Members Present:                                                             Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                             Donna Conaway
                                                                                             James Bauder
                                                                                             David Benner
                                                                                             Stephen Bergman

Absent Alternate Member:                                               Richard Russell-Absent

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                               Joni Poindexter

Ms. Magyaros stated that the first matter of the meeting is the approval of the minutes from the meeting held August 19, 2004.

Mr. Bauder asked that it be stated in the minutes that he recused himself from amendment #543-04.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she would make the adjustment to the minutes.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from August 19, 2004 as amended.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

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

Amendment #543-04 – The Jackson Township Zoning Commission, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Mass. OH 44646 proposes text amendment to the zoning resolution including but not limited to Chapter IV, V, & VIII.

Ms. Magyaros read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation, which was they had no objection.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board had previously talked about the proposed amendments, but she would read through each one and if there are any further discussions or changes to the amendments they can be discussed as they come up.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the first item is Section 401.11(3)(G)-Change from “Depth over 3 feet requires fencing” to “N/A”.  The reason for the change is for clarification purposes.
The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated item two is Section 401.12(3)(B)(3)-Change from “The swimming pool, or the entire property upon which it is located, shall be enclosed by a wall or fence having a minimum height of four (4) feet and be equipped with suitable locking devices to prevent uncontrolled access from adjacent properties.  Above ground pools with a wall height of 4 feet or greater measured from the surrounding grade shall not require fencing” to “All swimming pools or the entire property upon which they are located, shall be enclosed by a wall or fence having a minimum height of four feet and be equipped with suitable locking devices to prevent uncontrolled access from adjacent properties.  Above ground pools with a wall height of 4 feet or greater measured from the surrounding grade shall not require fencing.”  The reason is to clarify that all pools need some kind of fencing if underground or if above ground over three feet.

Mr. Benner asked if there is a section similar regarding retention ponds, which are just as much as a danger as swimming pools.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she is not aware of any regulation for retention ponds.

Ms. Poindexter stated that there is no requirement in the resolution for fencing around retention ponds.

Mr. Benner stated that he would look into this and in the future possibly have the commission consider an item to fence retention ponds.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item three is Section 411.3(2)(a),-Change from “Business, professional, medical, and dental office on less than 3 acres” to “Business, professional, medical and dental office.”  The reason is because the requirements are the same for less than 3 acres or more than 3 acres.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item four is Section 411.3(2)(b)-Delete the entire item “Business, professional, medical and dental office on 3 or more acres.”  The reason is the requirements are the same for any acreage and is a repeat of 411.3(2)(a), if adopted.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item five is Section 411.3(3)(a)-Change from “Retail sales establishments on less than 3 acres” to “Retail sales establishments, convenience retail uses and personal services such as food sales, drug stores, barber and beauty shop, nail salon, tanning salon, laundry, dry cleaners, and other similar uses provided the usable floor area devoted to such use or uses in no greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet.”  The reason is that it no longer goes by acreage but by square footage of floor area.  This did not change as a permitted use in B-2, B-3 and I-1 district or PR use in PBRD district.

Ms. Magyaros stated that “shoe repair” should be added because it was previously listed for personal services and it is not listed in the new change.

The board agreed to the change as amended with adding the word “shoe repair”.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item six is Section 411.3(3)(b)-Change from “Retail Sales establishments on 3 acres or more” to “Retail sales establishments and personal services with usable floor area devoted to such use or uses greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet” and delete “CUP” in a B-2 district.  The reason is it no longer goes by acreage but by square footage of floor area and anything over 5,000 sq. ft. would not be permitted in a B-2 district.  This did not change as a permitted use in B-3, and I-1 districts or PR use in the PBRD district.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item seven is Section 411.3(3)(C)- Delete entire item “Personal services such as barber, beauty shop, tanning facility, shoe repair, laundry, dry cleaners”.  The reason is because it is addressed in 411.3(3)(a) & (b).

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item eight is Section 411.3(3)(F)-“Supporting retail and services that reinforce the character of the district, such as stores selling arts and crafts, gifts, and/or incidental food, ice cream, bike rental/repair, ATM, restaurants”.  The letter “P” should be added so they are permitted in B-2, B-3, C-P, & I-1 districts.”  The reason is because under other listings the items are permitted in these districts so it should be designated as a “P” in B-2, B-3, C-P, & I-1 district.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item nine is Section 431.5(#23)-Delete the entire item “Office buildings on 3 or more acres” and (#30) “Retail Sales Establishments”.  The reason is that they are not a conditional use permit anymore, if previous deletions are adopted.
The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item ten is Section 431.6(S)-Change “Planned Office Complex, Planned Business Complex, and One Office Building on 3 or more acres and Retail Sales Establishments on three acres or more” to “Planned Office Complex, and Planned Business Complex”.  The reason is no conditional use permit is required for one office building or retail establishments on 3 acres or more if previous deletions are adopted.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item eleven is Section 501.7-Add definition of “Menu Board-A sign containing the name of food and drink items that may be ordered for pick-up at a drive-up window located on the premises”.  The reason is because there is no definition of a menu board in the zoning resolution.

Mr. Benner suggested that the word “permanent” be added so the definition reads “Menu Board-A permanent sign containing the name of food and drink items that may be ordered for pick-up at a drive-up window located on the premises”.

The board agreed to the change as amended to adding the word “permanent”.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item twelve is Section 502.4(A) –Change from “The permitted square footage of wall signs shall be determined by multiplying two (2) sq. ft. by the linear frontage of the building upon which sign will be located provided such sign shall not exceed the maximum area set forth is Schedule 502.4” to “Wall signs shall be permitted on any side of the building; however, the maximum square footage of all wall signs shall not exceed the maximum area set forth in Schedule 502.4. The permitted square footage of wall signs shall be determined by multiplying two (2) times the linear footage of the front building wall, or the wall where the main entrance is located, if applicable.”  The reason is the wall sign will be permitted on any wall, but the total cannot be over the maximum permitted square footage.

Ms. Poindexter explained that the way the regulations are now, if you have a main entrance on a wall other than the street frontage, the square footage is calculated two times the street frontage and two times the building wall where the main entrance is located.  Under the new regulation you have to choose if you want the square footage calculated by the street frontage wall or the wall where the main entrance is located, but you cannot have both.  However, the sign or signs can be located on any side of the building.

Ms. Magyaros asked if a definition of front building wall should be added.

Mr. Bergman stated that he thinks section 502.4(B)(2) explains the definition where it talks about for buildings fronting on two or more streets, and if you’re using a main entrance that paragraph talks about a main entrance on a third wall can be substituted and eliminate one of the other two frontage walls in the calculation, so he thinks it’s in there.

Ms. Magyaros agreed.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item thirteen is Section 502.4(B)-Delete entire item “In determining building frontage, the length of the building that faces the principal street or the length of the wall of the building that contains the main entrance to the uses therein shall be considered the building frontage”  The reason is because it is addressed in item (A).

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item fourteen is Section 502.4(B)1-Change (B)1 to (A)1.  Also change from “The building frontage shall be measured along the front wall between the exterior faces of the exterior sidewalls.  In the case of an irregular wall surface, a straight line extended along such wall surface shall be used to measure the length” to “The building wall shall be measured along the applicable wall between the exterior faces of the exterior sidewalls.  In case of an irregular wall surface, a straight line extended along such wall surface shall be used to measure the length”.  The reason is for clarification purposes.

Mr. Benner stated, in theory, they could say a straight line goes from the bottom corner to the top corner because this doesn’t say that it’s the shortest straight line distance between two exterior walls.

Mr. Bauder suggested adding the word “horizontal” so the second sentence reads “In case of an irregular wall surface, a straight horizontal line extended along such wall surface shall be used to measure the length”.

The board agreed to the change as amended to adding the word “horizontal”.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item fifteen is Section 502.4(B)2-Change (B)2 to (A)2.  Also change from “For lots fronting on two or more streets, or where the building has its main entrance on a wall other than the wall that faces the street, the building frontage shall be calculated separately for each building wall facing a street or having a main entrance.  The sign area that is located on a particular building wall shall not exceed the area permitted for such building wall” to “For buildings fronting on two or more streets the square footage shall be calculated using all building walls facing a street.  Where the building fronts two streets, if the main entrance is located on a wall other than a wall facing the street, that wall may be substituted for a street frontage wall.  The sign area that is located on a particular building wall shall not exceed the area permitted for such building wall.”  The reason is for clarification purposes.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that Mr. McDonnell arrived at the meeting as a member of the audience.  Ms. Magyaros stated that the board is reviewing the sign regulations and asked Mr. McDonnell if he had any comments.

Mr. McDonnell, 6265 Sandava NW, stated that he is speaking as a resident of Jackson Township.  What he wanted to bring to the boards attention is in regards to section 502.4.  He agrees with the wording “building wall or where the main entrance is located” as opposed to “building wall and where the main entrance is located”, which may have been the case earlier.  The other concern in 502.4A(1) where it states the building wall should be measured, and it says front.  He wonders if that should say applicable.

Ms. Magyaros stated that has been changed to read applicable.  The word horizontal has been added also so it reads “In case of an irregular wall surface, a straight horizontal line extended along such wall surface shall be used to measure the length”.

Mr. McDonnell stated that his initial concern was there could have been a possibility that they could calculate three walls if there were two street frontages and a main entrance on a different wall, but it appears this has been addressed.  Mr. McDonnell stated that it is his understanding when measuring the wall that is the maximum amount of signage that can go on that particular wall as opposed to having two street frontages and measuring both walls and putting that amount of signage on one wall.

Ms. Magyaros stated this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell had no further comments.

Ms. Magyaros stated item sixteen is Section 502.4(B)3-Change (B)3 to (A)3 and also change from “For multi-tenant buildings, the portion of a building that is owned or leased by a single tenant shall be considered a building unit.  The building frontage for a building unit shall be measured from the centerline of the party walls defining the building” to “For multi-tenant buildings, the portion of a building that is owned or leased by a single tenant shall be considered a building unit.  The permitted square footage for a building unit shall be measured from the centerline of the party walls defining the building.”  The reason is for clarification purposes.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that in the Schedule 502.4 the word “Total” is being added so the heading of “Maximum Sign Area” is changed to “Maximum Total Sign Area”.

Mr. Benner stated that the footnote “a” at the bottom of the schedule should also be changed from “Multiply two (2) sq. ft. by the linear frontage of the building upon which sign will be located” to “Multiply two (2) sq. ft. by the linear footage of the front building wall, or the wall where the main entrance is located, if applicable.”  This would be consistent with what is in section 502.4A.

Mr. Bauder asked what would happen if the door had an entrance way at the corner of the building shaped something that looked like this:

Ms. Poindexter stated that only the portion of the wall where the main entrance is located would be considered for the main entrance wall in the calculations.

Mr. Benner stated that they would probably pick the two frontages for their calculations in order to get more square footage as opposed to the main entrance wall and one frontage.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated item seventeen is Section 504.1(5)(B)-Add to maximum number of signs “2”.  The reason is currently there is no amount under maximum number of signs.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item eighteen is Section 504.1(6)(B)-Add to maximum number of signs “N/A”.  The reason is for clarification purposes.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item nineteen is Section 504.2(2)(A)-Change from “Property owner/contractor identification signs” to “Property owner/contractor identification signs, and announcement signs”.  The reason is to be consistent with what is listed in 504.1(4)(A).

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item twenty is Section 505.1-Add-“The setback area of a freestanding sign shall be measured from the closest point of the sign to the street right of way line.”  The reason is for clarification purposes of sign measurement.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item twenty-one is Section 802.9-Continuation of Existing Uses Conditionally Permitted-Change from “All uses existing at the time of passage of this Resolution and conditionally permissible in their respective district under this Resolution shall be issued Nonconforming Use Certificates upon request by the property owner by the Zoning Administrator within one (1) year after the passage of this Resolution” to “All uses existing on the effective date of this Resolution or amendment thereto, and conditionally permitted in their respective districts, shall be considered conditionally permitted, and a conditional use zoning certificate shall be issued by the zoning inspector upon request by the property owner within one (1) year after the effective date of this Resolution or amendment.  An existing conditional use shall be limited to extent to which the use existed on the above referenced effective date.  Any geographic area or building expansion shall require a conditional use permit and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.”  The reason is that a non-conforming certificate is for a use that is no longer permitted at all in a district and a conditionally permitted use is a use that is permitted with certain conditions.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item twenty-two is Section 806 Fees-Change from “Junkyard-Annual Renewal Fee” to “Junkyard- One time fee of $2,000 plus $50.00 per acre.”  The reason is because it is not an annual renewal fee.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item twenty-three is Section 806 Fees- Add “Nonconforming house trailer renewal permit fee-$10.00”.  The reason is because it is not in the book but the fee that is charged is $10.00.
The board agreed to the change as proposed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that item twenty-four is change “Zoning Administrator” to “Zoning Inspector” throughout the entire zoning resolution.  The reason is that this is the term that’s used for consistency.
The board agreed to the change as proposed.
 

Ms. Poindexter stated that the fees actually do not have to go through the zoning commission because they can be changed with a resolution from the trustees, but they were included as a recommendation.

Ms. Magyaros stated that this concluded the proposed changes to the zoning resolution book.

Mr. Bauder referred to his question earlier about if the entrance was on a corner and asked what if there was a door on each side at an angle going into another door on the inside like Gander Mountain.

Ms. Poindexter stated that they would have to pick one, but more than likely one would be a street frontage so it probably wouldn’t make a difference.

There were no other comments.

Ms. Magyaros asked for a motion to approve amendment #543-04.

Mr. Bergman made a motion to approve amendment #543-04.

Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Benner made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary