Members present:                                            David Benner
                                                                            Donna Conaway
                                                                            Stephen Bergman
                                                                            Nancy Detwiler – Recused from Amend. #565-07
                                                                           James Conley
Zoning Inspector:                                             Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator:                               Andrea Paumier

Absent member:                                              James Bauder

Amendment – 564-07
Nancy Rothermel, 4180 Holiday NW, Canton, OH 44718, agent for Robin & Mary Fearn, 1929 Old Sawmill Rd., Brandon, FL 33510 and Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping, 4859 Hills & Dales NW, Canton, OH 44708, property owners, propose to rezone R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) to B-3 (Commercial Business District) parcel #1702420 consisting of 3.04 acres and 1.027 acres, more or less, of parcel #1700738 Hills & Dales NW, located approximately 522 ft. west of Dressler, Sect. 25SW, Jackson Twp.

Mr. Benner read the file application, the contents of the file and RPC recommendation.

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

Mr. Benner swore in Nancy Rothermel, 4180 Holiday NW and Steve Studer, representative for Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping, 4859 Hills & Dales NW.

Ms. Rothermel stated that she filed the applicant on behalf of the property owners of the 3.05 acre tract, Mary and Robin Fearn. The property owners desire to sell their piece of property to Mr. Canterbury who owns Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping Services, which is located at 4859 Hills & Dales Rd. NW. Mr. Canterbury desires to purchase the property in order to expand his existing business. The current property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Fearn has a residential unit on it, it is a rental property right now, the Fearn’s do live in Florida. The application would be beneficial, the permit would be beneficial to the Township. This would allow a small business to expand, which would increase tax revenue to the Township, also would increase employment in the Township. A lot of the property around that area are already zoned B-3, so the request to rezone this property to B-3 is not a drastic or altering change to what is already existing as to the character of the area. Mr. Studer, who is representing Mr. Canterbury, who could not be here this evening, could probably go into more detail with the Board members as to what Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping would like to do with this piece of property. Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping already own the one acre towards the back of their already existing property, which is zoned R-4 which they are requesting in this application to be rezoned to B-3.

Mr. Benner stated that Ms. Rothermel stated that the all the surrounding properties are currently zoned B-3.

Ms. Rothermel stated that there are a number of properties fronting the tracts across the street as well that are B-3. The Tam O’ Shanter Co. is to the west of the property.

Mr. Benner stated that this property and the property that is surround it is all zoned R-4.

Ms. Rothermel stated that is correct.

Mr. Studer stated that the primary use of the property is plant storage. Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping does not have enough ground storage for the trees and plants. Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping does plan on, in the evening, parking their trucks on that parcel. During the day all of their trucks are out, but Canterbury does need parking for the trucks. The retail is in the front of the property and Canterbury does not want to use up all of their customer parking for the work trucks. The house that is located on the parcel now is dilapidated, rat infested and nobody has lived there for months. The doors and windows are open, it’s a mess. Canterbury’s plan is to go onto that property and raise the house, tear the house down and grade the property out. Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping is more than willing to put in any live buffer zone around the property. Most of the property is wooded for the most part. The easement into the property, which goes down the west side of the property which is already owned by Canterbury. The easement isn’t on Canterbury’s property now it is on the adjacent property. Canterbury would plan on putting a road in through their property, without disturbing the surrounding property owners. The easement is a fifteen (15) foot easement, which isn’t very big but, we plan on, not necessarily closing the easement off, but Canterbury would plant it or put trees there or fencing.

Mr. Benner stated that the piece of property that is going to be left R-4, if the rezone is approved, which would be surrounded on two sides now by B-3, from the photo it looks like there is a house located on that property.

Ms. Rothermel asked if Mr. Benner was referring to the property owned by Gonzalea and Colleen Ohara, directly south of the 3.05 acres, Fearn Farm.

Mr. Benner stated that is correct, the 0.34 small piece of land.

Mr. Struder stated that yes, there is a house on that piece of property. It is an occupied house which also has a dance studio in the residence.

Mr. Benner stated that it appears that, that house has the same access or egress that Mr. Studer is referring to.

Ms. Rothermel stated that is correct.

Mr. Benner asked if that is the only access to that property.

Mr. Studer stated yes.

Mr. Studer stated that all retail sales will stay on the front property, the 4859 Hills & Dales property.

Mr. Benner asked if there is anyone in the audience who wanted to speak in favor of this amendment.

No one else spoke.

Mr. Benner asked if there is anyone in the audience who wanted to speak in opposition of this amendment.

Mr. Benner swore in Jack Brannan, 4875 Hills & Dales Rd NW, adjacent to the Canterbury property.

Mr. Brannan stated that the fifteen (15) foot right of way that Mr. Studer was referring to, he owns that, but Canterbury has the easement to use it as a fifteen (15) foot right of way.

Mr. Benner asked if Mr. Brannan’s property is the 1.6 acre track to the west.

Mr. Brannan stated that is correct.

Mr. Brannan stated the reason he is against the rezone is because Canterbury section of property that they want rezoned, that is fine, but the Fearn farm is a separate parcel. The fifteen (15) foot right of way goes back to that property. There is a dance studio right behind Mr. Brannan’s property, just like Mr. Studer stated, but there is a lot of traffic on that fifteen (15) foot right of way. Mr. Brannan stated that the problem now is that when there are two cars on that right of way, there is no place for the cars to go but onto Mr. Brannan’s lawn. If the Board approves the Fearn’s Farm rezone, how much traffic is going to go in and out of that fifteen (15) foot right of way? Mr. Brannan stated that he knows Mr. Studer testified that Canterbury would enter that property from the back, but this is a separate parcel, someone else could buy this parcel and Mr. Brannan stated that he would be stuck with a B-3 business back there with just a fifteen (15) right of way to get to it.

Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Brannan what the fifteen (15) foot access drive is constructed of.

Mr. Brannan stated that it is just a gravel drive.

Mr. Bergman asked who put the right of way access drive in.

Mr. Brannan stated that the drive was put in by, probably his great-grandfather. There needed to be an ingress and egress for that run-down house that Mr. Studer is referring to, which has been owned by the Fearn’s forever. The other house where the dance studio is, did not exists at that time.

Ms. Poindexter asked Mr. Brannan if that easement specified that it is just for residential.

Mr. Brannan stated that he is unsure about that. He was always told that it was a driveway easement to get back the those houses.

Ms. Poindexter stated that for commercial uses, they have to be able to show that the drive for a commercial has to be a minimum of twenty-seven (27) ft. and that has to be through the Fire Dept. regulations also.

Mr. Brannan stated well this drive is only fifteen (15) ft.

Ms. Poindexter stated that they may not be able to build a commercial building back on that parcel.

Mr. Brannan stated that Canterbury is okay but they don’t live up to their agreements either. Mr. Brannan stated that he was present at the hearing when Canterbury was first started. Along the whole side where that easement is, Canterbury was supposed to a swale so the water would run off back to the - - all summer Canterbury had trees planted in that area with big humps. There was no swale back there and they store all their trucks out there too.

Mr. Benner asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wanted to speak in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Conley asked what the history of the rezone on Canterbury. He assumes everything in that area was either single family or multi-family district because the districts are dramatic in that area.

Mr. Brannan stated that it was zoned B-3.

Ms. Poindexter stated that it is a conditional use permit, which is required for the landscaping business. So if this were to be rezoned and they wanted to expand their business on that property, Canterbury would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a conditional use permit and that permit would be based on the specific plan that Canterbury would present to the Board.

Mr. Benner stated that according to the information from Regional Planning, apparently they have done some research, the piece that is existing was zoned B-3 since 1979. When Dressler was cut through, they rezoned that piece.

Ms. Conaway stated that she would like to here Mr. Studer’s responses to Mr. Brannan’s concerns.

Mr. Studer stated that it sounds to him, that if Mr. Brannan had a 100% guarantee that Mr. Canterbury would purchase the property, it would be okay with Mr. Brannan.

Mr. Benner stated that the concern that Mr. Brannan has is that there isn’t enough room on that easement for anymore than one vehicle at one time and Mr. Brannan is concerned that there will be multiple vehicles going through there. There is a concern that Ms. Poindexter has also, if Canterbury tried to build a commercial building back there, it would require a twenty-three (23) ft. wide road easement and that would not satisfy.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a twenty-seven ft. access drive is required.

Mr. Benner asked how Canterbury would address that.

Mr. Studer stated that the actual plans are exactly like we stated, for plant storage. Mr. Brannan made a comment about the healed trees on that side of the property and it is valley for drainage and everything else. When you order the inventory for a sale, they have to be placed and they have to have mulch put around them or the trees with die. Canterbury primarily just ran out of room for the inventory and the trees were placed on the boarder of the Canterbury property and Mr. Brannan’s easement. The trees were on Canterbury’s property but they were placed on that long area and healed in. With the property in the back, that would not be problem anymore, because all of those trees would then be placed in the back. As far as the easement goes, Canterbury has no plans on using Mr. Brannan’s easement. Mr. Studer stated he would like to see a map that shows have far that easement goes, does the easement go to just to the start of the Fearn property or does it go through the property.

Mr. Benner stated that would be part of the deed.

Ms. Rothermel stated that she does have the deeds as well. The easement does go back to the southern boarder of the Fearn property.

Mr. Studer stated that he isn’t at liberty to say, but he assumes that the easement could be given up if that is even possible.

Mr. Bergman asked what type of vehicles are used.

Mr. Studer stated that Canterbury has a verity of trucks, from half ton pick-ups to two ton dump truck. As far as the easement, with deliveries they do come in on tractor trailers.

Mr. Bergman stated that his concern would be with all of the vehicles that Mr. Studer mentioned, using that easement when there are residents, and assuming due to the dance studio, young people, and the way that some people drive in those large trucks, he would be concerned about the large trucks flying on that easement with young people around.

Mr. Studer stated that he is a father too and he agrees with Mr. Bergman 100%. That is why Canterbury doesn’t even want to use the easement. Canterbury doesn’t want to use that road, they want to purchase the property and come down our existing property now and put in a service road for the trucks or bobcats to get the trees in and out of the back property.

Ms. Conaway asked Mr. Studer to come forward and show the Board where Canterbury plans on constructing the service drive.

Mr. Studer approached the bench and showed the Board where Canterbury plans on creating the service drive.

Ms. Conaway asked where the trucks currently enter the property, do they use the easement.

Mr. Studer stated that Canterbury does not use the easement now. They have a drive way. Actually the farm house that was there and Canterbury remodeled it and uses it as offices and when Canterbury originally built the property the greenhouse was not there. So when the greenhouse was constructed it took a lot of the Canterbury’s room. With the raising of the house the entrance is going to be made much wider with some additional parking spaces.

Ms. Conaway stated if she is correct is saying that she will be assured that the easement with homes and the dance studio will not be affected but the changes.

Mr. Studer stated that is correct. Mr. Studer stated that he isn’t sure if it can be done but he is sure there is not problem that if this rezone is granted then the easement can be dissolved.

Mr. Bergman asked Ms. Poindexter if the easement can be adjusted.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is between the property owners. That is something that the Township does not get involved in. It would be up to the property owners to dissolve that easement. Ms. Poindexter stated that to her understand that this easement isn’t even for the Canterbury property.

Ms. Rothermel stated that is correct, Canterbury does not benefit from the easement.

Ms. Poindexter stated that Canterbury could not use this easement even if they wanted to, but if they purchased the Fearn property then they could because the easement is for the Fearn property.

Ms. Conaway stated that is correct but they couldn’t use the easement for commercial vehicles because it doesn’t fall under - - right.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Bergman stated the concern is with the long term affect of the fact that there is an easement that goes with this property. Everyone knows that this does not mean that ten (10) years from now that this  property will still be owned by Canterbury. The easement that exists for that property, anyone who bought that property at that point would be eligible to use that easement.

Ms. Poindexter stated that property is a landlocked piece of property. As it stands right now, someone could not come in and build on that property because it has no street frontage. There has to be street frontage to be a build able property. Canterbury could not come in and build a commercial building on that property.

Mr. Bergman stated that the property could be built as residential though.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct. Also the Board has to look at the property as opposed to the use of the property, but if Canterbury were to purchase this and they go through the conditional use permit, the Board of Zoning Appeals could put a condition on it that Canterbury would not use that easement for that property with Mr. Brannan’s concern, they could put that condition on there, but again that is up to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Again, the concern is that this could be rezoned and maybe the deal would fall through and someone else would purchase that property but they would have to comply with the commercial regulations to be able to build on that.

Ms. Conaway stated that there is some protection then.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Benner closed this amendment to public input.

Mr. Bergman stated that this has been very consistent in that area of the Township in trying to restrict any kinds of business around Tam O’Shanter or the Hills & Dales area. While landscaping isn’t one of those things that he is too concerned about, but B-3 permits something down the road that he believes any of the Board members would be happy with. This is an unfortunate situation of how zoning goes. Mr. Bergman stated that as much as he understands Canterbury’s problem, he cant personally see allowing the residents to worry about who is going to buy this property. Anything that would travel up that easement makes him uncomfortable.

Ms. Conaway stated that from what she understands this is a B-3, that we need to have the same concern that we typically do for a B-3 zone change. In that, that this parcel has not street frontage, in that it would have its only ingress would be from within the property. Ms. Conaway stated that from what she understands that the access road would not be able to be used for the commercial use anyway. Ms. Conaway stated that she is not opposed to landscape stock being used for that particular land. Ms. Conaway stated that she is leaning towards an approval.

Mr. Bergman stated that he would like to stated that the parcel would have frontage if the property would become all B-3 therefore the existing frontage on Hills & Dales would qualify that entire property as having frontage.

Ms. Poindexter stated that only if the parcels were to be combined.

Ms. Conaway stated that it is B-3 right now.

Mr. Bergman stated that once they are all combined under one unit, it has frontage.

Ms. Poindexter stated then the parcel couldn’t not be sold off to someone else.

Mr. Bergman the parcels couldn’t not be split up and sold off but someone could buy the whole property.

Ms. Conaway stated that it is B-3 now.

Mr. Bergman stated that no just the front section is already Canterbury, B-3. This back section, if it is added, that becomes part of that. So if someone would want to put a gas station back there if Mr. Canterbury sells the property that would qualify.

Ms. Conaway stated that it qualifies now.

Mr. Bergman stated no it does not qualify, the back portion.

Ms. Conaway stated no the back portion does not qualify.

Mr. Bergman stated but it would qualify if it were all combined into one unit. So that parcel would have frontage.

Mr. Conley stated that she shares more of the concern then the favor. The possibilities down the road are fairly egregious. As much as we wish we could all insure that the property would be used as nursery stock forever, frankly we do not have that authority. Mr. Conley stated that he thinks the comment is correct that it would be a very easy process to combine the three parcels into one giving all the access anybody would need along Hills & Dales for a usage we would all say is inappropriate.

Ms. Detwiler state that she tends to concur with Mr. Bergman and Mr. Conley. Ms. Detwiler stated that she believes that backing up to the residential, the fact that its going from residential clear to a B-3 and we have no guarantees if they would, for whatever reason, prosper, death, whatever, the land would have to sell, it kind of leaves everything wide open.

Mr. Benner stated that the comment he would add to the other comment that have been made is that for almost thirty (30) years now the Zoning has served pretty. Pretty much anyone who owns property, or who has bought property along there acknowledge that this 500 ft. buffer with B-3 has been there and is still there. Mr. Benner stated that he would have to agree that extending this piece into there doesn’t really fit with the rest of the land zone that is there. Mr. Benner asked Ms. Poindexter if Canterbury applies for a conditional use permit as a part of an agricultural use, that R-4 property that Canterbury currently owns, for the storage of plant stock that they want to put back there.

Ms. Poindexter stated that agricultural is exempt. If it were agricultural use, it wouldn’t even go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a conditional use. Agricultural uses are just permitted uses.

Mr. Benner opened this appeal back up to ask Mr. Studer another question.

Mr. Benner asked if within the area that Canterbury already owns, do they store trees on there, (referring to the R-4 zoned parcel).

Mr. Studer stated that a portion of it. A lot of that parcel is wetland, it is too wet back there for anything. Canterbury do have some trees down along the western boarder with the property Canterbury is trying to rezone, there are some trees along that boarder its high enough there where a piece of equipment cant set the trees there and heal them in.

Mr. Benner asked Mr. Studer with that parcel being a very wet piece of land, how does Canterbury plan on putting the plant and tree storage back there.

Mr. Studer stated that the actual lay of the land going down between the two and crossing over into the Fearn’s property is pretty solid there, it is much higher. It really wouldn’t be a problem.

Mr. Benner stated that if that parcel is too wet to use today, how will Canterbury use the property once it is rezoned to B-3.

Mr. Studer approached the Board and explained on the map where the trees are located on the currently R-4 parcel and where solid parts of land and the wetlands are in that parcel.

Mr. Conaway asked if the boundary could be moved to give the residents the buffer that they need.

Mr. Studer stated that it is hard to say. Mr. Studer showed the Board where the golf course, the Fearn farm and Lab Nursery property lines are. Mr. Studer stated that pretty much the only residential that this would affect would be the residential home with the dance studio.

Ms. Poindexter stated that if the Board desired too, they could just rezone the currently R-4 parcel that is owned by Canterbury could be rezoned so their entire property would be zoned B-3.

Mr. Benner closed this amendment to public input.

Ms. Conaway made a motion that Amendment #564-07 as requested.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Conley – No, Ms. Detwiler – No, Mr. Bergman – No, Ms. Conaway – Yes, and Mr. Benner – No.

AMENDMENT #565-07
Hammontree & Associates LDT, 5233 Stoneham Rd. N. Canton, OH 44720, agent for property owner, Aultman Health Foundation, 2600 6th St. SW, Canton, OH 44710 propose to rezone R-4 (Multi-Family Residential ) to B-3 (Commercial Business District) – 2.797 acres of an 18.44 acre tract. (2871 Woodlawn) Located on the west side of Woodlawn approximately 630 ft. south of Hills & Dales Rd. Sect. 36NW, Jackson Twp.

Ms. Detwiler recused herself from Amendment #565-07.

Mr. Benner read the file application, the file contents and RPC’s recommendation.

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

Mr. Benner swore in Ed Friedl, 1010 Edgewood St. SE, N. Canton.

Mr. Friedl stated that Aultman Health Foundation is planning to construct a compassionate care center. Within that compassionate care center, it will have a twelve (12) bed inpatient/hospice center; it is an end-of-life care facility. This facility would serve as Stark County’s only inpatient/hospice center, there currently isn’t one in out market. In order to do that we have to rezone a portion of out property that we already own. It is currently split.

Mr. Friedl explained the split on the over head projector. Mr. Friedl explained that everything in red is zoned B-3. Mr. Friedl also explained that the 2.797 acres is also outlined in red. Everything to the south is Hills & Dales Village, apartment complex, is R-4, Multi-Family Residential District. The Aultman property also abuts Hills & Dales Village.

Mr. Friedl stated that this zoning request if for about 145 ft. x 840 ft., and that still leaves six (6) acres, roughly 300 ft. x 840 ft. of densely wooded area it also has tracts of wetlands in it as well, as a buffer zone between us and the residential joining property owners. Mr. Friedl stated that Aultman owns 24 acres in total, the back remaining six (6) acres is zoning residential.

Mr. Friedl explained on a map that the red dashed line represents a fifty (50) ft. sanitary easement that goes through their property, which they could not construct anyhow. The square with the “A” in it is approximately the location of that building and that building will abut the easement. Everything to the west of that easement will remain undestroyed.

Mr. Benner stated to his understand the building that will be constructed is due west of where the current building is and up to the easement.

Mr. Friedl stated due west and slightly south.

Mr. Benner asked if it were where the white block is.

Mr. Friedl stated that is correct where the white block is.

Mr. Friedl stated that you can see where the easement is, where it is sort of cut down and they keep it cut. Behind that it is very densely wooded so the back six (6) acres. Last evening, Wednesday, November 7, the Aultman Health Foundation held an informational meeting and invited all adjoining property owners, residential and business alike. Everybody in attendance spoke favorable to what Aultman wanted to do, there were no objections to the building.

Mr. Benner asked if the meeting had a pretty good attendance of the surrounding property owners.

Ms. Friedl stated that five people attending the meeting and Aultman invited over thirty people. The two most important one were the residential property owners that abut us on the west side. Once the two residential property owners to the west saw what Aultman wanted to do and saw the plans and that Aultman wouldn’t disturb the tree line, the property owners were okay with that. Based on this information Aultman Health Foundation respects the request of the Boards approval of zone change for the 2.797 acres.

Ms. Conaway stated that looking at the square with the “A” that represents the location of the building, really only a portion of that structure on the rezoned land.

Mr. Friedl stated that is correct. Of the two acres, maybe a third of it and only in that back quadrant. Now Aultman still has to have a 75 ft. setback back to a residential properties that is why that line is going back to where it is.

Mr. Benner stated just out of curiosity, does Aultman know what they plan on doing with the rest of the land.

Mr. Friedl stated that Aultman does have plans to expand this proposed building if the need would arise and it would expand to the north. Aultman plans include expanding it by six beds. So they are drawing the building for a eighteen bed hospice center and constructing a twelve bed hospice center.

Ms. Conaway stated that by looking at the easement, Aultman is limited to how much they can exspand.

Mr. Friedl stated that is correct, to the west.

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

Mr. Benner closed this amendment to public input.

Mr. Bergman stated that he doesn’t have many concerns with approving this zone change. The property is already zoned B-3 in the front. There aren’t and adjoining property owners present to object.

Mr. Benner stated that he concurs with Mr. Bergman. Mr. Benner stated that he doesn’t see any issues with granting this rezone, there is plenty of space to the rear of this property.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve Amendment #565-07 as requested.

Mr. Conley seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Conley – Yes, Mr. Bergman – Yes, Ms. Conaway – Yes, and Mr. Benner – Yes.

Mr. Conley made a motion to approve Thursday June 21, 2007 meeting minutes as written.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve Thursday August 16, 2007 meeting minutes as written.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

WORK SESSION – Proposed Zoning Resolution Text Changes

Mr. Benner referred to the handout presented by Ms. Poindexter.

SECTION 201 DEFINITIONS
Add “Plan Review” – The reviewing of a specific site plan. “PR”

Ms. Poindexter stated that the zoning department refers to “PR” in the schedule of permitted uses, but there isn’t anything that states what “PR” means.

SECTION 303.8
Converting non-conforming residential use to commercial use.
For any use that is being converted from a non-conforming residential use to a commercial use all zoning regulations per the district in which the use is located shall be adhered to. A zoning application shall be submitted to the zoning department along with 2 sets of interior construction plans, 2 site plans showing building, parking, landscaping, and setbacks and an approval from Stark County Regional Planning.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the reason for this text change is for informational purposes as to what is required when converting a non-conforming residential use to a commercial use.

SECTION 411.3(B)
Financial facility/banking without drive thru – DELETE ENTIRELY.
SECTION 411.3(C) (B & C)
Change “CUP” to “P”

Ms. Poindexter stated the reason for this text change is because a stand along drive up ATM is permitted in all of the commercial districts therefore a drive thru facility should be permitted in conjunction with a permitted banking facility.

SECTION 411.9 (B)(1) & 412.11 – Landscaping of Parking Lots.
For any parking area designed to accommodate 20 or more vehicles, a portion of the parking lot shall be planted as landscaped islands. For the purpose of this Section, the area of the parking lot shall be the total square footage of the total vehicular surface area including parking aisles and parking spaces. The above requirement shall not pertain to areas devoted exclusively to truck loading, docking, parking, and truck vehicle circulation and such areas shall not be included in the calculation of required landscaping. The minimum percentage of the lot that shall be landscaped is five (5) percent in the B-1, B-2, B-3, PBRD, I-1, and C-P Districts.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the reason for this text change is to better clarification as to how percentage is calculated.

SECTION 411.9 (B) (4) Landscaping of Parking Lots.
Change of “Each island shall be a minimum of 10 9 ft. in any horizontal dimension and shall provide at least one major shade tree having a clear trunk height of at least 6 ft. and a minimum caliper of 2 inches.”

Ms. Poindexter stated the reason for this text change is to comply with other sections of the zoning resolution for landscaped islands.

SCHEDULE 502.1 (7)(C) – Sign Regulated but not requiring a permit
Change to “501.7” K TO 501.7(P).

Ms. Poindexter stated that the corresponding letter is incorrect.

SECTION 504.4 – Regulations for off-premises temporary signs requiring a permit.
(1 – Civic or governmental organization signage), & (2 – Community fairs and festivles or non-profit Charitable Benefit Sign.)
Add to Column (C) maximum size – “10 ft. in height”

SCHEDULE 601.2(5)
Ass “Outdoor Automobile, truck, boat, trailer, & farm implement storage – 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. of storage areas.”

Ms. Poindexter stated the reason for this text change is because there is no parking requirement that refers to outdoor storage of vehicles.

SCHEDULE 601.2 (5)(E)
Change from “Landscaping vehicle and equipment storage – 1 space for each garage stall” to “Landscaping & Construction vehicle and equipment storage – 1 space for each garage stall”.

Ms. Poindexter stated the reason for this text change is to be consistent with what is listed in the permitted use section.

SCHEDULE 601.2(6)(B)
Change from “Outdoor Recreational Uses including private parks and playground -1 space for every three bleachers seats or 1 space for every three persons that facility will accommodate” to “Outdoor Recreational Uses including private and public parks and playgrounds – 1space for every three persons that facility will people the activity area will accommodate.”

Ms. Poindexter stated that the reason for this text change is to account for the open areas which are association with indoor recreational uses.

SCHEDULE 601.2(7)(C)
Change from “Mini Storage facilities – 1 space for 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area” to “Mini Storage Facilities – 1 space for 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area every 10 storage units plus 1 space for office.”

Ms. Poindexter stated that the reason for this text change is because indoor mini storage facilities do not require as much parking as a regular business use in which people frequent everyday.

SECTION 601.3(F)
Delete “Public parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreational facilities”.

Ms. Poindexter stated the reason for this text change is because parks, playgrounds and outdoor recreational uses are addressed in Schedule 601.2(6)(B).

SECTION 601.7(E)
Location: Change from “The parking spaces required for dwelling units be located on the lot, and parking spaces for other uses shall be located on the lot or within five hundred (500) feet of the main use measured along lines of public access to the property.” to “ The parking spaces required for dwelling units shall be located on the lot, and parking spaces for other uses shall be located on the lot or within five hundred (500) feet. Of the main use measured along lines of public access of the property uses shall be located on the lot in which the use is located.”

Ms. Poindexter stated the reason for this text change is to ensure all required parking spaces are located on the lot in which the principal use is located.

SECTION 804.3(C)
The Board of Trustees has determined to increase the awareness of the general public when an application for rezoning of property has been filed. Therefore, in addition to the required legal notices, a sign(s) shall be provided and posed by the Township on the involved parcels(s) to notify the public that an application has been filed that could affect the zoning of such property. The sign, or signs, shall be posted within seven days of acceptance of an application and remain posted on the property until the public hearings for said application are concluded.

The sign(s) shall be three (3) feet in height and four (4) feet in width. The sign(s) shall be made from weather resistant material. The sign(s) shall contain the following language:

“ZONING NOTICE” An application has been filed to request the zoning of this property to be changed from__________ to __________. For further information, contact the Jackson Township Zoning Department, 330-832-8023.

The sign(s) shall identify the current and proposed zoning classifications. The words “ZONING NOTICE” shall be a minimum of two (2) inches in height. The balance of the text is to be a minimum of one (1) inch in height. All letters are to be in red with a white background.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the reason for this text change is to incorporate a requirement that the Township will post a sign on the property for which an application has been submitted for rezoning.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to initiate the proposed text changes at written.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

All was in favor.
 
Respectfully submitted,

Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator