Members Present:
David Clatterbuck
Rodney Napier
James Bauder
Members Absent:
William Day
Thomas Winkhart
Donna Conaway
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Clerk/Secretary: Joni Poindexter
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from August 10, 2000.
Mr. Napier made a motion to approve the minutes from August 10, 2000.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Bauder-yes.
AMENDMENT #490-00 – Dennis Drennan of 4200 Munson St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Hensis LLC, property owner, of 129 Middlesworth, North Canton, Ohio 44720 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-3 (Multi-Family Planned Development Residential District) 21.12 acres, more or less, located on the southwest corner of Fulton Dr. and Amherst Rd., Section 20NW, SW, Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file)
Mr. Clatterbuck stated there is a letter in the file from Bixler & Moore attorneys. Mr. Clatterbuck read the letter, which stated that Mr. Drennan is out of the country and requests that the application be withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. Clatterbuck stated because the application is withdrawn, the applicant would have to reapply if they would like the property to be rezoned.
The board went off the record for approximately ten minutes due to the next amendment not being scheduled until 7:45 pm and the time was 7:35 pm.
The board went back on record at 7:45 pm.
AMENDMENT 491-00 – Steve Smith, property owner, of 6501 High Mill Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to B-1 (Suburban Office & Limited Business District) 2.11 acres, more or less, north of Portage and west of High Mill and B-3 (Commercial Business District) 1.83 acres, more or less, on the northwest corner of Portage and High Mill and 2.22 acres, more or less, on the northeast corner of Portage and High Mill and B-3 (Neighborhood Business District) 6.62 acres, more or less, north of Portage and east of High Mill, Section 7SW Jackson Township. (Legal description on file)
Mr. Clatterbuck read the Stark County Regional Planning Commissions recommendation for denial and the reasons for the denial.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. George Smerigan, President of Northstar Planning, 10 West Erie St., Suite 201, Painsville, Ohio 44077 stated he would present the application to the commission.
Mr. Smerigan stated they are requesting to rezone approximately 12 acres from Rural Residential to different commercial classifications.
Mr. Smerigan stated the property is located on the northwest and northeast corners of Portage and High Mill Ave. There are two areas of B-3 located immediately at the intersection itself. Both are surrounded by less intensive commercial zoning as proposed on the east side with B-2 and the west side with B-1. Mr. Smerigan stated there is existing B-3 zoning on the south side of Portage east of High Mill.
Mr. Smerigan stated the board is familiar with this issue because it has been in front of the commission before. Mr. Smerigan would like to summarize things and put it in perspective and hopefully ask for the commission’s support.
Mr. Smerigan stated in the previous request there was a recommendation from the Stark County Planning Commission that was negative. Mr. Smerigan thinks this needs to be put into perspective. There was much discussion at Regional Planning about the merits of the application. The planning commission was split on the project and their final vote was eleven to nine.
Mr. Smerigan stated the issue is similar to the one previously made but has been modified. The zoning commission previously recommended approval of the request to the trustees. At that time the recommendation for approval was with modifications. The modification has been incorporated into this application.
Mr. Smerigan stated the new zoning resolution is in place and mandates some substantial buffers for commercial developments. Mr. Smerigan showed the board a drawing that shows a possible layout for the site and indicates those areas that are required to be buffered and the extent of the buffers. The intent of Mr. Smith is that he will buffer all of the adjoining properties and there will be a landscape buffer around the entire parameter of the site. At the far east is a substantial tree stand and they have committed to preserving the tree stand. Mr. Smerigan stated they have combined curb cuts and limited access points to make them as minimal as possible and have internal circulation between the various uses.
Mr. Smerigan stated previously when this matter was before the board, Mr. Smerigan introduced Mr. Alan Blau a state certified appraiser. Mr. Smerigan stated that he would refer to Mr. Blau’s testimony in which he indicated in his professional opinion, based on his training, education and experience, the zone change would not adversely impact the neighboring adjacent property values and also that the rural residential zoning does not provide adequate reasonable viable use for the property. Mr. Smerigan stated the Mr. Blau came to the conclusion that the current zoning does not permit reasonable use of the property and the most appropriate use of the property is commercial use.
Mr. Smerigan stated the request for rezoning is an attempt to allow Mr. Smith to utilize his property in the most appropriate manner. In the zoning resolution under the B-2 neighborhood business, it is indicated that it is a district that is established primarily to accommodate the sale of convenience retail goods and services. Mr. Smerigan stated this is exactly what is being proposed. The intent is to provide a neighborhood convenience style shopping facility that would serve the needs of the immediate surrounding residential neighborhood.
Mr. Smerigan stated where the minor B-3 parcels are proposed, the zoning resolution indicates that the B-3 zoning districts should be located at specific points on major thoroughfares in outlining locations in the community.
Mr. Smerigan stated presently across the street from the property in question is B-3 property with a commercial development on it and a tower. This property is not fully developed because it has had to rely on an onsite disposal system. Sewer and water are coming to this area very shortly.
Mr. Smerigan stated across from the northeast quadrant of the site, there are a number of two family units and mixed uses.
Mr. Smerigan stated there has been a great deal of discussion regarding traffic. Mr. Smerigan stated they are aware that there is a safety issue at the intersection of Portage and High Mill. The township and county are pursuing improving the intersection. There is already a substantial amount of traffic passing through the intersection. The residential development that will occur in the immediate vicinity will increase traffic volumes. Mr. Smerigan stated the rural residential character of this area has already been changed because the traffic volume going through the area are not rural residential in nature and certainly not a rural residential volume.
Mr. Smerigan stated he was told by the engineer’s office that the road improvements would look very similar to those done on Akron Rd. There will be much wider pavement with turn lanes. Mr. Smerigan stated this would change the character of the intersection.
Mr. Smerigan stated that previously the commission made a positive recommendation to the trustees that this was an appropriate zoning for the property, however the trustees did not agree. One of the trustees indicated that they felt the weight of the fact that was presented suggested commercial zoning is premature and that they thought it was premature to turn the property into commercial zoning at that time. Another trustee indicated the decision was premature and should be re-looked at when the water and sewer came to the area.
Mr. Smerigan stated he believes rezoning to commercial is no longer premature.
Mr. Smerigan stated there are approximately 700 new sub lots that have been approved and stated he feels this is an area in transition. The water and sewer lines have been designed and are under construction. The roadway improvements should be under construction shortly and Mr. Smerigan believes this corner is not appropriate for residential development at this time.
Mr. Smerigan stated the items that may have made the rezoning application premature last year, the lack of water and sewer and the lack of intersection improvements have been addressed. The water and sewer lines are under construction and the intersection improvements are designed to go under construction and the development around this is occurring rapidly. Mr. Smerigan stated he believes this request is no longer premature and is appropriate at this time to change the zoning. Mr. Smerigan asked the commission for their support.
Mr. Smerigan had nothing further to add.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak against this amendment.
Mr. Jim Bennett of 7275 High Mill stated he is against this amendment.
Mr. Bennett stated he loves the community and has sat many times during the past year and listened to some of the most illogical statements that he has ever heard from a group of so called leaders. Mr. Bennett stated he has not noted one single time that the commission, as a full group, has listened to the residents of the township when presented with a rezoning proposal by anyone involved with real estate or development.
Mr. Bennett stated he has heard the commission say that they had a voting dilemma. Mr. Bennett stated it is his feeling that a dilemma has nothing to do with the issue. Mr. Bennett stated he has heard the commission make the comment that they had to protect the investment of the developers. As a representative of all residents, the board should give equal consideration to the interests of those residents who have invested their very lives in their property.
Mr. Bennett stated the rezoning application states that the tract would not be desirable for residential development because homes would front any businesses on the southeast corner of the intersection. Mr. Bennett asked if zoned commercial than what effect would Mr. Smith’s businesses have on the homes in the area, which would then front his enterprises. Mr. Bennett wants to know if the tract of land is not desirable for residential use then why would Mr. Smith purchase the property knowing that it is zoned rural residential.
Mr. Bennett showed the board pictures of businesses, as they would be on the property in question. Mr. Bennett stated he would not want this fronting his property and it would affect the area.
Mr. Bennett stated Regional Planning has recommended denial for this rezoning request. As a basis for this denial Regional Planning, first came out and told the township to make a comprehensive study of the surroundings as per the effects of commercial properties on residential districts.
Mr. Bennett stated that at the October 21, 1999 meeting, Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the current business on the southeast corner was probably a mistake. If it was a mistake, then lets not compound the mistake by allowing even more businesses to the last intersection in Jackson Township. Instead lets restrict the business use of the southeast corner to what is now being used, only for its current use and only for the duration of its existence.
Mr. Bennett stated there are nearby business areas no more than three miles away. The rural aspects of the area have been demonstrated over and over. Mr. Bennett presented to the board pictures showing animals that reside less than one and one quarter miles away from the property in question and there is close to 1000 acres of land being used by farmers. Mr. Bennett stated according to Regional Planning, expansion of businesses along Portage St. should definitely not be encouraged.
Mr. Bennett stated that Regional Planning is telling Jackson Township to stop spot zoning and adopt a land use plan and stick to it. Mr. Bennett quoted from the comprehensive land use plan of 1994-2005, 1) insure safety and security in residential districts, 2) continue to make Jackson Township a good place to live, 3) Maintain a rural culture of county regions where available, 4) Control and limit, where necessary, future commercial growth to existing limits using Fulton Rd., Everhard, Dressler, Portage, Frank and Whipple as the demising highways.
Mr. Bennett stating new engineering would not improve the road situation if a business were allowed to be put at Portage and High Mill.
Mr. Bennett explained that he believes if commercial is allowed keep developing then someone would have to close their doors and leave behind more empty business locations to decay with no real improvement in the township. Mr. Bennett stated the booklet that was given to the commission at the previous meeting showed plenty of empty business sites. Mr. Bennett showed the board pictures of empty businesses.
Mr. Bennett stated that people would probably obtain supplies that they need immediately after leaving work, which means that people working near the strip and other shopping areas are not going to shop at the little stores. Mr. Bennett stated the proposed business is not needed.
Mr. Bennett stated High Mill is the worst he has ever seen. There is insufficient capabilities for weather related water run-off from the intersection. If the new homes in the area are added to the problem along with blacktop or cement surface for business and the resultant deluge will be a complete and utter mess reminiscent of the Zimber ditch problem in North Canton. Mr. Bennett feels that Jackson Township should be aware of this from the study presented in part to the trustees on August 24, 1999.
Mr. Bennett stated during the trustee meeting on November 9, 1999, he proposed an alternative to the business sites in the following manner. Along the Northwestern corner, there should be a fire station to accommodate the northwestern corner of the township. With five hundred plus homes going up they will go largely unprotected without additional protection. Along the Northeastern corner of the intersection there should be a park because there are none in the northwestern part of the township. Mr. Bennett stated Mr. Smith does not want to sell his land, however the is precedent under eminent domain procedures to acquire properties for these uses. Mr. Bennett stated a park could be named after Mr. Morelli as a tribute.
Mr. Bennett stated 60 to 70% of the township is already peppered with business areas and it is time to stop the helter skelter rezoning of every area in the township just to accommodate a few builders and developers.
Mr. Bennett stated people moved to the western side of Jackson Township to get away from the city concept and it is time that some recognition is accorded to those wishes.
Mr. Bennett stated that a time limit should be put on re-applications to once every five years.
Mr. Bennett stated he believes that any decision made, the commission should consider the arguments and maintain the current zoning. Mr. Bennett stated together a desirable township can be built in a way in which we would be proud of or the environment can be destroyed by developing an over grown city with no redeeming quality.
Mr. Bennett had no further comments.
Mr. Arringon of 2678 Dunbarton Dr. stated when he first came to the meeting he was unbiased, but since hearing arguments he has come to the conclusion that the corporate demands are absurd. Mr. Arringon stated this is an example of corporate America trying to take over and impede upon the citizen’s lives. Mr. Arringon stated he knows that 4/5 of the zoning board are involved with real estate companies. As a result perhaps the zoning board could be inclined to vote for corporate America. Mr. Arringon stated the rezoning is wrong.
Ms. Debra Sommer of 9914 Portage St. NW stated as a group of concerned residents and property owners they wanted to express to the commission once again, their opposition to the rezone.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Ms. Sommer is the spokes person for the Jackson Neighborhood Association and the residents on Portage.
Ms. Sommer stated yes and she has signature if the board needs them.
Ms. Sommer stated it is requested that the board make their recommendation based on a thorough examination of the facts. The question to be answered is what is the basis for rezoning the property. Zoning should ensure that development takes place in areas that can support it. Areas should be compatible and a commercial rezone at the property in question is not compatible with the area. Ms. Sommers stated that according to SCRP’s recommendation this would be spot zoning.
Ms. Sommer stated there are already extensive commercial shopping areas along Portage to the east and the west of the property. Commercial development would cause additional traffic congestion on Portage and on the surrounding roads. This would create a dangerous situation for the adjacent residents entering and exiting their driveways to their properties.
Ms. Sommer stated there are valid concerns about water drainage and run off in the area. There is a history of drainage problems due to soil conditions, topography and location. Ms. Sommers stated the Stark County Hydraulics Engineers are well aware of the conditions and have met with some of the residents in the area. Commercial development in this area would exacerbate the drainage problems. Paved areas and parking lots tend to create excessive water run off and several residents expressed concerns regarding this at the previous hearing last year.
Ms. Sommer stated that the residents in the Woodmoor Allotment adjacent to the Emerald Estates property experienced extensive flooding and incurred thousands of dollars in flood damage to their homes. This occurred after the Emerald Estates property excavation was underway. There is a cause and effect when several hundred acres of undeveloped wooded property is excavated.
Ms. Sommer stated as SCRP advised in their denial, do not encourage commercial development on Portage St. An overwhelming majority of residents in the township feel that another commercial area is the last thing this community needs more of. Once the door is open to commercial development it tends to expand and destroy the character of the area forever.
Ms. Sommer asked the commission to please use the critical judgment required and entrusted to them by the trustees.
Ms. Sommer showed the board where her property is located on the map.
Mr. Jerry Ferrell of 7931 High Mill NW stated he is concerned with the flow of traffic. There is approximately 1000 cars going through the area in an hour’s time. There has been several wrecks in this area and the road has not been paved in years. Mr. Ferrell stated the traffic is his main concern.
Mr. Phil Creed of 9355 Hocking stated he is not a member or a resident adjoining the property. Mr. Creed stated his reason for speaking is because of the impact the rezoning will have on the township as a whole. There is little doubt as to whom the financial winners and losers will be when the final vote is cast.
Mr. Creed stated this is an R-R district and the existing zoning of the area is not in transition.
Mr. Creed stated property is zoned for protection, promotion and public welfare, and planning. Mr. Creed stated there is a plan for comprehensive growth both by the county and the township. It effectiveness rests with the political curse to implement its principals. If this is truly what the zoning commission is committed to Mr. Creed thinks the vote to deny the zoning request is obvious. Planning and zoning if effectively practiced must be inseparatable. It is the difference between a community being a place to call home vs. generica, a place that happens to be home.
Ms. Cheryl Massouh of 9589 Portage stated her property is east of the proposed commercial property. Ms. Massouh stated the zoning change would have an adverse affect of the unique quality of the surrounding area and the property values. Ms. Massouh stated this area does not want or need more gas station, fast food restaurants, hair salons, convenience store, office buildings or any other type of strip mall in the rural or agricultural area.
Ms. Massouh stated there are many vacant commercial properties at Portage and Wales and at Foxboro Square on Wales Rd. The zoning commission made the statement that a mistake was made when the property at the southeast corner of Portage and High Mill was rezoned to commercial. This corner mistake is Mr. Smith’s basis for rezoning and the same mistake does not need to be made at the northeast and northwest corners.
Ms. Massouh stated traffic, safety and crime are a major concern if the commercial properties are built.
Ms. Massouh stated the natural topography and character of the land should be preserved and the Stark County Regional Planning Commission agrees with this and recommended denial.
Ms. Massouh stated if rezoned it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and this is not wanted or needed.
Mr. Carl Massouh stated traffic is a concern. Many people play a game called beat the traffic light. People will go through the commercial property to beat the traffic light. Mr. Massouh is concerned with safety.
Mr. Massouh stated Mr. Smith has one vote for the rezoning and the residents have many. Mr. Massouh urges the commission to deny the request for rezoning.
Ms. Kathy Pennington of 9320 Portage stated she has two children and does not want to have to worry about commercial traffic. Ms. Pennington stated she is opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. John McAllister of 6841 Thornwood stated that zoning is to protect the current landowners.
Mr. McAllister stated in looking at the plan that is presented, we do not know what the plan will turn out to be. It is an uncertainty as to what will be there.
Mr. McAllister stated he has heard about the improvements for the roads but all of the right of ways have not been taken care of. There are some engineering problems while trying to come up the roads with the water and sewer lines and Mr. McAllister wants to know how will this be resolved.
Mr. McAllister stated he has heard that traffic has already changed the rural character and this plan does not hurt the rural character. If the traffic can change or unchange the rural character one could go to Holmes County and see how the Amish survive with the traffic, because this is a rural area.
Mr. McAllister stated if rezoned then it would be spot zoning and this is illegal and the residents do not want commercial in this area.
No one else spoke against this amendment.
Mr. Bauder stated rezoning the property to commercial seems to be premature without the sewer and water and the intersection being planned but not being done yet.
Mr. Napier stated a year ago he voted on the request to modify the application for blending. The proposal as submitted does not blend. Mr. Napier stated last year he was an advocate of blending from B-2 to B-1 to R-R. As submitted today, B-3 is still part of the plan. There are things happening at the intersection and there will be improvements made but they have not been made yet. The opposite corner is B-3 and if the improvements are made and B-3 is developed on the other side and the market place says there is a need for additional B-3, then Mr. Napier is not opposed to revisiting this. Mr. Napier stated it is his position at this time that a B-2 blending to B-1 to R-R is appropriate at this time. In the future when the improvements are made to the intersection, the adjacent B-3, if utilized, then there may be the potential to look at B-3 on the corners and limited to the corners. At this time Mr. Napier is not in favor of this.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated a year ago he did say that the B-3 that is there is spot zoning and should have never taken place. Mr. Clatterbuck stated he has requested twice that the map review committee get together and look at this area. Mr. Clatterbuck stated he is requesting again that the map review committee be created and look at this area along with other areas. Mr. Clatterbuck stated his recommendation at this point is for denial.
Mr. Smerigan stated in Mr. Napier's comments he indicated that he would be supportive of B-2 and B-1 but not be B-3 and asked if this is correct.
Mr. Napier stated this is correct.
Mr. Smerigan asked if it is Mr. Napier position that if the plan did not include the B-3 that Mr. Napier would be supportive of the request.
Mr. Napier stated this is correct.
Mr. Smerigan asked if Mr. Napier’s position on that is because he feels there is insufficient evidence that B-3 should be sustained at that location but believes B-2 and B-1 are appropriate at this time.
Mr. Napier stated he believes that B-2 and B-1 would be a reasonable use of the land. There has not been a demonstration that B-3 would be more reasonable at this time at its current configuration as he mentioned the intersection improvements and the availability of B-3 across the street.
Mr. Smerigan asked Mr. Clatterbuck if he holds the same opinion.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated he is not saying this would be an acceptable possibility in the future, but right now he does not agree and would not be in favor.
Mr. Smerigan stated the request was submitted like it was because he believes there are some uses that are restricted to the B-3 district that would make since in the neighborhood. If the majority of the commission feels the restriction to B-2 and B-1 is acceptable to the township's viewpoint then he would be willing to accept this but it is not his belief that it would be born out. Mr. Smerigan stated he would be willing to make the adjustment to move forward if this is the commission’s desire. Mr. Smerigan wants the commission to understand the application was submitted the way it was because there are specific uses that he feels would be appropriate and can’t be done in other districts.
Mr. Napier stated it is Mr. Smerigan’s decision as to if he wants to amend his application or re-submit it.
Mr. Smerigan stated they are willing to do that if it is the desire of the commission to move forward on that basis.
Mr. Smerigan stated he would like to amend his application for the areas that are shown as B-3 would be adjusted to B-2 so the whole request would be either B-2 or B-1, which Mr. Smerigan believes is what Mr. Napier indicated in his opinion, would be a reasonable approach.
Mr. Napier stated that he would make sure the record reflects this.
Mr. Bennett stated a while ago he demonstrated there was not a market at this area for anything and even if fifty businesses were built what’s to say that they would be successful. Why put a bunch of buildings there that may be empty and deteriorating.
Mr. Phillippi explained the difference between what is allowed in a B-2 district and B-3 district.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated B-3 is not a consideration.
Mr. Brad Cioca stated if the people said that they don’t want development in their area, then they don’t want B-1, B-2 or any commercial. Now the developers are saying they will take the B-3 away and only do B-1 or B-2. If this is passed for B-1 or B-2 it will be easier to upgrade to B-3 later. What the people want is residential zoning in this area not commercial.
Mr. Napier made a motion to amend amendment #491-00 indicating that all areas currently shown as B-3 would move to B-2 and all areas currently showing B-2 would be amended to B-1.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was Mr. Clatterbuck –No, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Bauder-yes.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated it has been voted two to one in favor of the proposed zone change. This is only a recommendation that will go before the trustees. They will meet on the 23rd to set a meeting date.
Mr. Napier stated that there has been a misunderstanding in the vote. Mr. Bauder was only voting to accept the amendment not voting on the rezone itself.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated there was a misunderstanding in voting. The alternate member was not familiar with the procedure and when the board voted, Mr. Bauder thought he was voting on the approval to submit the amendment as modified. Mr. Bauder stated he was not voting on the amendment.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated this would be re-voted. The application has been voted in approval to accept the amended application. A motion will now be made on the application for the rezone.
Mr. Napier made a motion to vote on amendment #491-00 as amended.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was Mr. Clatterbuck-no, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Bauder-no.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated the vote is two to one against the proposed zone change. This only goes in the form of a recommendation that will go before the trustees. They will make the final decision as to what happens with the zone change.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he would like to make a formal proposal in regards to the map review committee.
Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion that the trustees and zoning administrator put together a map review committee to view the corner the High Mill and Portage and a number of other corners in the township.
Mr. Napier seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Napier-yes and Mr. Bauder-yes.
Mr. Smerigan stated he would like to thank the commission for their time and respects the resident’s right to express their opposition to Mr. Smith’s rezoning application. However, Mr. Smerigan finds it regrettable that some of the residents stooped to the level to attacking the personal integrity of the commission members.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Clerk/Secretary