Members Present:
David Benner
James Bauder
Stephen Bergman
Alternate Member:
Richard Russell
Absent Members:
Aletha Magyaros
Donna Conaway
Zoning Inspector: Joni Poindexter
Mr. Benner served as chairman due to the absence of Ms. Magyaros.
Mr. Benner asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the meeting minutes from September 16, 2004.
Mr. Bergman made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from September 16, 2004.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Russell-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, and Mr. Benner-yes.
AMENDMENT #544-04 – The Jackson Township Board of Trustees, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Fairways of Jackson Ltd., property owner, 130 Streetsboro St. W. #4, Hudson, Ohio 44236 and Fairways at Brunnerdale-John R. Protz, Trustee, property owner, 6011 Inverrary Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 proposes to rezone R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) to R-1 (Single Family Low Density Residential District) two parcels totaling approximately 10.421 acres located in the SW ¼ section 26, Jackson Township; situated at the northeast corner of Hills & Dales and Brunnderdale, and bounded on the north by Marzilli Circle, having road frontage of approximately 620 ft. on Hills & Dales, 720 ft. on Brunnerdale, and 660 ft. on Marzilli Circle . (Parcel #1621329-8.761 acres) & (Parcel #1699099-1.66 acres). Legal description on file.
Mr. Benner read the file application signed by Steven Meeks and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of a modification to R-2.
Mr. Benner asked who would like to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. John Phillippi, Planning and Development Director of Jackson Township, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 stated that he the representative for the Jackson Township Board of Trustees.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks Regional
Planning Commission’s recommendation, in their review in particular, is
factual. The reason the township has proposed the rezoning at this
time is in conjunction with the attention and the critique of that area,
in connection with the Vail farm and the comprehensive planning, has drawn
more attention to that particular area and with the rezoning of the nearby
property to the R-3 it became obvious to the township that the R-4 was
at a density that the township feels could be detrimental to the surrounding
area and is not compatible. It was mentioned that there was a plan
for 87 units. That plan was approved some years ago when circumstances
were obviously different and under different conditions. The plan
was renewed some years ago and in actuality there was an application made
for that plan about one year ago to go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals
and renew it under a conditional use permit. At the time it was pointed
out that the plan in actuality does not meet the zoning requirements because
of the density. The 87 units were based on the total acreage of the
area not excluding the road right of way, so in actuality that plan calls
for more units than the regulations permit.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the specific
reasons for the rezoning, and the particular reason the township is requesting
the rezoning to R-1 as opposed to the R-2 is that under the R-1, although
it is a single family residential district, the township feels the R-1
would encourage the owner or developer to submit a plan to the township
which would then go to the zoning commission and ultimately to the trustees
for approval of a specific plan under the R-3 classification, which the
township feels would serve the township quite well and gives ultimate control
over the review and approval of a development as opposed to the R-2, which
would allow the developer to submit a plan for an R-3 development.
However, it would also permit a plan to be submitted for a group dwelling
development that would simply go the Board of Zoning Appeals and need to
meet the requirements under the zoning. Mr. Phillippi stated that
the township is not wedded to the idea that that particular area needs
to be single family and feels the R-1 would be the best way to encourage
a plan for a more reasonable density. Mr. Phillippi stated that is
the reason for the requested R-1 as opposed to the R-2, but in each case
they could facilitate a much more compatible development.
Mr. Russell stated that a point was raised by Regional Planning in terms of the driveway access off of the two roads and asked if it is developable as an R-1 without having the driveways onto the main roads.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks they made a good point and a major consideration would be the access points and the drives. In all likelihood the best use of the property is for a more planned development that may have internal access like a group dwelling development or an R-3. So again, the township isn’t necessarily saying that they feel the area would need to stay single family residential only.
Mr. Russell stated that it would ensure a more complete review of the plan.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes, but under the R-1 they could submit for a zone change under a specific plan under the R-3 PUD which would give the township the most critical review of the plan to ensure that it would be compatible with the area.
Mr. Bauder stated that he understands that the southern half, which is about 3-1/2 acres, is unsuitable for both building situations. With that in mind in 1979 when the township rezoned the property to an R-4, it was a trash dump and well below the level of Hills & Dales. Three and one half acres is unbuildable and the buildings could only be limited to the northern portion, so he concurs that the R-3 would probably work out more than they had originally intended it to be.
Mr. Phillippi stated that would allow for an area devoted exclusively to open space.
Mr. Phillippi had no further comments at this time.
Mr. Benner asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Bill Ziegler Jr., 6014 Snowshoe NW stated that he owns four acres on Marzilli Circle that is zoned R-R and he put the sewer in. Mr. Ziegler stated that he has been to a number of meetings regarding the property. In 1997 there was a hearing for 87 units. Mr. Ziegler stated that he wanted the commission to be aware that there is construction going on at this time and he doesn’t think a permit was issued. They are definitely laying out for four 18 unit and one 15 unit buildings with detached garages. Mr. Ziegler stated that in 1999 and in 2000 he went before the board, Patty Miller and Steve Meeks, and told them that they don’t have detached garages in that area because they would be more like a storage unit that could become a fire hazard. Mr. Ziegler stated that he also brought up the point that he didn’t think they could get a fire truck back there. After putting 87 units on what’s left of the 10 acres, taking out the part that can’t be built on and the existing buildings from the Fairways that is a condominium development, there wouldn’t be enough area to get a 50 ft. turn around for the fire truck. Also, when you bring a driveway or a parking lot onto a public road you need a permit and he doesn’t think they have permits. They are working there everyday laying out the plan from 1999. Mr. Ziegler stated that he talked to a gentleman and asked who the owner is and who the developer is and no one seemed to know. Mr. Ziegler stated that he pointed out the sign that was on the property and asked if there was a permit. The gentleman said that he didn’t read the sign and wasn’t sure who the owner was. There weren’t any names on any of the trucks, but it was his understanding that they were from somewhere up north, Wellington Excavating around Green Township or Green Ohio. Mr. Ziegler stated that the plan he saw was dated 1999 and looked identical to what Mr. Phillippi talked about where at one time there was a conditional use permit but it had expired and is no longer in effect. Mr. Ziegler stated that he tried to bring this to the gentleman’s attention but got no response so he called the zoning office and was told someone would go look at the property.
Mr. Ziegler stated that’s pretty much what he wanted to say. It looks like the same deal all over again. He knows there is zoning and that’s good. He knows they are looking at the best interest of Jackson Township and thinks that’s good to, but he doesn’t know that there’s any enforcement. He doesn’t know how to stop what is going on and they don’t have permits. Mr. Ziegler stated that he thinks when you bring a driveway or a parking lot attached to the road you should have a permit. He knows when he built his house on Snowshoe he had to file for zoning and file for a permit, and he thinks a new guy should have to do the same thing.
Mr. Benner asked Mr. Phillippi if he knew anything about what is going on.
Mr. Phillippi stated he had been in contact, even prior to the initiation of the rezoning, with the attorney representing the owner and indicated to their attorney very specifically and had also written a letter indicating exactly what was said, that the conditional use permit that was issued previously, most recently in 1999, did expire and no zoning permit was taken out. So, that has expired and there is no zoning permit issued for that development. Mr. Phillippi stated that he also received a telephone call from one of the partners in the development after the township trustees had initiated or proposed the rezoning of the property and again indicated very specifically that there are no zoning permits issued for that property and referred continuously back to the permits that had expired. Mr. Phillippi stated last week he noticed the activity that was going on at the site for site preparation. Zoning doesn’t control the site preparation work. However, he was in contact with Julie Berbari from the Soil and Water Conservation district, and they definitely control that and she issues, on behalf of the Stark County Commissioners and the EPA, necessary permits for erosion control during construction. She has been out to the site, contacted them and indicated that to them, and verbally gave them a stop order. That was last Friday morning and she is proceeding with that through the proper channels. They don’t have permits. For the erosion control and the size of the site they have to have an approved plan and that approved plan has to be prepared by an engineer, submitted to Soil and Water Conservation and they have to approve the plan and then issue a permit in order to undertake the site work, so they are in violation in that regard.
Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Phillippi, to the best of his knowledge, if this should cease and desist as soon as possible.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it should have stopped immediately last Friday morning. However, it shouldn’t have started to begin with because he doesn’t know of any contractors that aren’t aware at this point in time of the EPA regulations, particularly with a site that size.
Mr. Russell asked if they had any building permits.
Mr. Phillippi stated that a building permit cannot be obtained without a zoning permit. Mr. Phillippi stated that he spoke with Ed Stetz, who is the chief building official for Stark County, so he is aware that no zoning permit has been issued for that. There are no valid permits that have been issued for anything on the site.
Mr. Benner asked Mr. Phillippi, outside the lack of an erosion plan that needs to be filed, if there is any kind of a sub development plan.
Mr. Phillippi stated that a plan would have to go back through the entire process and under the current zoning it would have to be submitted to the board of zoning appeals. The current plan that has expired would have to be revised under the current zoning in order to meet the current zoning requirements for density, etc.
Mr. Benner asked if the county would have to issue a development permit.
Mr. Phillippi stated that they do get involved. Joni was in contact with regional planning also last Friday morning and they indicated that their approvals have no expiration, so when they approved the plan in 1999, that approval is still valid.
Mr. Benner asked Mr. Phillippi if he knew if there would have been an approval or any kind of plan for erosion control that would have the same non expiring limits.
Mr. Phillippi stated that there is not. There is definitely an expiration on those plans and Ms. Berbari validated that there was no approved plan in existence.
Mr. Benner asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the amendment.
Ms. Margaret Musleve, 5950 Snowshoe Circle NW stated that she lives five houses down from Bill Ziegler. Ms. Musleve stated that the machinery was moving today. In 1999 the land was all woods, hills, trees and flowers, and a group came in to clear the land for the same type of development that Bill talked about. The land was razed and raped with everything torn out and there was a huge hill left on the land and it was left a mess for five years. Ms. Musleve stated about two weeks ago the equipment came in and the clearing and what Bill was talking about started and thinks it coincided with when the sign went up regarding the rezoning. Ms. Musleve stated that she doesn’t think the zoning was always R-4 since she lived there and thinks it was R-1, so she is very much in favor of changing it back to R-1 to keep with the trend of the area.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the amendment and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Bauder stated that he likes the classification of the R-3, but it is his understanding that they would get that best by going to R-1 and then they could go to R-3. Mr. Bauder stated that he thinks changing the zoning to R-1 would meet the needs for the site and the community.
Mr. Bergman stated that he has been one of the folks that have been most vocal about the congestion over in that area, especially with the two new developments going on. Anything they can do to reduce the potential of additional home sites over there and additional cars in the area he would be in favor of. Mr. Bergman stated that he is not sure how an R-3 would come in, but as he calculates going from an R-4 to an R-1 would reduce the potential home sites by 78. If nothing else that would help. We know it’s going to get developed but that kind of thing might help some future congestion in that area because that area couldn’t handle the volume out there.
Mr. Russell stated that he thinks the proposal gives them the greatest amount capacity to review future plans and he agrees with all that’s been said.
Mr. Bauder stated considering the fact that 3-1/2 acres is not buildable with standard foundations, standard foundation under the R-1 would give them about 16 units and R-2 would give then about 12 units so there is no significant difference in the development value.
Mr. Benner stated that he didn’t have anything additional to add to what the rest of the board has said. This is a very congested area and an R-4 is not necessarily in keeping with the rest of the plans that are going on in that area or the existing property that has already been developed.
Mr. Bauder made a motion to vote on amendment 544-04 as requested.
Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Russell-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, and Mr. Benner-yes.
Mr. Benner stated that the motion passed for a recommendation to R-1 to the trustees which will set a hearing date at their meeting on November 22, 2004.
Mr. Bergman made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Russell-yes, Mr. Bergman-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, and Mr. Benner-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector