Members Present:                             David Clatterbuck
                                                             Rodney Napier
                                                             Donna Conaway
                                                             James Bauder
                                                             Aletha Magyaros

Zoning Data Coordinator:                 Joni Poindexter

Zoning Administrator:                        John Phillippi

Assistant Law Director:                     Dave Ferrell

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the board had any comment on the minutes from September 20, 2001.

Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the minutes of September 20, 2001.

Ms. Magyaros seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Magyaros-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.

AMENDMENT #506-01 – Mike Kochovski of 5150 Foxchase Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Charles Danner, property owner, of 5220 Portage St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 and Tina Rohr, property owner, of 5200 Portage St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 propose to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) .86 acre tract, also known as 5200 Portage St. NW, and 2.011 acres of a 2.73 acre tract located on the south side of Portage, 280 ft., more or less, west of Frank Ave., Sect. 11SE Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file)

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

Mr. Clatterbuck asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Charles Danner stated that he has lived at 5220 Portage since 1939 and he believes that everything that the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) has said as far as the background is accurate. The area has developed as described to commercial on the east side of Frank and B-1 on the west side of Frank. Mr. Danner stated that he is fully surrounded by B-1 development.

Mr. Danner stated that he believes there is one inaccuracy in RPC’s comments which is that to the north of his property it is not rural residential. There is a duplex and Cornerstone Chapel Church immediately across from the property.

Mr. Danner stated that about three years ago he applied to have the property rezoned for office use. Mr. Danner stated this was approved by RPC but was denied by the zoning board.

Mr. Danner stated that it appears to him that the best use of the property is for multi family and residential. Mr. Danner stated this is not only the best use, but would also provide a buffer between the Frank Rd. properties which are offices, and his own home, his nieces home and his sister home, which are all rural residential.

Mr. Charles Rohr of 5200 Portage stated that he has been at this location for 21 years. Mr. Rohr stated that he and his wife feel that the zoning should be changed because they do not believe the property is sellable as rural residential. Mr. Rohr stated with the widening of the road that is to occur, the bank of the curb will be approximately 12 ft. from his front porch. Mr. Rohr stated that biggest reason they would like the zoning changed is so that the property will be more sellable if they decide that they want to move.

Mr. Charles Danner stated that beyond that of the proposed zone change are properties that are currently office space. Beyond this is multi family buffering from Frank Rd. to the south of him behind his property. Mr. Danner stated that his property is isolated from the allotment on the south and there is no access from the allotment to Portage St. and no potential for people driving in the allotment onto his property. Mr. Danner stated that he is commenting on this because the issue was raised at the previous proposal that there would be additional traffic in the allotment.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the proposed zone change.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if anyone wanted to speak against the proposed zone change.

Mr. John Zickafoose of 5127 Old Spring Rd. stated that he sympathizes with the people. However, since he has lived at this location the taxes on his house have went down because the property values have gone down. Mr. Zickafoose stated that this is because of the professional buildings that were built beside his home.

Mr. Zickafoose stated that if 20 unit apartments were built behind him, his property values would continue to go down. Mr. Zickafoose stated that there is a gas well on the property in question with a 100-ft. radius that cannot be built on. Mr. Zickafoose stated that if the property were sold to a developer, if he can build 20 units then this is what he would build because he’s not going to build less then what he is allowed. Mr. Zickafoose stated that he does not want to look at apartments from his backyard.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Zickafoose if his property abuts the property in question.

Mr. Zickafoose showed the board where his property is located, which is not abutting the property the in question.

Mr. Robert Locke stated that he has lived at 6699 Frank for 27 years and if apartments are allowed then his property value will go down and he does not think apartments are needed.

Mr. Marty Nicholas of 5149 Old Spring stated that his property does not but up against the property in question. He has been at this location for two years and he did not move to Jackson Township to have a 20-unit apartment building in basically his back yard because he would be able to see it. Mr. Nicholas stated that he wants to board to know that he does not like the idea.

No one else in the audience spoke against the proposed zone change.

Mr. Bauder stated that he has a concern about traffic safety and asked if the entrance would be off of Portage.

Mr. Kochovski stated that he has been building apartments for 26 years and the property is perfect for an apartment building and does not think anyone would build the land for rural residential. Mr. Kochovski stated that there are five properties that have been zoned for commercial, across the street is a church and a duplex and behind the property are two story office buildings.

Mr. Kochovski stated that people dump grass and other items on the lot and by building the apartments the property would be cleaned up.

Mr. Kochovski stated that the apartments would be very nice, rent from $1,000 and up, and the entrance would be from Portage Rd. Mr. Kochovski stated that the office buildings are 150 ft. closer to Mr. Zicksfoose property than the apartment buildings would be so he does not see the property values going down.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. Bauder had mentioned that he was concerned with the traffic. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he shared this concern until he seen what the Fulton Rd. project had accomplished. Now that Fulton Rd. is open one can travel pretty easy. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that if Portage was going to stay as it is now it could be a problem but what he has seen of Fulton, regarding the ingress and egress, he does not see a problem.

Mr. Bauder stated that the site distance to the west is unreasonable.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it is his understanding that the hill will be lowered.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this is his understanding also.

Mr. Bauder stated that this is based on zoning assumptions.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that this is on the books and is being laid out.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the first phase, up to Lake O’Springs, is going to be developed and the second phase is what is unknown.

Mr. Phillippi stated that in his discussion with one of the engineers working on the highway design, the house that is located on the smaller parcel will require a substantial retaining wall to be constructed because of the amount of right of way that will be taken for the roadway. This will have a significant impact on that property.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the ingress and egress from the property was a big concern of his at one time but now thinks it is less of a concern because Fulton Rd. has proven something to him.

Mr. Bauder stated that he is still not confident that there will be adequate site distance on Portage.

Ms. Conaway asked the applicant if he would consider a lower density like the R-2 or R-3 for the property.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that R-3 would not be feasible because there is a four-acre minimum requirement and R-2 would only allow duplexes.

Mr. Phillippi stated regarding the traffic concerns and ingress egress, any development would have to go through the site review and approval by RPC and approval by the County for ingress and egress because Portage is under County jurisdiction.

Mr. Kochovski stated that he has talked to the state and they said they have no problem with the driveway visibility.

Mr. Phillippi stated that if more than one structure is going to be on the property then it is considered a group dwelling development and would require a conditional use permit from the board of zoning appeals and would have certain criteria that would have to be met. Mr. Phillippi stated that group dwelling developments require a minimum of three acres so it would require a variance and the drainage would have to be approved by the county.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the Portage Frank area has been a highly contested area of the Township and there have been several rezoning requests for this area in the past few months. Ms. Magyaros stated that she agrees with RPC that this is something that the map review committee should take a look at and consider the whole area at once.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the map review committee has been meeting and is just now considering this area but there is nothing definitive.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the R-3 is not really an option because it falls into the PUD and requires four acres. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks there is enough protection under the BZA and site plan reviews for the property. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he does not believe the area will ever be suitable for rural residential because of the way the land is. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he does not see a problem and thinks that this would fit in with the plan to do buffering. Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he is opposed to any commercial but is not sure that he is against the plan as far as rural residential with the R-4.

The board has no further comments.

Mr. Napier made a motion to vote on amendment #506-01 as submitted.

Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Magyaros-no, Mr. Bauder-abstain, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes, and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board has recommended approval.

Mr. Dave Ferrell stated that he has a version of the zoning commission rules for the board to review. Mr. Ferrell stated that since the last review he has made some changes, which were discussed by the board. Mr. Ferrell stated that he discussed two options with the trustees regarding a tie vote. Mr. Ferrell stated that he had previously drafted up that one option would have allowed reconsideration within five days of any decision and the other one would have allowed reconsideration only on a tie vote. Mr. Ferrell stated that he felt this should be brought to the trustees’ attention because it would have a substantial impact on what gets referred to the trustees and what doesn’t.

Mr. Ferrell stated that the trustees did not care for the option where the board could always reconsider a vote at any time within five days of the original vote. The trustees felt that the option where a tie vote could be reconsidered appeared to them to be much more impalpable.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he agrees.

The board discussed this and decided that they would have to vote to reconsider the vote on the same night as the hearing.

Mr. Ferrell stated that the trustees would be referred to as the trustees and not as the board and the term of the alternate member would be left up to the trustees.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked what the agreement was on if the alternate member can participate in the discussion when not voting because his feeling was that they should not have a right to ask questions.

Mr. Ferrell stated that this is how it is now.

Mr. Napier stated that there is a provision in the rules also where their opinion can be made known if they are sitting with the board. Mr. Napier read Art. II Section 3 of the rules.

Mr. Ferrell stated that what he intended to write is that if they are called upon to sit in.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it does not mean that if there are five members they should ask for the alternate’s input.

Mr. Ferrell stated that this was his intention.

Mr. Napier stated that if certain members have expertise in an area then the board should take advantage of it.

Mr. Bauder stated that he thinks this should be left up to the chairman.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks if the chairman wants the alternate’s opinion then he should ask the alternate to dismiss him or her self from being the alternate for a particular hearing.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked the board if they wanted to leave the wording as is or change it.

Mr. Ferrell stated that if he understands correctly the board wants to leave it as is.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated to leave it except that it is not in there that it is an option to ask the member to dismember themselves from the hearing.

Mr. Ferrell stated that the first paragraph says unless excused by the Secretary or Chairman shall be present and be seated. Mr. Ferrell stated that the alternate could be present however be excused from being seated with the board and would sit in the audience if the board knew that they would want to ask them a question. Mr. Ferrell stated that the option is at the beginning of the meeting. Once the hearing has started there is no longer an option.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would like an interpretation.

Mr. Ferrell stated that he would reword this so it is spelled out.

Mr. Napier stated that the way it is discussed, it is taking for granted that the board would know that they would need some advise before the beginning of the meeting.

Mr. Ferrell stated that if the board would think ahead of time and there is a situation where some one is dealing with soils and the alternate is a soil expert, the chairman may know to tell the alternate to sit in the audience because they may want to ask a question.

Mr. Ferrell stated that he would revise the rules and resubmit them to the board at a later date.

Mr. Bauder made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Napier seconded the motion.

The vote was: Ms. Magyaros-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Mr. Napier-yes, and Mr. Clatterbuck-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary