditional use in accordance with Section 431, or an accessory use to a permitted principal or conditional permitted use in accordance with Section 411.10 and 411.11.”  All that does is add the R-T district to the existing language that is already in the resolution.

Anyone that would like speak in favor of that?  Anyone that would like to speak in opposition to that?

Mr. Craig Conley:  I would suggest delete the I-1 district since everybody seems to like the touchy-feely name of R-T instead of I-1.  It certainly is appropriate in our economy and we don’t have any heavy industrial uses anyhow so why play the name game.  Just eliminate the industrial category and change it to R-T and nobody gives a darn, and as I look at paragraph number six I notice every single one of those permitted uses are already permitted in the industrial category as well as in a B-3.  I don’t want this commission to lose sight of the fact that you can call it R-T or you can call it a tomato but it is still industrial so why not get rid of the industrial use.   We don’t have that industrial stuff anyway and we don’t want it.

Mr. Bergman:  The only question I have is when I look down the list of permitted uses for I-1 there is a number of things in the industrial and B-3 uses that would not be included in the R-T district and what we’re talking about there is a number of different things and, again, I know the purpose of this is to try to downgrade some of the inclusions.  One that jumped right out at me when I look through these is hospitals, a number of different retail establishments, and some land use categories.  So if you’re recommending we eliminate the I-1 in lure of the R-T would you then recommend that we include all of the current land uses in the I-1 in the R-T?

Mr. Conley:  I would recommend exactly that, I guess.  I’m not sure I understood the question but what I’m saying is that in the present industrial district and pretty much in the present B-3 district everything that is proposed in the R-T is already permitted.

Mr. Bergman:  But those districts have additional things that are permitted that wouldn’t be permitted in the R-T district.

Mr. Conley:  That is correct except that those things don’t physically exist here.  So eliminate them.

Mr. Bergman:  A medical clinic doesn’t exist here?

Mr. Conley:  Well I think not in an industrial district.  I’m not aware that we have a medical clinic.  I think that’s in a B-3 if you’re talking about the Altcare by the old Sam’s club.

Mr. Bergman:  It is an acceptable use in both areas.

Mr. Conley:  It may be, and I don’t mind a medical clinic in an R-T district.  In fact it is pretty compatible with bio-science, is it not?  I don’t care.  I think if the purpose is, with the touchy-feely stuff aside, is to make sure that we don’t encourage heavy industry.  We’ll eliminate that industrial zone, call it this R-T touchy-feely name and then go through that list of permitted uses and eliminate some of the ones you’re talking about and I don’t who would care because we’re not doing it anyway.  We don’t have heavy industry is what all of the speeches that I’ve heard.  The god, mom and apple pie kind of flag speeches that I’ve heard from the township before is this notion that we want to do something that we don’t have, heavy industrial.  We don’t have the smokestack of Pittsburg.

Ms. Magyaros:  Mr. Conley, again, I don’t want to interrupt you to be rude but paragraph six, we’re going to get to permitted uses.  Let’s try to get through paragraph three and then maybe we’ll get there before the end of the evening.  Is there any other comments concerning opposing use regulations as currently defined?  As I said earlier all it does is add R-T to the existing language in the zoning resolution.  Any comments from the commission members?  Okay I believe number three can stay as proposed.
Now we’re going to number four.  Item number four is 411.2(D).  Change the sentence to read “Accessory uses, buildings and structures subject to regulations as specified herein, are permitted in association with and subordinate to permitted principal or conditional use in the B-1, B-2, PBRD, I-1, C-P and R-T districts and include, but are not limited to the following.”  Again, I believe this is the exact same language that currently exists in the zoning resolution.  All we are doing is adding the word R-T.  Anyone that would like to comment in favor of that?  Anyone that would like to comment in opposition?  Any comments from the commission members?  Okay I believe that number four can proceed as drafted.

That takes us to item number five.  It’s to add 411.2(E) “Use prohibited in the Research and Technology District.  Industrial uses including, but not limited to, those listed in Appendix “B” shall be wholly prohibited in the R-T, Research and Technology District.”

Would anybody like to speak in favor of the definition of prohibited uses as currently drafted?  Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition?  Do you have any uses that you have in mind that you don’t see currently covered under appendix “B”?

Donna Sherritt, 240 Oak Dr. NW:  We want mining in appendix “B” as well.

Mr. Conley:  Appendix “B”, I actually looked up some of those things and it strikes me as one of those touchy-feely things that looks good but it really doesn’t mean a heck of a lot because ain’t nobody going to locate a slaughter house in Jackson Township anyhow.  I suspect whoever put this together put things in there that nobody’s going to do anyway.  I don’t think it covers the type of hazards that you might be concerned about in the R-T district such as a bio-chemical or biological agents.  I would be pleased to provide the commission, the next time I’m here, with a more comprehensive list that actually covers the type of hazards that are most likely to be here.  We’re not going to have to worry about leather tanning chemicals being spilled here.  We’re going to have to worry about bio-science things and those are missing from this list.

Ms. Magyaros:  I would note that the forth item down where it says all establishment falling within North American Industry Classification Systems, basic chemical manufacturing.  I see that the next one talks about pesticides, fertilizer and other.

Mr. Conley:  I noticed nothing is listed that would be bio-science.  Of course I looked up bio-science in the dictionary and it talks about biology and German warfare and that sort of thing but the list is not comprehensive enough.  It’s one of those lists that look’s good but it doesn’t mean a hell of a lot because nobody’s going to do that type of stuff here anyway.

Ms. Conaway:  I wish you would have brought your list tonight.

Mr. Conley:  I don’t have it.  What I did was I went on the internet and looked up this stuff trying to understand it.  I can come up with a more comprehensive and appropriate list.  This is kind of window dressing what is here and doesn’t really mean beans from what I can understand.

Mr. Benner:  I think Mr. Conley brings up a good point.  One of the issues that I would like to know is what sorts of things we can do from a zoning point of view that would allow us to understand.  I’m sure some of the facilities that he is referring to are classified as certain types of facilities.  You have some buildings that have filtration systems built into them with negative air flow so that all the air flow that comes through the building goes out through a filtering process and two or three layers of things.  Those have specific classifications within the research and technology world and if we don’t specifically know what those are or know what we don’t want in our yard we could by not omitting those invite those in, so if anyone has any information as to what those might be I would say, Mr. Phillippi, that we would probably want to make sure those are included so they don’t come in under the umbrella of research and technology, with the potential of being that close to any residential area.

Mr. Kevin Hovan, 263 Oak Dr.:  I know that mining and the activities of American Sand & Gravel are not included in the activities that would be permitted, but we would also like it added to the list of things that are prohibited to schedule “B”.  It would certainly increase my comfort level with anything that may or may not get passed in the future.

Ms. Magyaros:  I have a question for Mr. Phillippi regarding that.  Section 302.8 of the zoning resolution deals with surface mining.  Would it be possible or could we put language in to possibly exclude any type of mining and would that conflict with what we have as far as the existing regulation regarding surface mining.

Mr. Phillippi:  The surface mining now is a conditionally permitted use within the residential districts and the commercial and industrial districts.  If it was wholly excluded from this district I don’t know that it would be a conflict, but it would be a regulation that is different from what we have now.  It is not currently listed as a conditionally permitted use or a permitted use in that district.  So at this point in time it would be prohibited as a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use as written currently.

Ms. Magyaros:  So someone could not come in and ask for a conditional use permit as written for surface mining.

Mr. Phillippi:  Yes, within this particular district.

Ms. Conaway:  Am I to understand you then if it is permitted in the residential, but in the R-T district that would actually be a protection to these people.

Mr. Phillippi:  As it is currently proposed yes.

Mr. Bauder:  You may want to check section 302.8(B).  The removal of peat and minerals for the development of residential housing, business, or industrial complex development does not require a permit.

Mr. Phillippi:  That is the current writing of the regulation with regards to the development of a site for a housing development, industrial park or what have you.  When you are developing that, the way the regulations are written, the mineral extraction is permitted in conjunction with a valid development plan and permit.  When you’re putting in roads and sewers for developing a site.

Mr. Benner:  Let’s cut to the chase.  The question that is on everybody’s mind is if this property that we’re looking at gets rezoned, the way this is written right now, will they or will they not be able to mine all the rest of the stuff out of that property with the way it is written today and being proposed.

Mr. Phillippi:  As a permitted use?

Mr. Benner:  No.  If someone comes along and says I have an industrial site that I would like to develop and I’m going to take all the sand and gravel out because it doesn’t require a conditional use permit, is that going to happen?

Mr. Phillippi:  There wouldn’t be anything to prevent that.

Mr. Benner:  That is the concern.

Mr. Phillippi:  That is the current regulation.  If you’re proposing that the current regulation be amended then that is something that you need to make very clear.  This is the way the current regulations are and there is no change in any respect in that regard.

Mr. Conley:  Some of these people in this room may not know but I actually represent American Sand & Gravel but not on this specific site.  Mr. Scala and I have an understanding that I don’t know his name when it comes to this neighborhood.  Certainly American Sand & Gravel, although you wouldn’t call it 100% non conforming use, they certainly have a right to continue mining in their present location as long as they meet the conditions and to my knowledge they are doing so and have been for 20 years.  So that’s not really an issue.  American Sand & Gravel is not the devil in carnet here.  The problem is that no matter what when you develop a site there’s going to be earth moved around so the zoning regulations properly say that site development, even if it coincidently happens to be mining, isn’t going to be prohibited, and I don’t think this commission could institutionally or lawfully do a heck of a lot about that.  If somebody needs to cut down and hill because they want to make a flat place for a target store I don’t think you can tell them no.  It’s not practical.  So what we’re really doing is kind of jumping over to if you adopt this district then where do you put it.  So that is one of the arguments we’ll be making to you.  Don’t put it here where it is proposed because it is just an excuse to mine.  It’s a lawful excuse to mine without a permit.  I think that is where the neighbors are coming from.  Quite frankly I called that to their attention a week or so ago because that had occurred to me and so if you’re thinking about spending a lot of time or fiddling around with the present existing language about site development I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.  I think it is unconstitutional to tell somebody you’re not allowed to move that hill.  Well of course they are and of course that is what is going to happen eventually if this area next to our homes is rezoned.  It’s going to be mined and there’s no question about it.  I think that might be the underlying motive for that particular geography change on the map.

Ms. Magyaros:  But currently as that is drafted except for in situations with site development that would not be a permitted activity.

Mr. Phillippi:  That is correct.

Mr. Joliet:  American Sand & Gravel have never lived up to any regulations that anybody put into anything.  They were in trouble in Cleveland & Akron.  They put a lot of soil where it wasn’t supposed to be and when they started down here the first thing they did was say they were going to be here three years and it’s close to 25 years now.

Ms. Magyaros:  Sir, not to sound like a broken record but that really goes to the issue of the actual rezoning of the property and right now we are just trying to concentrate on prohibited uses.

Mr. Bergman:  I assume we’re going to table this until the next meeting when we get the list of suggestions from Mr. Conley.

Ms. Magyaros:  Yes. We’ll keep the language currently as drafted with a notation that Mr. Conley will provide more specific types of businesses that we many want to consider, or uses, to prohibit in the R-T district.

At this time we’ll move on to item number six which is section 411.3 Schedule of Permitted Uses.  Now we’ve kind of been touching on this topic all night and we’re finally here.  Add 411.3 column H.  R-T-the following land use categories will be identified as “P”, meaning permitted.  2A) Business, professional, medical, and dental office. 2e) Planned office complex.  3h) Business and trade school.  8e) College, university, or technical school-pubic or private.  8g) Library, museum.  8h) Public service facilities.  8i) Public safety facilities, 8j) Public maintenance facilities.  8k) Public parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreational facilities.  9a) Wireless telecommunications towers.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the list of permitted use as currently drafted?

Mr. Conley:  I think it’s just fine.  In fact we already have all that stuff and even the next list except for transportation terminals, we already have all of that stuff and we already have it in B-3 and industrial zoned so sure it looks fine to me.

Ms. Magyaros:  Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the permitted uses?

Mr. Clark Richards, 5290 Schario NW:  I think wireless telecommunications should be removed.  I don’t think that belongs in that area.

Ms. Magyaros:  We can’t do a thing about that.  It is regulated by the general assembly.

Mr. Richards:  I don’t think public maintenance facilities.  I don’t see how that involves the spirit of research and technology.

Mr. Bergman:  I agree with Clark.  The first thing I saw was public maintenance didn’t seem to fit with what we were doing there.  We might be able to move that to a conditional use permit just in case by building up over there and we need a maintenance facility at least we could approve one.

Mr. Bauder:  I see no problem leaving it in because it just makes it simpler.  They’re not going to have a big operation.

Ms. Magyaros:  For once I think I have a different view from almost everybody in the room.  I’m sure you’ll tell me if I’m wrong on this.  When I go back and I look at the purpose of creating a district in the first place, it’s to create a unique district that really nobody else has in Stark County and it’s to attract certain types of businesses to our area.  To me I almost view the creation of an R-T district almost as a marketing tool that we can go out and say we’ve created this environment so come to Jackson Township and spend your money here.  When I look back through this list I agree with Mr. Conley.  Every single thing that is listed here is already permitted in a B-3 so we’re not really creating anything that’s different or unique when we talk about creating the R-T district.  I think if you go back to the purpose section and if we could somehow take the last couple of sentences where I think is where we really get specific and we really talk about the types of businesses that we want to attract and how we want to make this district unique, and we talk about fields of power and propulsion and I’m thinking about the fuel cell project at Stark State, bio-science, advanced materials, information technology and instruments, controls, and electronics, maybe that’s not even specific enough.  But, I want to have a reason to create this district but I have a hard time seeing it if all we’re doing is allowing the same businesses that we already allow.  So, I don’t know that it really helps the township as far as creating any kind of a marketing tool to attract businesses if we’re not saying look we created this unique environment just for you and maybe narrow down the types of businesses that we’re going to attract.

Mr. Phillippi:  I think a lot of those are included in the next section where it specifically lists those new areas.  I think your thoughts are very well taken as far as creating this unique district but maybe the commission wants to concentrate specifically on those types of uses that should be permitted, which we tried to put in there, but in addition to that other uses that should not be permitted in such a district.  I know the public maintenance facilities was one that was considered but there was a lot of discussion in putting all of this together and working with the various committees as to whether or not the light industrial uses were even a legitimate use within the R-T district.

Ms. Magyaros:  I see what you’re saying about in item number eight where the uses are more specific.  I just feel we need to keep in mind if we’re going through all of this work let’s really create something unique and different and something that we can use as a marketing tool to attract new types of businesses to the area.  I’m okay with what we have there but I had that thought.

Mr. Benner:  I have to agree with you.  I’m not quite sure why we want to create another district that we allow public safety and public maintenance facilities.  I guess parks are okay but again if it’s for the purpose that we think it is then why would we even want to put those in there.

Ms. Conaway:  I don’t have a problem with the safety or public service facilities at all.  I don’t know that could be a determent to the area.

Ms. Magyaros:  I don’t think it’s a determent and I’m not opposed to any of these being in that district but I don’t want to lose focus.  I think we are here to create the district and to create something unique.  Let’s not repeat what we already have existing and call it something different.  I’m by no means against a research and technology district.  I think it’s a very forward thinking idea and very good for the area but when we’re working through these let’s make sure we really do create something unique and different that we can use as a marketing tool.  I don’t have any problems with the items that are listed there.

Gus Eliopoulos, 144 Spruce Dr. NW:  In sitting in Regional Planning when you layout an area for development you can have your hub as your R-T district and then you surround that with your B-3 or whatever else in that area and you develop that area in an organized fashion so you have your dentist and doctors offices over here and other support areas over here but they are a different zoning.  Then your R-T district is like a specific area for specific businesses and that’s it.

Ms. Magyaros:  That’s kind of what I’m saying and I would agree with that.  I want to let everyone know that it is getting close to 9:30 right now and we have a member who has to leave at 10:00 so we probably will conclude at 10:00 and set a date to reschedule.

Mr. Phil Janecko, 6167 Redford NW:  When I look at the purpose that is to create an environment to accommodate and promote the establishment and expansion of businesses in the field of advanced research, technology and product development, where does a planned office complex, a business and trade school and college and university fit in that purpose.  If you develop a purpose where to that are you going to fit to those purposes?  It doesn’t make sense where a library and museum will fit into that purpose.

Ms. Magyaros:  I can tell you that I had the same question after the informational meeting.  I forget who I talked to but I said why do you have a library in a research and technology district.  This person explained to me that it may be a very unique business that comes in and develops a very unique piece of technology and it may be the only business in the county that’s doing that and maybe creates a lot of literature in that area and they would want to have a library where people could come in and access that knowledge.  So things like that I didn’t think of.

Mr. Janecko:  Can it be defined as that; to the schools and libraries that pertain to the business itself.  That’s my point.

Mr. Benner:  That’s a good point.  Another point with the colleges and universities is for any of these kinds of districts, if you think about it, an awful lot of basic research goes on in colleges and universities that are funded by industry and other government agencies so a big partner in this whole process of defining an R-T district is Stark State and other universities so there could very well be reasons for locating these parts.

I think there was a suggestion before at the very minimum for a conditional use permit for those.  I think there are plenty of other places for those to locate.

Ms. Conaway:  I do think maybe the conditional use permit might be the way to go.  Let me take it a step further, and I’m probably not going to be popular for this one, but I don’t mind pubic parks and outdoor recreational facilities, but I don’t think playgrounds fit in that setting either.

Ms. Magyaros:  I think playgrounds were added because they talked about having on site daycare for the employees that may be working in these facilities.

Ms. Conaway:  Okay, then that makes sense.

Ms. Magyaros:  I like the idea of maybe taking some of these categories out and turning them into conditional use permits where if you want to come in and build a dental office in the R-T district then you’re going to have to apply to the board of zoning appeals and ask for a conditional use permit.  So do we want to go down through the list and circle the ones that we think should become conditional use permits?  I’ll just open this up to the commission members.
Mr. Bergman:  I propose that medical and dental office be moved, museum be moved, and all public service, safety and maintenance be moved to a conditional use.

Ms. Magyaros:  I’m a little bit concerned about maybe taking the safety facilities out.  I think this would serve a good purpose for those close on site.

Mr. Benner:  I guess I would say if there is a good reason then whoever wants to put in a safety building can come to the BZA and ask for it and if it’s a good reason it should be granted.

Ms. Conaway:  A lot of times when you’re into research you have to be very careful about protecting what you are researching so maybe in that respect you may need the public safety facilities.

Mr. Bauder:  A conditional use permit should not be difficult to get.

Ms. Magyaros:  Okay, so you would propose taking out safety facilities, public maintenance facilities and public service facilities.  Are there any other items you would like to exclude?

Mr. Bauder:  We talked about medical and dental offices.  I can also see where that could be used as a bio-science.  The trouble is we are trying to define something that is very nebulous.  We’re trying to cover our basis but we don’t even know what the game is.

Ms. Conaway:  What about planned office complex.  Could that be a conditional use as well?

Mr. Bergman:  I actually think that fits as well as anything because if you look at a lot of the R-T they will probably have a lot of the complex type offices that would want to be planned.

Joyce Fox:  This goes back to the purpose when I had asked about what is advanced materials.  I thought I heard one of the commissioners mention something about something could be amended.  Why does the board have to think of everything they don’t know what’s going to exist in the future.  Why wouldn’t there be specific’s listed of what you know would be acceptable knowing that if somebody came to this board and said I want to bring this enterprise into one of these districts and it doesn’t currently exist because we hadn’t thought of it tonight, then why wouldn’t it be amended at that time.  Why does it all have to be here in writing now?

Ms. Magyaros:  Since we are creating the legislation you want to make it as comprehensive as possible.

Ms. Fox:  But when you don’t know why would you leave us open to something that we don’t know what we would be in for.  If we don’t know now, for example the advance materials, we don’t know because we don’t know what they might be decades down the road.

Mr. Benner:  If we define this kind of a district and the kinds of things that are permitted and prohibited, which ever way we go or whatever combination of those that we do, if we don’t prohibit something and we don’t specifically permit it, it doesn’t mean that someone can’t come in and do it.  We can’t stop them from doing it if the legislation isn’t already in place.

Ms. Fox:  But you could provide language that would encompass those loop holes, could you not?

Ms. Magyaros:  I think that is what we are trying to do when we look at the list of permitted uses.  We are trying to go through them and narrow them down.

Mr. Benner:  I’ll give you a for instance.  The zoning regulations permit sexually explicit businesses only in the industrial area but we have sites where the explicit businesses are elsewhere because they were not specifically defined that way before hand.  So you can’t go back and push the camel out of the tent after he gets his nose in.

Ms. Magyaros:  Granted if somebody would slip through the loophole then they are going to be there and we can go back and go through the process and amend the regulation but they are already there.

Ms. Conaway:  They would be grandfathered and there is nothing we can do about it.

Ms. Magyaros:  Okay, so right now we have medical and dental offices, museum, public service facilities, public safety facilities, and public maintenance facilities that we would like to move down to the conditional use permit category.  Is that correct?

Mr. Benner:  As much as I hate to say it I think we’re going to have to leave public service facilities in there.  Any area is probably going to have some kind of lift station for sewage and everything else.

Ms. Magyaros:  I don’t have a problem with those items remaining in.  I thought it was probably a good idea.

Mr. Benner:  Just the service facilities.

Ms. Magyaros:  Just the public service facilities but still exclude public safety facilities and public maintenance facilities?

Mr. Benner:  Let them be a conditional use permit.

Ms. Magyaros:  So the proposed amendment would exclude medical and dental office, museum, public safety facilities and public maintenance facilities.

Mr. Benner:  We would actually move them down to a conditional use.

Ms. Magyaros:  This takes us down to item seven “The following land use categories to be identified as CUP (Conditional use).  We have 4f) Transportation terminal, 6d) Warehouse, 8d) Churches, other places of worship, buildings for public assembly and then we have with an *, such uses shall be conditionally permitted only when accessory or secondary to a principal permitted use and shall be limited to no more than 50 percent of the gross building floor area of the principal permitted use or 30 percent of the site devoted to a principal use, whichever is less.

As noted above we would also add down there medical and dental offices, museum, and public safety and maintenance facilities.

Mr. Andy Jacobson, 6148 Redford NW:  I as a fire fighter here in Jackson Township feel that the public safety facility should not be excluded and made a conditional use.  We do work strongly with Timken Research and the facilities that they have and chemicals that they use.  We work real close with them in case something would happen.  I feel if you do that what you are doing is telling those people up there, if it gets approved, you are telling these people we’re not going to have safety forces there for you when the time or situation arises.  Right now we don’t have very close facilities up there.  The closest is Strausser and route 241.  If you have a catastrophic failure in some of these technologies minutes and even seconds are of the up most importance, so you have to have people there quickly.  From what I understand the township is currently looking to put a fire station up closer to that area.  I feel you might be tying the townships hands here.

Mr. Bauder:  You point is very well taken but at the same time they can ask for a conditional use permit.

Mr. Jacobson:  I feel you’re telling the township that they cannot provide a public service without having a permit.  The township is bound by the State to provide fire service to the community.

Ms. Magyaros:  I really don’t have a problem with that being in there as permitted.  Do we want to reconsider number six again to include the public service and safety facility or do we want to leave it as is?

Ms. Conaway:  I think we should leave them all in there.

Ms. Magyaros:  We’re going to back up to number six and the only uses that will become conditionally permitted uses would be medical and dental offices and museum.  Then when we get down to item number seven the only items that we would be adding in addition to the list that is currently there would be medical and dental offices and museum without an asterisk.

I think at this point this may be a time to continue the amendments.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to continue amendment #546-05 until April 7, 2005 at 7:00 pm.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

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

AMENDMENT #547-05 – The Jackson Township Trustees, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority, property owner, 5430 Lauby Rd. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 propose to rezone from R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-T (Research & Technology District) parcel #1612508, 1615609, 1615531, and 1621393, and from B-3 (Commercial Business District) to R-T (Research & Technology District) parcel #1680274, which parcels consists of approximately 162 acres.  Property located east of Wales Ave. and north of Strausser St., Sect. 3SW & SE Jackson Twp.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to continue amendment 547-05 until April 7, 2005 at 7:30 pm.

Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Bauder made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector