Members Present:                                                          Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                          James Bauder
                                                                                          David Benner
                                                                                          Stephen Bergman

Absent Member:                                                             Donna Conaway
Alternate Member:                                                          Richard Russell-Absent

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                             Joni Poindexter

Ms. Magyaros asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 12th and 19th.

Mr. Bauder made a motion to vote on the minutes from the meeting of February 12, 2004 and Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Bergman made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 19, 2004 and Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

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

AMENDMENT #538-04 - Barrington Mortgage, 1206 N. Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Rohr & Sons Nursery, Inc., property owner, 5357 Everhard Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 propose to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-1 (Single Family Low Density Residential District) 8.87 acres located on the west side of Wales Rd., 1,950 ft., more or less, north of Mudbrook, Sect. 16SE Jackson Twp.  (Legal description on file)

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

Ms. Magyaros asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.

Mr. John Walsh, 3378 West Market St., Akron, Ohio 44333 stated that he is with GBC Design and is representing Barrington Mortgage and Rohr’s Nursery.  Mr. Walsh gave the board a proposed layout of the lots, exhibit #1, and explained that the property is approximately 8.9 acres and is made of up three parcels.  The project is on the west side of Wales Rd., north of Mudbrook, south of Suwannee and currently has sanitary sewer and water available.  Mr. Walsh explained where the sewer is located and stated that they have been talking to the school board about trying to get an easement to hook onto the sanitary sewer through their property.

Mr. Walsh explained the surrounding zoning classifications and stated that this is an area of transition.  The layout plan shows that there is an existing home on lot #3 that will remain, but there is a little garage in the front that would be removed and then reattached to the building if it encroaches into the front setback due to the layout of the road.  There is also pole building that encroaches onto lot #4 that will be removed from the site.

Mr. Walsh stated that the layout has twenty lots that meet the R-1 zoning requirements.  Most of the frontage on the lots will average 115 ft. or larger.  Lot #8 is a little smaller, but because of the depth from the street all of the lots will appear to almost meet the R-R zoning for frontage.  Mr. Walsh stated that Regional Planning recommended approval for the rezoning and feels the request is within the integrity of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the area.

Mr. Bergman asked if any studies have been done regarding the drainage.

Mr. Walsh stated that any development would have to go through Regional Planning and be approved by the Subdivision Engineer.  They will have to meet all the regulations and have been talking with the school board to get an easement for the storm sewer to connect to the main ditch.  Mr. Walsh stated that the streets would be public streets with curbs and storm sewers.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she assumes the pond that is shown in the area of the street would be filled in.

Mr. Walsh stated yes.

Mr. Bauder asked if they are proposing to put the storm water directly into the ditch.

Mr. Walsh stated that there would be a storm water basin that would probably be on the rear of lot #11 that would address the storm water.

Mr. Bergman asked if a traffic study had been done for Wales Rd.

Mr. Walsh stated no, but Wales is a state route and would require ODOT approval for ingress and egress and also for site distance.

Mr. Bauder asked if this should have already been done because if it is not allowed then there is no sense in changing the zoning.

Mr. Walsh stated if they needed to they could look at moving the street further south and still meet the site distance requirement.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board received a letter from the property owner to the north, Mr. & Mrs. George, who are opposing the rezoning and asked Mr. Walsh if there would be any type of buffering between the properties.

Mr. Walsh stated that they are not proposing any landscaped buffers or mounding.  The property would have single family homes on it with the rear of the property butting up to the adjacent properties.

Mr. Benner asked what the value of the homes would be.

Mr. Walsh stated between $200,000 and $250,000.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this amendment.

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

Ms. Sue Fowler, 6095 Wales Rd. stated that she has owned her property since 1977 and is opposed to the rezoning.  There is a water problem on her the property with the back of it being nothing but water and there are springs on the property and so she doesn’t know how the water would be diverted.

Mr. Benner asked Ms. Fowler if she could tell him how her vision is when coming onto Wales Rd. from her driving way looking to the left up the hill.

Ms. Fowler stated that it is very dangerous.

Mr. Benner asked Ms. Fowler if she can see up the hill.
Ms. Fowler stated no, she can only see to the middle the property at the curve.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. Magyaros read the letter from Mr. & Mrs. George into the record and asked Mr. Walsh if he had any additional comments.

Mr. Walsh stated that their intent is to develop the property and they would like to develop it as R-1.  It is still a viable project and whether it is zoned R-R or R-1 they need ODOT approval for the road.

Mr. Benner asked if the property is not rezoned would the R-R development be essentially the same design but less lots and more frontage.

Mr. Walsh stated yes.

Ms. Magyaros asked if the zoning change would give them five or six more homes.

Mr. Walsh stated that it gives them about four more homes.  The minimum lot frontage for an R-1 district is 80 ft. and the minimum that is shown is 94 ft. with most of them being 112 and 117 ft.  Mr. Walsh stated that he can’t say what type of homes would be built but with that wide of a lot it lends itself to a side load garage, which aesthetically is better than 80 ft. lots with smaller homes.

Mr. Bauder stated that he is aware of how wet the property is in the back and there is no way of getting the water off of the property that he knows of.

Mr. Walsh stated that it drains off the property now.  Their intent is to work with the school and get the water down to the street.

Mr. Bauder stated that he is not opposed to the overall concept but is concerned that they have not yet received ODOT approval and thinks the zoning change is premature at this time.

Mr. Bergman stated that he is generally concerned about anything that is rezoned to increase density.  The infrastructure is straining with the schools and roads.  He recognizes the right to develop, but he can’t in conscience vote unless he has a good reason to increase the density of home sites.

Mr. Benner agreed with Mr. Bauder on the ODOT issue and stated that he is concerned about where the water from the development will go.  If there were agreements in place to allow for some type of easement across the school property or some other way to get it to the creek it might be a different issue.

Ms. Magyaros agreed with the other board members and stated that in looking at the chart that shows the existing zoning the area is all R-R, and she is hesitant to make a change for four more homes.

Mr. Benner made a motion to vote on amendment #538-04.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Bergman-no, Mr. Benner-no, Mr. Bauder-no, and Ms. Magyaros-no.

AMENDMENT #535-04 - Rosebud of Stark County, LLC, 7694 Strausser St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Rose Lane Health Center, property owner, 5425 High Mill Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-3 (Residential Planned Unit Development District) 20.185 acres located on the north side of Lafayette, 826 ft. more or less, east of Crystal Lake Rd, Sect. 19NW/NE/SW Jackson Twp.  (Legal description on file)

Ms. Magyaros stated that this is a continuation from February 19, 2004.  The reason for the continuance was to allow the developers to address the ingress and egress issue concerning the development.

Mr. Shawn O’Brien, 1460 Hillbrook, North Canton asked if the only issue is the ingress and egress.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she would like Mr. O’Brien to address that issue and then the audience can speak on any comments they may have and if any other comments are brought up then Mr. O’Brien can respond to them.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the last time they were in front of the board there was a concern about where the street would come out onto Lafayette.  They did not show Mr. Franks residence on the map the last time; however, it is shown on the revised map.  Per the previous drawing the road was going to look right in the middle of Mr. Frank’s house.  They have since moved the road as far to the left as they possibly could based on subdivision regulations.

Mr. Brian Ashman, 1359 Market Ave. N., Canton, Ohio gave the board a drawing, exhibit #1, of the representation of the roadway for the entrance into the development and stated as shown on the plan the roadway alignment shown in black was the original application.  They have shifted the road to the west which is represented in red.  Mr. Ashman stated that the primary objection had to do with the egress vehicles and their headlights pointing directly at Mr. Frank’s home.  The red representation is an engineering layout that will provide them with the roadway shifted considerably over approximately 65 ft. further to the west.  They cannot move the roadway any further to the west because of the subdivision regulations that have to do with the radius of the roadway, the angle that they approach onto Lafayette, and when they do their return into the right of way and the pavement of Lafayette they have a transition that has to be met in the pavement.  Without getting any variances from the subdivision regulations they are restricted as to how far west the road can be moved.  The red alignment that is provided meets the subdivision regulations and would not require a variance.  Mr. Ashman stated that he feels they have accomplished Mr. Frank’s concern and this is a viable solution.

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

Mr. Don Frank, 9670 Lafayette showed the board a drawing that he made as to where he thought the street should be located and stated that his drawing shows the street moved all the way against the west property line.

Mr. Frank stated that he is concerned about the telephone pole that is on the property because it would have to be moved, and he does not want it moved across the street on his property.

Mr. Benner asked Mr. Frank if he reviewed his drawing with the developers.

Mr. Frank stated that he called them and asked them to place stakes on the property as to where the street would be, which they promptly did, and then one of the board members met with him at the property to see where the street would be located.

Mr. Bergman asked if there could be probable cause that the street cannot be done as Mr. Frank has it shown.

Mr. Frank stated this is fair.  If done how he has it shown it would be pushed another 25 ft. to the north.  From the road stake to the lawn stake it is about 36 ft. or so.  Mr. Frank stated that he can see that ODOT might not agree.

Mr. Bergman stated that Mr. O’Brien is shaking his head no.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she thinks Mr. O’Brien is saying that it can’t be moved any further because of the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Ashman stated the primary subdivision regulations have to do with the radius of curvature that they are permitted to have on the exiting street.  The centerline radius is restricted by subdivision regulations to a 200 ft. centerline radius.  Because of the centerline radius it will restrict them.  As moving further to the northwest it pinches down and would restrict them from meeting the regulation.  It is possible that they could get a variance from the subdivision regulations but that is something that they don’t like to do.

Mr. Ashman stated that the property sits higher and as they go further down they would be getting into the drainage low spot and there could be additional problems because of the topographical aspect of the property.  Mr. Ashman stated that the primary concern has to do with the centerline radius and the returns on the right of way.  They feel, within a couple of feet, that what they have proposed is the furthest that the road can be shifted to the northwest and meet the subdivision regulations.

Ms. Magyaros asked about the concern regarding the utility pole.

Mr. Ashman stated that the utility pole will have to be relocated regardless of where the road is located, but he does not know where it would be relocated to.

Ms. Magyaros asked if it is feasible to move it across the street.

Mr. O’Brien stated that it is highly unlikely and if he has anything to say about it he would make a recommendation, to who’s ever pole it is, to leave it on their property and keep it on the side that it is located on at this time.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he would have to pay to have the pole move, so he thinks should have some say in where it is put.  Mr. O’Brien stated that they picked up a little bit more green space by moving the street.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she noticed that with the road moved they cut into lot #1 and it looks like some of the lots have been renumbered.

Mr. O’Brien stated that they lost a lot on the west and picked up one extra lot in another location so they have the same number of lots as shown of the previous plan.  They also have 38% green space.

Mr. Ashman stated by picking up some green space they have created a buffer along the entire frontage of Lafayette and with the other layout there was not a buffer along the northwest corner.

Ms. Magyaros asked if there are any specifics regarding buffering.

Mr. O’Brien stated if this is approved they have enough dirt on site that they would like to mound across the area and put pine trees in accordingly across the area so it can buffer Mr. Franks property from their development.

Mr. Frank showed Mr. Ashman the drawing that he proposed and explained what he was talking about.

Mr. Ashman stated that there are some deficiencies with Mr. Frank’s layout.  The right of way would not meet tangent by the time it gets to the property and although it looks like a minor adjustment the curvature would not be met.

Mr. Frank asked if they started from scratch and nothing was drawn on the plan yet, could they have put the road at the very edge of the property.

Mr. Ashman stated yes, but it would not have been feasible because the road would have to go straight up and they couldn’t build and it wouldn’t yield to proper development techniques.

Loren Rohr, 5255 Crystal Lake stated that he is concerned with the water runoff to the south, west and north.  To the south there is a lot of water that gathers with a hard storm and there will be twice as much if not three times as much with the development.
Mr. Benner asked Mr. Rohr if his property is down stream from the development.

Mr. Rohr stated yes.  He owns 335 acres and one area of his property goes toward Mr. Frank’s property.  The water has to go through a tile across Crystal Lake Rd and then through his field so he is afraid the drainage will be worse.

Mr. Bergman stated that the drainage was reviewed at the last meeting and it seems that the developers have tried to set up catch basins and tried to do their homework with assuring the best they can that the water will be no worse than it is now.

Mr. Ashman explained the drainage of the property and stated that the drainage will be improved and will not harm the existing properties.

Ms. Diana Rohr Gravo, 10015 Lafayette NW asked if the developers have talked to the Soil and Conservation District as to how this will affect her property because she spoke to them and they said they would come out and walk her property to see how it affects it.  No matter where the driveway is put there will be water running off of it.

Mr. Ashman, again, explained the drainage and the road way egress and ingress.  Mr. Ashman stated as part of their construction plans they have to provide erosion control and drainage plans for review.

Ms. Gravo stated that there will be a problem with the houses being compacted together and it will cause more water.

Mr. Ashman stated that it will not cause more water.

Ms. Magyaros stated that drainage is a factor that the board considers when looking at rezoning, but it is not the only factor considered.  Ms. Magyaros stated if the rezoning request is approved the residents still have a say so in the drainage issue.  The County would step in and review the drainage plans and Mr. Phillippi suggested that one of the most important meetings that the residents should attend is the subdivision review committee meeting that is open to the public.

Mr. Bauder stated that he understands that there will be a catch basin about 60 or 70 ft. off Lafayette to catch all the surface water coming down the street.

Mr. Ashman stated that they will probably have a catch basin 60 or 70 ft. from Lafayette but not all the water on the site goes that way.  They will intercept with the catch basins and install deeper sewer systems.

Mr. Bauder stated that he thinks that will work very well.

Mr. Rohr asked what the valuation of the homes would be.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he believes the homes would be $175,000 and up.

Mr. Frank stated he wishes the road could be moved further over.

Mr. Ashman stated that he can say that the road will not go any further southeast than what is shown on the plan.  If he can move it anymore to the northwest then they will, but until they go through the entire engineering aspects of the plan he can’t say exactly where it will be, but he can guarantee that the road will not move to the southeast at all.

Mr. O’Brien stated if there is anyway they can go further to the west than where they are now he gives his word that they will do that and will take it as far as the subdivision regulations will allow them to.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he too will guarantee that they will not come any further east than what is proposed.
Mr. Bauder stated that he believes all the concerns have been addressed.  The only one up in the air is the actual location of the final street intersection in relationship to Mr. Frank’s house.

Mr. Bergman stated that he will hang his hat on some of the comments that were stated on record.  One being that they will reduce the drainage, and two that they are going to make sure that Mr. Frank doesn’t get, at the worse case the roadway comes out where it is.  Mr. Bergman stated that he will also hang his hat on the fact that the drainage will be improved and the Soil and Conservation District can make sure that the drainage plan works for the residents.

Mr. Benner stated that he was not at the last meeting but has read the minutes from the meeting.  There are some concerns regarding drainage that have been voiced by the residents.  He also heard Mr. Ashman’s guarantees or comments that the drainage isn’t going to be any worse to those areas than it currently is.  Mr. Benner stated that he hopes that’s true, but they also heard that from the developers of Emerald Estates and that did not turn out to be true.  As we know the engineering plans are approved by the county, who are the same people who approved the drainage for Emerald Estates, and a number of people have been flooded in that particular area.  When you look at topography, that changes significantly like this property does, it is always a concern.  Mr. Benner stated that this is a development that is in the middle of not just rural residential but farmland, and it is his feeling that it doesn’t necessarily fit.

Ms. Magyaros stated as an R-3 PUD there are certain factors in the zoning resolution that they need to consider.  Ms. Magyaros stated that she agrees it is in the middle of farmland, but they will be putting in single family detached dwellings and not apartments or condos and she realizes they are changing the character of the area by building on what is essentially open farm land.  At the last meeting traffic was discussed as far as the R-3 PUD being built and advertised for a senior citizen population.  This was based on the fact that Rose Lane is next door and the type of building that would be going in is appropriate for senior citizens.  Ms. Magyaros stated it appears the public facilities should be able to adequately service the PUD and it is in compliance with the state, county and township regulations.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she appreciates what Mr. Frank had to say and believes his concerns have been addressed and it has been indicated that the egress and ingress has been moved 65 ft. further to the west.  The board has heard from the developers about what they plan to do with the drainage and water and encourages the Rohr’s to follow up on the issue and attend the county meeting.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she would like to vote on the amendment with an amendment that the egress and ingress has been moved 65 ft. to the west from the original plan that was submitted.

Mr. Bauder made a motion to vote on the amendment as amended.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Benner-no, Mr. Bauder-yes, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a revised plan dated 2/20/04, with a stamped received date of 2/24/04, is in the file showing the egress and ingress moved 65 ft. to the west.

The board discussed proposed changes for future initiation to the zoning resolution and agreed as follows:
1) Section 401.11(3)(G)-Change from “Depth over 3 feet requires fencing” to “Water depth over 3 feet requires fencing.”
REASON: Shouldn’t be in the maximum height section for structures.  This is addressed in Section 401.11(3)(B)(3)
NOTES: ZC agreed to delete “Depth over 3 feet requires fencing” and replace with “N/A”.
2) Section 401.11(3)(B)(3)-Change from “The swimming pool, or the entire property upon which it is located, shall be enclosed by a wall or fence having a minimum height of four (4) feet and be equipped with suitable locking devises to prevent uncontrolled access from adjacent properties.  Above ground pools with a wall height of 4 feet or greater measured from the surrounding grade shall not require fencing” to “All swimming pools or the entire property upon which they are located, shall be enclosed by a wall or fence having a minimum height of four feet and be equipped with suitable locking devises to prevent uncontrolled access from adjacent properties.  Above ground pools with a wall height of 4 feet or greater measured from the surrounding grade shall not require fencing.”
REASON:  To clarify that all pools need some kind of fencing if underground or if above ground over three feet.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
3) Section 411.3(2)(a)Delete “On less than 3 acres.” Change to “Business, professional, medical and dental office”.
REASON: Requirements the same for less than 3 acres or more than 3 acres.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
4) Section 411.3(2)(b)-Delete the entire item “Business, professional, medical and dental office on 3 or more acres.”
REASON: Requirements are the same for any acreage and is a repeat of 411.3(2)(a), if adopted.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
5) Section 411.3(3)(a)-Delete “On less than 3 acres” and revise to read “Convenience retail uses and personal services such as food sales, drug store, barber and beauty shop, nail salon, tanning salon, laundry, dry cleaner and other similar uses, provided the usable floor area devoted to such use or uses is no greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet.)”  This would be permitted in the B-2, B-3, PBRD and I-1 district.
REASON:  No longer goes by acreage but by square footage of floor area.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
6) Section 411.3(3)(b)-Delete entire item “Retail sales establishments on 3 acres or more.”  Change to “Retail establishments and personal services with usable floor area devoted to such use or uses greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet”.  This would be a permitted use in the B-3, PBRD, and I-1 districts.
REASON: No longer goes by acreage but by square footage of floor area.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
7) Section 411.3(3)(C)- Delete entire item “Personal services such as barber, beauty shop, tanning facility, shoe repair, laundry, dry cleaners”
REASON:  Because it is addressed in 411.3(3)(a) & (b).
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
8) Section 411.3 (3)(F)-“Supporting retail and services that reinforce the character of the district, such as stores selling arts and crafts, gifts, and/or incidental food, ice cream, bike rental/repair, ATM, restaurants”-Add the letter “P” so they are permitted in B-1, B-2, B-3, & I-1 districts.”
REASON:  Under other listings items are permitted in districts so it should be designated as a “P” in B-1, B-2, B-3, & I-1 district.
NOTES: ZC agreed to also keep this a permitted use in the C-P district.
9) Section 411.10(6)(E)-Fences-Change from “10 ft. from street right of way” to “5 ft. from street right of way”
REASON: To be consistent with residential district.
NOTES: ZC agreed to leave as written and not change.
10) Section 431.5(#23 & 30)-Pg. 76 & 77-Delete the entire item.
REASON: They are not a conditional use permit (if previous deletions are adopted).
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
11) Section 431.6(S)-Pg. 85-Delete “and One office building on 3 or more acres and Retail Sales Establishments on three acres or more.”
REASON: No conditional use permit required for one office building or retail establishments on 3 acres or more (if previous deletions are adopted).
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
12) Section 501.7-Add definition of “Menu Board-A sign containing the name of food and drink items that may be ordered for pick-up at a drive-up window located on the premises.”
REASON: There is no definition of a menu board in the zoning resolution.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
13) Section 502.4(A) –Change from “The permitted square footage of wall signs shall be determined by multiplying two (2) sq. ft. by the linear frontage of the building upon which sign will be located provided such sign shall not exceed the maximum area set forth in Schedule 502.4” to “The permitted square footage of wall signs shall be determined by multiplying two (2) sq. ft. by the linear frontage of the building upon which the sign will be located provided the total area of all permitted wall signs shall not exceed the maximum area set forth in schedule 502.4.”
REASON:  Wall sign will be permitted on any wall but the total cannot be over the maximum permitted square footage.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
14) Section 502.4(B)-Change from “In determining building frontage, the length of the building that faces the principal street or the length of the wall of the building that contains the main entrance to the uses therein shall be considered the building frontage” to “In determining building frontage, the length of the building that faces the principal street or the length of the wall of the building that contains the main entrance to the uses therein shall be considered the building frontage.  Signs may be placed on any wall, but the square footage of signage on any wall shall not exceed two (2) square feet per linear frontage of the wall upon which the signage is placed.
REASON:  Signs will be permitted on any wall but cannot exceed the maximum permitted square footage.
NOTES: ZC agreed to the change with the last sentence amended to “Signs my be placed on any wall, provided the total area of all permitted wall signs shall not exceed the maximum area set forth is Schedule 502.4.”
15) Section 504.1(5)(B)-Add to maximum number of signs “2”
REASON: There is currently no amount under maximum number of signs.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
16) Section 504.1(6)(B)-Add to maximum number of signs “N/A”.
REASON: Clarification purposes.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
17) Section 504.2(2)(A)-Add “Announcement Sign”
REASON: Consistent with what is listed in 504.1(4)(A)
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
18) Section 504.2(3)(D)-Change from “For period not to exceed 30 consecutive days in a 6 month period” to “For one period not to exceed 30 days which must be consecutive at any one location within a “four” month period.”
REASON: To permit a sign once every four months as opposed to every six months.
NOTES: ZC agreed to leave as written and not change.
19) Section 504.2(4)(D)-Temporary sign permit-Change from “Per street frontage; for period not to exceed 30 consecutive days in a 6 month period” to “One per street frontage; for one period not to exceed 30 days which must be consecutive within a “four” month period.”
REASON: To permit a sign once every four months as opposed to every six months.
NOTES: ZC agreed to leave as written and not change.
20) Section 505.1-Add-“The setback area of a freestanding sign shall be measured from the closest point of the sign to the street right of way line.”
REASON: Clarification purposes for sign measurement.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
21) Section 802.9-Continuation of Existing Uses Conditionally Permitted-Change from “All uses existing at the time of passage of this Resolution and conditionally permissible in their respective districts under this Resolution shall be issued Nonconforming Use Certificates upon request by the property owner by the Zoning Administrator within one (1) year after the passage of this Resolution” to “All uses existing on the effective date of this Resolution or amendment thereto, and conditionally permitted in their respective districts, shall be considered conditionally permitted, and a conditional use zoning certificate shall be issued by the zoning administrator upon request by the property owner within (1) one year after the effective date of this Resolution or amendment.  An existing conditional use shall be limited to extent to which the use existed on the above referenced effective date.  Any geographic area or building expansion shall require a conditional use permit approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.”
REASON:  A non-conforming certificate is for a use that is no longer permitted at all in a district and a conditionally permitted use is a use that is permitted with certain conditions.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
22) Section 804.4(E)-Change last sentence from Notification to ODOT in accordance with Section 102.7 to “Notification to ODOT in accordance with Section 102.5”.
REASON:  Error in referenced section number.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
23) Section 806 Fees-Change from “Junkyard-Annual Renewal Fee $2,000 plus $50.00 per acre” to “Junkyard-One time fee of $2,000 plus $50.00 per acre.”
REASON: Junk yard fee is not an annual renewal fee.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
24) Section 806 Fees- Add “Non conforming house trailer renewal permit fee-$10.00”
REASON: Not in book.
NOTES: ZC agreed to change as requested.
The zoning commission agreed to the proposed changes but did not make a motion to initiate them.

Mr. Benner made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary