Members Present:                                                          Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                          Donna Conaway
                                                                                          David Benner
                                                                                          Stephen Bergman

Absent Members:                                                           James Bauder & Richard Russell-Alternate

Zoning Administrator:                                                    John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                             Joni Poindexter

Ms. Magyaros stated “This meeting was continued from last month for the purpose of a traffic study and I will ask the audience to limit their comments to the traffic study.  I understand that Mr. Corsi and Mr. Stevenson have made some amendments to the site plan so I’m is going to ask them to go over those new amendments to the site plan so we are all informed of those changes and to tailor your comments to those new changes.  We do not need to start all over from scratch with this hearing.  We held a hearing last month for three hours on this so we’re going to try to focus our comments on traffic and any concerns that you may have regarding the changes that have been made to the site plan.  Now I know it’s going to be hard to do that but let’s try to focus on that.  We have a lot of people here this evening that want to speak and we want to give everybody an opportunity to speak, so let’s proceed in an orderly manner and we’re going to get through this.”

The first order of business was the approval of the minutes from the August 21, 2003 meeting.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve the minutes as written.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

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

AMENDMENT #530-03 – NexTerra Ltd., Leonard Corsi, 715 Wye Road, Akron, Ohio 44333 agent for Robert Vail, Mary Vail Thomas, CW Vail LLC & Josephine Vail, property owners, 2445 Brentwood Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-3 (Residential Planned Unit Development District) 18 acres, more or less, north of Hills & Dales Rd. bounded by the fire station to the west, Wackerly to the east, Everhard Rd. to the north, & 51.5 acres, more or less, north of Everhard Rd. and east of Brunnerdale, Sect. 26SW Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file) (Continued from 8/21/03)

This is a continuation from a meeting that was held on August 21, 2003.  Ms. Magyaros stated that Stark County Regional Planning recommended approval of the plan.

Mr. Leonard Corsi, 715 Wye Rd., Bath, Ohio presented his application.

Mr. Corsi stated “We are pleased to be before you this evening.  At our last meeting the zoning commission requested a traffic study utilizing existing data on file with the county and there were some good observations with regards to our plan.  I will be addressing the traffic findings first and the pertinent facts about our project to clarify any misunderstanding and misinformation generated about the Vail Farm.  And finally, I will be discussing the enhancements we have made to our plan in responses to our last meeting along with the precepts of sustainable development.

With regard to the traffic study, we have provided the zoning commission with that traffic study, the results of which are the Vail Farm project will not degrade the level of service of traffic.  The nature of the project by virtue of household size, generates less traffic then the standard large lot single family development; the difference being approximately 35% less trips than for a large lot single family development.  At peak P.M. traffic the project yields a maximum increase of 29 vehicles at the intersections of Hills & Dales Rd. at Everhard Rd., and Hills & Dales at Brunnerdale Rd., that the existing traffic controls signal timing and phasing accommodates the proposed and the existing traffic.  No roadway or signal controls are warranted.

With regard to our points of clarification and facts addressing misinformation, the Regional Planning Commission as you have stated has reviewed and recommends the approval of this plan.  The Regional Planning Commission states that the plan has less density than allowed by the current zoning, 1.8 units per acre verses the 2.2 units per acre allowed under the current zoning of R-R Rural Residential.  Vail Farm is not a high density development.

We have received a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that no permit is required to proceed with this project.  There are no negative impacts to the environment or to the wetlands under their jurisdiction on this property.

The Vail Farm plan will maintain quiet enjoyment for the adjoining land owners and open space for all neighborhood residents and their visitor’s enjoyment.  We have listened to the recommendations of the commission and enhanced our plan to include wider lots and more open space.

Vail Farm exceeds the open space requirements under the R-3 zoning by 200%.  Twenty-five percent open space is required and Vail Farm is providing a minimum of 50%.

The five single family lots on Wackerly Rd. match the existing lots across the street in size.  In keeping with the drainage regulations, all drainage from the development will be handled on site.  The development is actually enhancing the drainage from its current levels through use of bio-swales while other areas will be restored with native landscape of prairie grasses and wildflowers.

Simply put, there are two ways to develop the Vail Farm; utilizing sustainable open space development or half acre lots under the current rural residential zoning.  The Stark County 20/20 plan recommends the adoption of sustainable open space development for the improvement of health, safety, and welfare of communities.  It is continued suburban sprawl subdivisions which are stressing the infrastructure, health, safety, and welfare of communities.

Finally, and I know the commission understands this, but we feel the public needs to know the truth.  The approval of this plan is not related to, or setting the stage for the approval of, any other developments including the Tam O’Shanter golf course.  The Vail Farm neighborhood stands on its own and the other developments will be required to go through their own approval processes.”

Mr. Corsi addressed the plan and the enhancements incorporated from the last meeting.

Mr. Corsi stated, “They will provide a median with two lanes in and out on a private road at Hills & Dales at townhouse one and twenty-nine.  2) Will provide median with two lanes in and out on a private road at Everhard and Willowcrest.  3) We are continuing and investigating moving the proposed fire lane on Everhard Rd.  The fire lane is strictly that; it is a fire lane required by the fire marshal for safety purposes.  4) We will build all private roads to county specifications except that they are 22 ft. wide per the township specifications, not 24 ft. wide per the county to slow traffic down.  5)  We are dedicating additional right of way for future public road right of ways as follows: at Hills & Dales the right of way is increasing from 60 to 80 ft. and 10 ft. of that is on our side.  That’s a 20 ft. gross increase.  On Wackerly Drive it will be increased from 40 to 50 ft., with 5 ft. on our side.  On Everhard Rd. there will be an increase from 60 to 80 ft. which represents 10 ft. on both our sides along Everhard Rd.  On Marzelli Circle the 60 ft. cul-de-sac will remain.  This will allow for the turning around of traffic not entering the project.  6) The construction of neighborhood entrance feature.  7)  The posting of no thru streets or private road signs.  8) Increased open space on the west property line along the Marzelli property.  9) Increased open space along the north property line of the Devonshire subdivision.  10) No lots or construction along the east side of the existing gas transmission lines thus increasing open space for adjoining property owners, Bennell and McClure.  11) Adjoining single family members who can walk to the site will enjoy open space preserve, stream, pond, and pedestrian pathway areas.  12) We guarantee 50% open space but we are aiming for more.  13) The detached lots within the plan have been revised.  14) We have increased the width of these lots from 65 to 70 ft. on ten units and to 75 ft. on 48 units.  15) We revised the rear yard orientation towards the open space for larger back yard feeling; revised all north side lots to 75 ft. width.  16)  We are providing a 75 ft. gas easement centered on the two existing lines.  Last, the placement of the community barn at the foundation site of the former Vail Farm barn.

In conclusion, the Vail’s know their land is going to be developed and it is a privilege for NexTerra to plan for an owner who wants to preserve the integrity of his land and create a neighborhood that is as sensitive to the environment as it is to the community.  The Vail Farm neighborhood provides the best in sustainable development design and practices for people who want to enjoy a lifestyle that neither confines nor requires them to remain on a half acre lot in a subdivision.

The Vail Farm lifestyle is for people who want to be part of a community with approximately 35 acres available to them for hiking, walking, fishing, and gardening, or just quiet enjoyment of vista views with ponds and meadows.  Enjoyment and use of the open space is for the entire residential neighborhood.

Quality homes in the Vail Farm neighborhood will feature front porches to encourage community and private back yards with naturally accruing grand views.

NexTerra believes and drives each of our projects upon the precepts of sustainable development.  Sustainable development is mediating the tensions between economics, the environment, transportation, public safety, infrastructure, and residential quality of life for generations to come.  It is projects like this that are highly positive that have a long term positive economic impact.”

Mr. Corsi presented a short video and stated that it incorporates the actual site plan and topography, and illustrates their vision of the Vail Farm neighborhood lifestyle.  The housing shown in the video only depicts placement, size and front porch elements.  The actual homes have not yet been designed.

Mr. Corsi stated, “The percepts for sustainable development are realized in the Vail Farm neighborhood through our careful planning and analysis and our revisions are based on recommendations of the commission and the community.  The facts bear out for this excellent project and I thank the commission and the people of Jackson Township for hearing the presentation of our plan tonight.”

Ms. Conaway stated that she has two concerns.  She visited the property and when making a right turn into the property she was concerned that someone might rear end her.  She is thinking one of two things: either making a right turn lane there, or, as suggested by someone in a letter, bringing the street out and connecting it to where the traffic signal is at Hills & Dales and Everhard Rd.

Mr. Corsi stated he doesn’t think connecting the street would work because of the lay of the land.

Ms. Conway stated that she realized this and asked if a right turn lane would be possible.

Mr. Corsi stated that they would be willing to accommodate what is called a right turn deceleration lane.

Mr. Bergman stated that the view as shown, it appears that the tree line around the property will stay and the development is pretty much self-contained.

Mr. Corsi stated this is correct.  They intentionally did this to utilize the corn field and the trees will remain.
Ms. Magyaros asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Charles Bennell, 5555 Everhard NW stated that his property is adjacent to the Vail Farm and he echo’s Ms. Conaway’s comment about the difficulty in making a right turn.  If the developers are talking about putting a deceleration lane in it would be great because there will be a lot of people going into the private road.

Mr. Bennell stated, “I have no economic connection with the developer nor do I know him.  I spoke in favor of the development the last time and my property is as much affected as anybody else.  I’ve lived there for 15 years since before Everhard Rd. was rebuilt.  The traffic was bad when Everhard was two lanes and it is still vigorous now that Everhard is four lanes and I’m still glad I live there.  I exit my driveway onto a four lane road, not onto a neighborhood street.  It is safer than it was and I am comfortable that this development will not add materially to any safety issues when I exit my driveway.  Based on what I’ve seen before and tonight I am very comfortable that the value of my property, which is certainly one of the largest investments that I have as well as a wonderful life style, will not be degraded but very likely enhanced.  I have enjoyed living next door to Ms. Vail and I am looking forward to living next to the Vail Farm development.”

Mr. Richard Lolli, 3135 Midvale Rd., Canton, Ohio stated that he is in attendance of behalf of the property owners of the Vail family in the capacity of their attorney.

Mr. Lolli stated, “I understand the opposition that has been expressed and is being expressed tonight by most of the folks here.  I think a lot of the opposition is towards development in general.  There is nothing that I can say or Mr. Corsi can say tonight that will make people feel better about continued development; that’s not my purpose.  What I hope to do in a couple of minutes is to reiterate some points about why I think you should approve this development plan, especially in consideration of what the alternatives are.

I was concerned by just reading the newspaper articles for instance as well as talking to a number of the people in the room this evening, that they were under the impression that this meeting is being held to allow residential development of the property that otherwise would not occur but for the action that we are asking you to take tonight.  That is not the case.  I don’t think I need to remind the members of the commission but I think for the sake of good relations the neighbors and folks here tonight that are opposed to the development should understand that right now this can be developed in a residential capacity. What Mr. Corsi is asking the commission to approve tonight is actually a more restrictive planned development of the property then would otherwise occur.

He is not requesting a different use from what currently exists because right now it is already zoned for residential.  He is not even requesting a variance from the zoning classification he’s asking for, for this type of development.  He is requesting approval to allow somewhat smaller lots, but significantly greater open space and community space on this property much more so then we’ve seen anywhere else in Stark County as far as planned developments are concerned.

If the approval for this plan is denied, the development will ultimately occur.  It’s going to happen.  It’s zoned residential and it will be developed at some point.  But I think it’s almost a safe bet, I would certainly bet money on it, that whatever development will occur if this plan is not approved will result in a larger and greater number of homes on this property with more residents and more traffic then this plan will allow.

I believe it was at the last meeting that Mr. Corsi discussed the demographics of this development; the target market for these units.  The target market does not involve, as a primary source, residences with four or five bedrooms and families with school age children.  That’s not the target audience and that’s not who is expected to reside here.  In many ways this is almost an ideal development because you are getting an increase in the tax space with significantly no increased burden on the Jackson school system.  That doesn’t happen everyday.  It’s quite remarkable.

Mr. Corsi did address the traffic concerns and I’m not going to stand up and say there’s not going to be anymore traffic; that wouldn’t be true.  However, the traffic report that I think he’s provided indicates, as far as the development goes, there’s going to be much less traffic then would otherwise be the case in any other development because of the nature of the chart of demographics.

I would like to point out to that this property is not currently developed.  This differentiates it from any other zoning request that comes before you; when somebody wants to change a zoning classification in which there is a development and they want to change it from residential to commercial or light industrial.  This is not currently developed property.  That is an important distinction I believe.  What Mr. Corsi’s plan proposes involves no rental units and no non residential development.  Something that has been mentioned, but if we look ahead in the future a little bit, this plan will in effect protect portions of Everhard Rd. and probably Hills & Dales Rd. as well from possible future commercial development.  I don’t think anybody’s considered that but at some point development in the future, if this plan’s not approved or not developed as residential, someone will appear before you and ask to rezone this for commercial development along Everhard and/or Hills & Dales Rd.  By approving this plan that won’t occur; that won’t happen.”

I sense there is probably some concern when people hear cluster homes or high density, that there may be a preconceived notion about an economic equation with that when we talk about lower income housing or lower priced housing that will impact property values of the neighbors as well as the Jackson Community as a whole.  This is just not the case.  We are actually talking about rather high end development here with units beginning in the neighborhood of $200,000 and approximately 2,000 sq. ft.; some a little more and some a little less but $200,000 is a good mean.  That’s just for the smaller units.  The other units will go above that and we’re just talking about construction cost.  It is very conceivable that once a lot is purchased and a home is built and furnished, you could be talking about a four or five hundred thousand dollar home there.  I’m not saying that’s going to be the case but it’s possible that’s the case.

You heard a few moments ago that this is a development targeted at those individuals who don’t want to be tied to a half-acre lot.  They don’t want to move into a city or urban development or move away.  They like the area and want to stay here.  But you know sometimes we get to the point that taking care of a half-acre lot is just a little too much.  I’m already getting to that point myself.  These lots will condense the private property and increase the common areas that will be covered in the development.  It is an ideal development in many ways.  So I want to leave you with some questions about what is preferable with our options.  Is it better to approve the plan and guarantee that we are going to have more restrictive planned development on this area, or the traditional suburban development?  Is it better to embrace the future vision of the 20/20 plan adopted locally in Stark County as well as national trends towards living, or remain with the status quote as far as suburban development is concerned?

The objective voices to this development, I believe, are centered on traffic and the high density. I believe those issues have been addressed.  I think this is a unique opportunity that doesn’t come along everyday, to adopt a plan for development that will be a model that people will want to come to and in the neighborhood people will be proud to have as we go forward in the future and I ask for your support.”

Ms. Magyaros asked if anyone else in the audience or in the hallway wanted to speak in favor of the amendment.  No one came forward.

Mr. Corsi gave the board a letter that was written by an adjoining neighbor stating that they are in favor of the amendment.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board has a copy of the letter which was given to them by the zoning department when they picked up a copy of the traffic study.

Ms. Magyaros asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Fred Sperling, 3481 Perry Dr. NW stated that the word “community space” was brought up and asked if this is closed community space or open to the whole community.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she believes Mr. Corsi and Mr. Stevenson explained at the last meeting that if you are a neighbor even though you don’t live in that development per se, but if you are an adjoining neighbor or close in the vicinity, if you want to come over and use the open space that they have available then you will be permitted to do so.  It is not a private allotment; however, Mr. Stevenson did say not bus loads of kids from out of town.

Mr. Sperling stated, “I don’t have great comments on the traffic issue but as the speakers for the issue spoke of other matters I felt it is appropriate that I would like to also.  I have some experience with the PRD and I believe this is going in under a PRD also.”

Ms. Magyaros stated that this is actually a PUD, an R-3 Planned Unit Development.

Mr. Sperling stated that is it is very similar to a PRD which he is surrounded on three sides by the PRD of Aberdeen Ridge and Aberdeen Glen.  He commends the architect for a beautiful presentation but when reality comes into effect the open spaces in Aberdeen Glen was a nice open farm field where the top soil was dug out and moved and road debris was dumped.  In a public meeting for that development they were promised by their engineer and the development that a hill would be not be excavated that was adjacent to his property.  They found sand and gravel on it and mined it.  It was taken out and they changed the topography of the land and lowered the vertical profile by about 20 ft.  The zoning administrator did a proper job and cited them, however, when it was brought to the zoning board one of the comments was, “it looks pretty nice now”.  Mr. Sperling stated that the way the laws work in the township, even though they are showing all the trees, there is nothing that requires the developer, from his experience, to keep that.  Mr. Sperling stated that he does not think the zoning should be changed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the purpose of a PUD is to give the township more control over what goes into the area.  If the plan is approved, then what is approved has to be what is built.

Mr. Sperling stated that rural residential seems to work pretty good in the rest of the township and the township should be protecting the township residents, not make it easier for the developer to make a buck.

Ms. Magyaros stated that Mr. Phillippi gave a good example at the last meeting about an addition to Glenmoor, which is a PUD, and they had to go back to the trustees to build a small addition because it was not on their original plan.

Mr. Bergman asked what the zoning was for Aberdeen Glena and Aberdeen Ridge before it was changed.

Mr. Sperling stated that it was zoned rural residential.

Mr. Mike Katie, 3600 Wackerly Dr. NW, stated that the widening of Wackerly was mentioned and it was stated that 5 ft. of that would be on the developer’s property.  Mr. Katie asked where the rest of the land would come from.

Mr. Corsi stated that Wackerly will not be widened.  There is a required right of way that was discussed with Mr. Phillippi.

Mr. Phillippi stated, “Under the regulations there are several roads within the township that all of the setbacks are established based on a larger right of way.  Hills & Dales and Everhard require all the setbacks to be established on the basis of an assumed 80 ft. right of way, which is 40 ft. from the center line.  In the case of Wackerly it is substandard in terms of the current right of way which would need to be a minimum of 50 ft.; therefore, when the development would go in they would be required under both the township and more importantly the county regulations, to dedicate the additional 5 ft. off their property.  There are no plans to widen that, but the purpose is to have the right of way dedicated at this point in time so that in twenty or thirty years if that needed to be widened then the county or township would not incur the expensive of then going out and purchasing that road right of way.  It is for planning purposes only but there is no intent to widen the road.”

Mr. Corsi stated that they are not intending to widen the road.

Ms. Conaway stated that all they are trying to do is set aside land now in case 50 years down the road it would need to be widened.  This is called planning, which is a good thing.

Mr. Katie stated that if this is being planned it should be on the developer’s side, not the homeowner’s side.

Ms. Conaway stated that there are no guarantees.

Mr. Fred Gray, 2720 Coventry Lane NW asked how many total units the project would have.

Ms. Magyaros stated that there would be a total of 129 units.

Mr. Gray stated that he is confused because if Mr. Corsi and the developers are making the lots wider and are increasing the green space but not decreasing the number of units then how are the lots and open space being increased.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she believes they actually eliminated some of the fee simple lots that were on the original plan and widened some of the other lots.

Mr. Conaway explained the difference in the two plans.

Mr. Gray asked if Mr. Corsi would restrict the sale of the units to senior citizens only.

Mr. Benner asked Mr. Gray what he does for a living.

Mr. Gray stated that he sells advertising.

Mr. Benner asked Mr. Gray if he sells advertising to only a particular group of people.

Mr. Gray stated, “Absolutely not.  I sell to everybody.”

Mr. Benner stated, “I think you know the answer to the question that you are asking.”

Mr. Gray stated, “Then his question to Mr. Corsi would be, “how can he say that only a certain lifestyle or folks are going to buy these,” especially seniors buying a two story unit.  How is he going to keep that traffic down?  How is he going to reduce the traffic by 35% so there are only 29 cars on Everhard Rd. at 3:00 in the afternoon?”

Mr. Bergman stated, “That number came from the county engineer’s traffic study.  They based that on the demographics of who is likely to buy this type of housing unit and they are the ones who came through with the reduction.”

Mr. Gray stated that it is an estimate.

Mr. Bergman stated yes.

Mr. Gray stated, “I didn’t intend to speak tonight, but after the last Vail Farm meeting I had a conversation with Mr. Stevenson in the parking lot.  After that I contacted Clark Richard’s and spoke with him at length. Clark couldn’t be here tonight because of a business meeting and asked someone to speak on his behalf.  That fell upon me tonight.  We want to make it clear that Clark’s group or anybody that would be affiliated with them or in sympathy with them is not against growth in Jackson Township.  They don’t say no growth in Jackson Township but they do insist on reasonable and responsible growth.  We are for growth that adds to the quality of life in Jackson Township.  The Vail Farm in our estimation is still a high density development with 129 units.  It doesn’t conform to the Jackson Township comprehensive plan proposed in January 2000.  This plan specifically points to low or medium density residential developments for the non-commercial parts of the southeast quadrant of Jackson.

The southeast quadrant is already crowded with too many commercial developments. The traffic problem along our major roads is growing worse every year.  Traffic is making the southeast quadrant of Jackson Township a nightmare for the residents.  Common sense dictates that any future development, which we know this property will be developed, but it must be low density.

We are against changing the current rural residential zoning of the Vail Farm property.  A change to R-3 PUD zoning allows as many as six homes per acre and obviously that has been changed and I really appreciate that because I think that’s a great idea. While the current developer says that he is saving green space by clustering the homes, we disagree.  Much of the land on the property would be costly to develop and the developer cannot build on protected wetlands or the ponds.  We understand that he can destroy three acres of wetlands but there are other wetlands, there are at least two sections of wetlands that are more than one acre and can’t be destroyed.  They are protected.  The ponds, I understand, cannot be taken out because they are protected.

The 1.8 units per acre the developer bandies about sounds great until you realize that not all the land is suitable or allowable for building.  We believe the only reason the developer is requesting a high density zoning is to economically put more houses on the Vail property than its topography, protected areas, and present zoning will permit.

At the last zoning meeting, Mr. Stevenson said that he can put 150 homes on this property with the present zoning but if his R-3 plan is approved he will put only 129.  Well that was a threat intended to intimidate us to accept 129 homes.  If the developer can put 150 homes on this property then I believe he has a magic calculator because I’ve done the math and his figures don’t add up.  Sixty nine acres constitutes 3,000,640 sq. ft.  Divide that by the smallest size lot allowed by rural residential zoning, which is 20,000 sq. ft., and you come out with 150 lots.  But he didn’t mention that first you have to take out the land for the roads, several protected wetlands and the ponds.  Now if you take away the present roads, the protected wetlands over an acre and the ponds which together total more than six acres, you are down to fewer lots than the 129 and that doesn’t even include the requirement for the frontage.

On the triangular piece of land behind the fire station there are 9-1/2 acres of designated flood plain which receives all the drainage from the surrounding area.  Mr. Stevenson told me, after the last meeting, that if his plan isn’t approved he will flatten both properties, put in a culvert, and build right over the flood plain;  another treat.  Suddenly the nice guy becomes the ugly developer.

Why when we ask and we talk about compromise, do the developers suddenly threaten to flatten the property like a pancake, destroy the woods and wetlands, and fill in the flood plain?

When I asked Mr. Stevenson if it would be possible to reduce the number of the houses in this PUD and to put them on larger lots, say four to an acre instead of six, Mr. Stevenson said, “No, the only way we go from here is up.  If you don’t like 129 then we’ll put in 150.”  Well that’s an empty threat.  They can’t put in 150.  It just doesn’t work out that way.

Are the developers really proposing to put in only 129 homes out of the goodness of their hearts?  No, we don’t believe it.  The reason the developers are not giving us any other plans for this property is because they know that this plan allows them to crowd in more homes onto the Vail property, the corn field, cheaper, easier, and faster than present rural residential zoning allows.  Should we buy their line without proof?  Should we hide our calculator?  Should we make it easier for them to put more houses on that property?  I believe no.

If the developer really intends as he says to make this into a beautiful development with lots of green space then we applaud him.  At the last meeting Mr. Corsi said that the green space and natural areas would significantly add to the value of the homes.  We agree and we encourage Mr. Corsi to leave as much green space as possible to save the natural areas, to make this development a shining example of beauty and high class living, and to make the property more desirable and more valuable to prospective buyers.  But we say let Mr. Corsi do it with the present zoning, not with R-3 PUD that allows housing lots on 7,260 sq. ft. and not with houses that are 10 ft. or 15 ft. off the lot line.  How big will the lots be now, about 9,500 sq. ft?”

Mr. Corsi stated, “The actual lots themselves are 7,500 sq. ft.”

Mr. Gray stated, “So it goes from 7,260 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. for the average lot size.

Mr. Corsi stated plus the open space.

Mr. Gray stated, “If Mr. Corsi contends that putting 129 crowded in homes is the only way to make this project financially feasible then we have to ask why.  This property has been owned for a long time.  The owners will realize a handsome profit no matter what they sell the property for.  If the property under the present zoning sustains fewer homes which we believe under rural residential it should and it will, after they put in the roads it will take away more homes and the Vail family will still make a lot of money.  The developer also will still make a lot of money.  Cramming in as many houses as they can may give the Vail family and developers even more money but it won’t be a high quality development and the real cost of overcrowding will be borne forever by the residents of Jackson Township.”

Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Gray to define high quality.

Mr. Gray stated when he moved to Jackson Township he moved from a city lot.  His lot was about 150 by 120 ft.  When he moved into his house that he now has which is about ¾ of the acre, he thought that was high quality.  They didn’t hear the neighbor’s toilets flushing anymore.  When he thinks of small lots he thinks of condominiums at Glenmoor and those are actually larger lots then what Mr. Corsi is proposing.  There are a lot of them for sale right now so the folks that are going to be looking at Mr. Corsi’s property could easily jump the road over to Glenmoor because the housing stock is there.  Mr. Gray stated that he doesn’t think Mr. Corsi can actually say that he’s going to find 129 family’s that are senior and will pay $200,000 to $300,000 for a house that is two stories.  Mr. Gray stated that he can’t believe a high quality house is going to be 15 ft. away from the lot line.

Mr. Bergman stated that he sees this right now in the township.  There are huge homes that are 15 ft. from the lot line.  Mr. Bergman stated that he wants Mr. Gray to understand that everybody has their own definition of high quality.

Mr. Gray stated that he understands, but wants the board to understand what the developers are proposing.  Mr. Gray held out a 10 ft piece of rope and stated this is what was first proposed for a side lot line.

Mr. Benner stated, “Houses that exist all over the rural residential areas of Jackson Township have that same space between the houses.  I have a house that’s two years old, I live in a development and it looks exactly like that in a rural residential area.  That’s what happens in rural residential areas.  That’s the zoning regulations today.”

Mr. Gray stated, “That’s the zoning regulation today, but is that what we want to keep in Jackson Township and is that what we want to promote in Jackson Township?”

Mr. Benner stated, “Those are the regulations that exist today for rural residential and for this section that they are applying for.  All of the rules are there today.”

Mr. Gray stated, “Under rural residential zoning today the lot has to be larger.  It has to be 20,000 sq. ft.; not 7,500 sq. ft.  Seventy-five hundred square feet is small and 20,000 sq. ft. is not that large.”

Mr. Bergman stated sometimes they build bigger houses.

Mr. Gray stated, “Traffic in the southeast quadrant of the township is already unbearable and accidents have reached a new high especially on Everhard Rd.  Dense developments create more cars and more accidents.  I don’t accept a traffic study that says 129 homes will generate 29 cars on Everhard Rd.  I just don’t buy it.”

Mr. Bergman stated, “That’s during the peak hours and unfortunately while I might agree with you and I’d like to say that I don’t buy it, we pay these people and I have to believe what they present to me.  These are the professionals that are giving us this information.”

Mr. Gray stated, “Already drivers on Everhard and Fulton Rd. are frustrated with the traffic and long delays at the stoplights.  You heard this last time but I think good to reiterate.  These drivers are making short-cuts through residential neighborhoods to circumvent the delays.  The increased traffic cutting through neighborhoods is making Jackson Township neighborhoods increasingly unsafe.  The cut-through traffic is making residential properties less desirable to buyers and is destroying the property values of the homes.

Clark Richard’s and his neighbors have counted more than 300 cars a day using their neighborhood as a cut-through.  No matter what any traffic study says and no matter what any professional says, you zoning commission members should take the time to stand on the corner of Schario Drive like I did two days ago and see the traffic on what was once a peaceful residential street.  Better yet, you better not stand on the corner because you’ll get hit.  Those people whip through there so fast that I had to jump back three times.  I have two children and if I were looking for a home, even though there are beautiful homes in that neighborhood, I’d never consider buying in that neighborhood.

Should we be concerned about adding a few cars here and a few cars there?  Absolutely!  Everett Dirckson once said a million here and a million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.  Well every development that adds an extra car to the road adds to the problem.  If the Vail Farm can squeeze in just a few more homes out of that property through R-3 PUD than they can through rural residential then those are a few too many homes and a too many cars and we will fight each car they want to add.  Every car is another nail in Jackson Township’s coffin.  We want less dense development in the southeast quadrant.  Since the developer wants so many homes on the property the only defense that we have is to keep it rural residential.

Frankly I like PUD’s.  I think they are great and I love the design of that.  If there were fewer homes on that then I would be all for it but Mr. Corsi told us, after the last meeting, “You don’t deserve us.”  So I say, “No Mr. Corsi, we just don’t deserve the extra cars.”  I’m sorry I just don’t buy 29 cars.

Even though Mr. Corsi says it isn’t, this development will set a precedent for development of Tam O’Shanter.  This property is right beside the golf course.  Lawyers for the golf course were at the last Vail Farm meeting.  They talked to me and they’re probably here again tonight.  One of the people who talked if favor of this I believe is associated with Tam O’Shanter golf course.  If the Vail property is rezoned from rural residential to high density R-3 PUD it will open the door to the commercial and multi-family development of Tam O’Shanter.  At the last meeting Mr. Corsi said that the cars from the proposed Vail Farm will increase the current heavy traffic by 1,290 cars a day.  He said roughly 10 trips.  Am I right?”

Mr. Corsi stated, “Your math is incorrect.”

Mr. Gray stated, “I’m sorry, I thought that he said that every household makes 10 trips during the day.  If I’m wrong then I stand corrected, but that was what I heard.  If that’s true that involves about a 10% increase on Everhard Rd.”

Mr. Benner stated, “That’s if they only drive down Everhard Rd.  If every one of those cars goes down Everhard Rd., you are saying it will increase it?”

Mr. Gray stated, “Yes, they will.”

Mr. Benner asked, “Do you think they will all go down Everhard Rd.”

Mr. Gray stated, “Everywhere I go is on Everhard Rd.  Unfortunately it is the major thoroughfare.  It hurts me to fight a PUD because it looks so good on paper but frankly we can’t afford the extra cars coming out of that development.  Those houses are crammed in to tight.  There are too many houses on that property.  So what we say is whatever the owners and developers of the Vail property do, they must do it with rural residential zoning.  I know it gives you less control and I understand that.  But we don’t believe that 129 homes can be built on that property.  There just isn’t enough land there to put 20,000 sq. ft. lots.  Mr. Phillippi last time said he wasn’t sure how many homes could be built but if you take a calculator and divide 20,000 into the total number of square feet, you take away the existing road space, and you take away the protected areas you’re below 129 already.  To put in 20,000 sq. ft. homes would require more road space which means fewer homes.  Do we want more roads?  No!  But do we want fewer cars?  Yes!  If this is the only way we can get it, if it’s the only way we can keep that number down then that’s what we’re going for.  The Vail property is a magnificent piece of land and it will make a gorgeous low density development under the present zoning.  We do not want you to approve a zoning change that allows 129 homes on property zoned rural residential.  Zoning must protect neighborhoods.  If you want to destroy Jackson Township the fastest way is to destroy the existing neighborhoods.  Overcrowding, increased traffic, overburdened schools, and I know only seniors will be buying these properties although they will be offered to everybody, but overburdened infrastructure all are destructive to our neighborhood and to our quality of life.  The voters of Jackson Township urge you to keep the zoning of this property to the least density possible and that we believe is rural residential.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “Regional Planning in paragraph six of their recommendations stated, “The proposed density of 129 single family dwelling units would not be greater than that permitted in the existing R-R Rural Residential district and should not be detrimental to the existing well established residential neighborhood.”  Mr. Phillippi went through it last month, that there is no way unless we have a specific plan in front of us for rural residential to state exactly how many houses could be built on that property as rural residential.  Regional Planning is telling us that the 129 single family dwelling units would not be greater than that permitted in the existing R-R.”

Mr. Gray stated, “I am not a math teacher but I do have a calculator and when you take 69 acres and you figure out the square footage, 43,560 sq. ft. to an acre, and then you take out the square footage of the roads and you take out the six acres of ponds and you take out the 3-1/2 acres of protected wetlands you don’t come out with 129 homes.  You come out with fewer than 129 homes.”

Mr. Bergman stated, “When I looked at the property and I tried to gauge how much I thought was in wetlands and trees, etc. and I came up with about 75%, which if you take your 20,000 sq. ft. it comes up to about 111 homes.  So what we’re basically looking at in my view is the difference between about 18 homes.  Potentially more traffic on those 111 homes if I believe the traffic study.  Potentially more traffic out of those 111 homes then 129 homes.  Then I have to look at it and say we have a potential if we don’t change this and this is the concern that I have; that I’m wrong and it’s more not less.  Then someone’s going to come here, and we cannot prevent Mr. Vail from selling his property as much as we might like to because it is a gorgeous piece of property, but as much as we might like to see that stay as a corn field, we can’t do that.  If he wants to sell it then he can sell it.  If he wants to sell it to a rural residential development who wants to literally come in and bulldoze the thing which I see all the time with the farms and I’ve lived here since 1971, I see all the farms blasted by the developers and then I get concerned.  My concern is I’m worried about 18 homes.  Now my question is “Do we want some control over how those homes are put in or no control?”  And that’s a questions I’ll ask you.”

Mr. Gray stated, “It’s a hard choice.  I’m glad that I’m not in your shoes.  Will 111 homes generate more traffic than 129 homes?”

Mr. Bergman stated, “A traffic study says it will.”

Mr. Gray stated, “When somebody says 111 homes or 129 homes, I have to say that the more homes you have, the more traffic you’re going to have.”

Mr. Bergman stated, “It stands to reason if the homes are family homes and here’s where we get into the question as to whether or not the demographics of who will buy these homes is actually correct.”

Mr. Gray stated, “The condominiums at Glenmoor are made and are beautiful places and are perfect for senior citizens and I have two friends that are younger than me with three kids who live in those condos.  So there are some folks and some families like that who are going to want a smaller lot.  I don’t believe that all of those homes will be purchased by single people or senior citizens, especially because they are two stories.  It has been my experience that when senior citizens buy a house they generally don’t buy a two story.”

Ms. Magyaros stated that she thinks a lot depends on if there is a master bedroom on the first floor or not.

Mr. Gray asked if the units would have a master suite.

Mr. Corsi stated yes.

Ms. Conaway stated, “The thing that appeals to me about this is that you’ve got, and you all know where it is and it is a beautiful piece of property, the thing that appeals to me is would you rather have that, and yes, maybe there is going to be more cars on the road and no body hates it more than I do, but would you rather drive by with more cars on the road and not really see all those roof tops and all of those homes?  You will get the benefit of the beauty of that property.  That will not change.  Would you rather have that or would you rather have.., how many of you have driven by Aberdeen Ridge?  How attractive is that?  I don’t mean to pick on it but I am talking about comparison.  I would rather see the trees stay where they are.  There are entirely too many trees ripped out to develop land in this township.  That bothers me as much as anything and that’s something you need to think about.  If we stay with R-R you know those trees are going to disappear.  You can count on it.”

Mr. Gray stated, “We understand and I agree.  It is really a tough choice.  I really like his plan and if Mr. Corsi right now would say, I will put in 110 units on that property, he would have a backer.  But I don’t think that Mr. Corsi will do that.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “He is allowed to put in 2.2 units per acre under the zoning code and he is at 1.8.”

Mr. Gray stated, “You misunderstand.  I spent a lot of time talking to Joni at the zoning office and he’s not allowed to put in 2.2 units per acre, he’s allow to put in lots at 20,000 sq. ft. and he has to take out the roadways, and take out the protected areas that he can’t touch.  Am I wrong?  If I’m wrong I’d like to know.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “I’m talking under the PUD, he is at 1.8 with his current plan with 129 units.”

Mr. Gray stated, “That’s why we’re fighting, the PUD plan.”

Mr. Benner stated, “The PUD plan is part of the township’s zoning book.  I has been change three times over the last two or three years.  It is basically set up so that these sorts of developments can occur and so these sorts of meetings occur.  A lot of us worked on getting that to occur and getting these kinds of things to come forward.  This development is an example of the kinds of developments that could go in under that sort of a regulation.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “In your presentation you refer to, at least on one occasion, some kind of study or plan from the township from 2000 and I would just like to point out that last year, the end of November, I received a copy of the Jackson Township Zoning Map Review Committee’s report.  If you go through this report they break down the township into the various quadrants and they have three paragraphs about the southeast quadrant.  I’d like to read the last paragraph for you about the southeast quadrant.  “Many of the undeveloped areas within this quadrant may be appropriate for a PUD type of development if well designed to be compatible with the adjacent land uses.”  So that is something that the map review committee recognized for the southeast quadrant of Jackson Township.  This is a more current version than the document that you’re relying on.”

Mr. Gray stated, “Yes, and I agree Ms. Magyaros that a PUD would be ideal because it gives you control.  The only thing is what it gives us are more cars.  You see it’s putting in 129 units when we know that you can’t put in 129, twenty thousand square foot lots on that property.”

Mr. Magyaros stated, “You would have more cars too if you put in rural residential.  It doesn’t matter.  What ever is built there is going to increase traffic.  That’s the reality of it.”

Mr. Gray stated, “What we are doing is fighting for the fewest cars possible.  All we’re doing is fighting to keep the traffic down because the traffic right now is unbearable.  If it takes one car, if one car takes 10 trips to the market, and I’ll tell you my mom is 82 years old and she still drives and she takes 10 trips a day out of Woodlawn Village, and she scares me to death.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “I keep hearing if this becomes a PUD, Tam O’Shanter is next.  Tam O’Shanter is a separate piece of property.  It is a separate issue and it’s not before us.  It was before us last year and it was denied.  That is not going to be a factor that we’re going to consider tonight.  Tam O’Shanter has been before us and this commission has denied it.”

Mr. Gray stated, “But it has to be a part of the discussion tonight because Tam O’Shanter, no matter what, is going to be developed.”

Mr. Benner stated, “That will be a separate issue.”

Mr. Gray stated, “We are being short sited because Tam O’Shanter will add more cars to Everhard Rd.”

Mr. Benner stated, “The reality of it is if you don’t own that property and you don’t have the capability of owning that property, you cannot control what happens to that property.”

Mr. Gray stated, “You’re right. But you can control how many houses go in there for rural residential.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “We’re not even going to start down that road tonight because that’s not in front of us.  We’ve got a room full of people that still want to talk and it’s going on 9:00 p.m. so were going to drop the topic of Tam O’Shanter.”

Mr. Gray stated, “I think everybody here is in agreement if we can stop one more house from going in there, we honestly believe that the PUD which is a great plan, if Mr. Corsi would say tonight that he’ll put in 110 houses I will back him.  If he says he’ll put in 129 homes, I’ll fight it and I’ll ask you to fight it because he can’t put in 129 homes on 20,000 sq. ft. lots.  There isn’t enough square footage there after you take out the land for the roads and for the ponds and for the protected wetlands.  There just isn’t.  If we have to fight 18 homes, well that’s 18 homes that won’t have cars going down Everhard Rd. and that’s what we don’t want.  We know everything is going to be developed but you see, one here and one there and one house here and one house there, it’s all going to add up and it’s going to become unbearable and I’m going to move to Lake because I’ve got two kids and right now Everhard Rd. is way to busy.”

Ms. Magyaros thanked Mr. Gray for his comments and asked if the commission has heard from everyone that is outside the meeting room.  No one came forward.  Ms. Magyaros asked for comments from the people inside the meeting room.

Mr. Mike Walsh stated that he’s lived in Devonshire Heights his whole life and he doesn’t want to see another house on the Vail property.  What comes to his mind is 15 or 20 years after this development is established and the homes are built, $200,000 a home doesn’t seem like a very pricy home to him but if it is shoddy construction it could be worthless in another 15 or 20 years.  They could bring in low income people to buy the houses.  Mr. Walsh stated he believes that green space is untouched property.

Mr. Dave Grabowsky, 2815 Brentwood Close NW stated, “I am very concerned about what’s going on with Jackson Township and with the zoning that’s going on.  I am very concerned that we have lost a vision and that’s the word people use today, vision, and no one’s using it today.  We talk about PUD’s because they are easier to put in because you have control.  If you look at Jackson Township and you look at the rest of the developments, they didn’t need PUD’s.  They put in houses one at a time.  If you put a good product in then people will buy it, that’s the way it is.  If you think people are going to cut all the trees and flatten it like a pancake and sell $250,000 to $500,000 homes, it’s not going to happen and that’s reality.  I have a prepared speech but I’m not reading it tonight because I feel very strong about this.  I think we’re missing what Jackson Township is about.  A week ago Tuesday when it was 5:20 p.m. I came across Hills & Dales Rd., I hit Whipple & Hills & Dales Rd. at the BP station and I waited through five lights and six minutes to go half a mile.  That’s where I used to ride my bike.  Today I don’t see anything or anybody along those roads.  Hills & Dales Rd. has pot holes in the middle of the summertime.  That road is 20 ft. wide.  To put a new residential road in Jackson Township today it has to be 24 ft. wide.   At least that’s what I was told.  That road looks terrible.  It is over used.  I have a map here that I want to show a few people and I want to talk traffic.”

Mr. Grabowsky presented the map and explained what it represented and stated there are 19,800 cars that travel on Hills & Dales Rd. in a 24 hour period.  Brunnerdale has 8,900 cars and the reason it is so much lower is because a developer came in and built a development for people and for the community.  We don’t have the heavy traffic on Brunnerdale.

Mr. Benner asked if Brunnerdale is a two lane Rd.

Mr. Grabowsky stated yes.

Mr. Benner asked how many lanes Everhard Rd. and Hills & Dales are in those locations.

Mr. Grabowsky stated that Hills & Dales has two lanes and Everhard has four lanes.

Mr. Benner asked if Fulton is four lanes.

Mr. Grabowsky stated yes.

Mr. Grabowsky stated that Glenmoor built a wonderful establishment that enhanced the standard of living in Jackson Township.  He’s not saying that this development will or it won’t but he is a contractor too.  He’s in the plumbing and heating business and has everything to gain by things being built but he doesn’t want to do it in his backyard.

Mr. Grabowsky stated, “This development is an anomaly.  If you look at all the developments through here we see all the roads where people live and all the houses that were built.  All the sudden we have a planned community.  It’s hard to see from maybe where you’re sitting but this is a much more highly concentrated area.  Fred Gray is right.  They can’t development and Rob Vail is a very descent man and   I don’t think he would sell a piece of property knowing that the developers are going to go in there and take out the ponds and flatten it like a pancake as been stated.  I don’t know if that would occur.  I can’t image somebody would do that and I can’t image you could sell property or a home on property that is like that.  If you look at the development here we have three areas where the traffic is coming out.  That’s the first area on Everhard, and by the way I was told by the planning commission that will be directly across from Willowcrest so now you’re going to have an intersection with these cars coming out right across from Willowcrest.  As you drive along Everhard you will have traffic coming from both sides.  You will also have egress coming out from Hills & Dales Rd.  You will have another one on what they call Marzelli Circle which is basically a dead end area which they are going to open up to take you back onto Brunnerdale.

Let’s look at Tam O’Shanter.  This abuts up to Tam O’Shanter and if we can put 129 homes here, how many do you think they can put in that area right there?  Probably three times the amount if not four times the amount.  People don’t want Jackson Township to be a city.  People live here because they want a rural residential neighborhood.  Everybody in this room is here because of that reason, just about, except a few people here that represents an attorney or maybe one that represents Tam O’Shanter, but I haven’t heard one citizen walk up here and say you know I want a planned development and I want a city here.  People don’t want cities here.  We want rural residential.”

Ms. Conaway stated that Mr. Grabowsky mentioned how nice Glenmoor is and how well the development has worked in the area and asked Mr. Phillippi if he knows how many units are in Glenmoor and how many acres there are.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he does not know the acreage but believes there are more than of 250 units.

Mr. Benner stated that there are three entrances and exits to the development.

Ms. Conaway stated that everyone knows what Glenmoor looks like and everyone seems to be ok with it.

Mr. Mark Weiner, 2800 West Dale NW stated, “I recognize your difficult decision because you’re afraid if you don’t approve this PUD then somebody many come in and knock off the hills and cut all the trees but the land will be sold to the extent that it has value.  I don’t look at it as if you’re rolling the dice if you don’t approve his plan.  We’re looking, as a previous speaker said, of putting in an urban development.  This is not a suburban development.  This is certainly not a rural residential development.  This is an urban development.  In addition to the detached dwellings at six units per acre there are also the attached dwellings, which frankly are row houses.  If you want to see dwellings that look like this you can go 77 north to Cleveland, go east on I-90 and look off to the right and you can see urban renewal and you’ll see a set of row houses.  I don’t know what was there before but that’s what you’ll see.  That’s what we talked about before, changing the character of Jackson Township and turning this rural suburban community into an urban area.  You’re kind of hiding an urban area behind a bunch of trees and a hill but your making an urban area here and we really feel that having it rural residential provides us protection, notwithstanding what Mr. Stevenson said last time.  When you listen to us and we make our pleading we don’t have the panelist that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Corsi has.  We have to use common sense and do some simple math.  The simple math that we do points out that we don’t trust what Mr. Stevenson tells us.  When he tells us he can put 150 homes in, that is not a creditable claim so then I ask you, “What else that he says do you trust?”

Mr. Lawrence Spore, 3854 Willowcrest NW stated, “You say you had a road count of automobiles.  It was there I think for one day.  It was taped across the road.  They put it on the west side of Wackerly.  They never put it on the east side where 90% of the traffic goes back east off of Hills & Dales Rd.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “My understanding is when I read through the traffic study, and if I’m wrong please correct me Mr. Corsi, is that the numbers that they used are from Stark County and those numbers are not something like they were doing last week, like you seeing a counter.  Maybe they are in the process of updating their records as far as traffic use but I don’t believe that they were out there doing it for this exact study.”

Mr. Spore stated, “Ninety percent of the traffic will go east off Wackerly Rd., not west.  Why didn’t they put it on the east side where you would get more of a true count?”

Mr. Benner asked, “How do they get back?”

Mr. Spore stated, “Ninety percent of them will come back the other way.  They come off of Hills & Dales Rd., onto Wackerly, and then they come up to Everhard and make a right hand turn.”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “I think the counter that you are seeing right now wasn’t for the purpose of this traffic study.  The traffic study was based on numbers that Stark County already had.  I think they are in the process of updating those numbers.  Do you know Mr. Corsi and if you do please approach.”

Mr. Corsi stated, “We used as instructed, we asked the commission what numbers they wanted us to use.  We used the county numbers.  We did look at some of the peak traffic hours as well to see if we could get more accurate numbers but we did use the county numbers.”

Ms. Magyaros asked, “But did you have traffic counters down?”

Mr. Corsi replied, “At the p.m. hours we did have traffic counters there because that would be your highest at peak p.m.”

Mr. Robert Bishop, 3861 Willowcrest NW stated, “They did a great job of taking Everhard Rd. from two lanes to four lanes.  There is a lot of traffic on Everhard Rd.  When I pull out of Willowcrest, frequently when I pull out, I have to turn left.  This plan is going to make that a cross road intersection which means I’ll have to pull out and I’ll have to watch left, watch right, and also cars coming straight at me.  So in the interest of preserving what you’ve accomplished on Everhard Rd., I would strongly recommend a turning lane on Everhard Rd. if this concentrated housing unit goes in there.  In other words if they are going to increase the traffic in this high traffic area now then I would strongly recommend a turning lane onto Everhard Rd.  I come down from the mall now on Everhard Rd. to make a left hand turn on Willowcrest and my eyes are always in my rearview mirror hoping nobody’s going to run in behind me because I have to slow down in a thru lane to make a left hand turn into Willowcrest.  So you can count cars and do all kinds of traffic studies but in reality you’ve got to look at a person’s individual situation, which no counting has done that.  We get out now on Everhard because of the traffic light situation.  We have a block of cars coming this way and a block of cars coming that way, and when those pass we have a clear zone for a few minutes where we can pull out and make a left hand turn.  That’s how it works now.  This plan here is going to make it far more difficult to do that and also far more dangerous.  I visualize down stream you may even have a traffic light there.  Not because of Willowcrest because as it stands now there are only a few houses on Willowcrest.  But if you’re going to bring the bulk of another area onto Everhard Rd. on the new Willowcrest and make that a crossroad intersection, I don’t think your county engineers, I mean they are public servants for us but honestly I can’t visualize what they did has anything to do with the situation I just put forward here now.”

Ms. Conaway stated, “That bothers me a little bit too and I did mention to Mr. Corsi tonight that I myself came down Hills & Dales, I was coming from Belden Village to make a right turn into Vail’s drive and I was very concerned that someone was going to hit me from behind and he did say that he would put a right turn lane there to regress off of Everhard.”

Mr. Bishop stated, “A right turn would help going into Vail’s but a right turn wouldn’t help otherwise. I think we need a right turning lane so we can pull out.  If it’s clear one way you can pull out into a turning lane and then eventually pull out into an operating lane.”

Ms. Sharon Wingerter, 5825 Laster NW stated, “I live on Laster and I can go Fleetwood to Brunnerdale and then I can go to Fulton or Hills & Dales or I can take my life in my hands and go up Meadowview and try to pull out onto Everhard.  I often make a right hand turn and go down to Amesbury and turn around because the traffic is terrible.”

Ms. Wingerter asked police officer Tom Taylor if there are a lot of bad accidents along Everhard Rd.

Mr. Tom Taylor, Sergeant of the Jackson Police Department, stated that anyone who drives Everhard knows that traffic is bad.  Fulton Rd. went from two to four lanes and the traffic has increased.  As far as accidents, at the intersection of Everhard and Fulton they see a lot of accidents there.  There is a lot of assured distance rear end collisions.  Mr. Taylor stated to answer the question, "has the traffic increased on Everhard Rd. with the widening," yes it has.

Ms. Jane Quilter, 2930 West Dale NW stated, “Mr. Benner had asked a question that I would like to answer but first I want to say that I grew up in Cleveland, lived in Akron for 25 years, and just six months ago I moved to Canton.  The questions that was asked was, and this is in regards to the east side of Wackerly Rd. or the west side of Wackerly Rd. as far as the traffic count and the residents observed that there was more traffic traveling on the east side of the road.  Mr. Benner asked, “How do they get back.”  I will answer that because I am one of the people who drive the east side of Wackerly Rd.  I go all the way around and come back down Hills & Dales Rd. from the other direction.  I go on Dressler Rd.  I go up to the Mall if I have to.  I go clear up to Fulton but I do not come back after the sun sets on Everhard Rd. and then go onto the west side of Wackerly because after growing up in Cleveland and fighting traffic and driving throughways my entire life, I am terrified to make that left turn onto Wackerly to take the other side of the road after someone coming down that hill.”

Mr. Dave Hoffman, 2814 West Dale NW stated, “I don’t think the board here can answer my question but perhaps the developer can.  I was wondering if I could buy one of your triplexes.”

Mr. Corsi stated, “You could buy a single family unit.”

Mr. Hoffman asked, “I couldn’t buy the whole unit, the whole building?”

Ms. Magyaros stated, “You could buy all three single family attached units.”

Mr. Hoffman asked, “I could buy the whole unit, so could I rent that whole unit then?”

Mr. Corsi stated, “No I said you could buy it.”

Mr. Richard Lolli stated, “The units are going to be developed individually.  In other words they will be fee simple so they will be separate units.  One person could buy multiple units but they could not purchase a so called triplex.  Len’s right it would be a triplex if you wanted to make three individual purchases which happen to be adjoining.  That’s possible.”

Mr. Hoffman stated, “So I can buy three units and I could rent them, is that correct?”

Mr. Corsi stated, “You could do that anyway.”

Mr. Hoffman asked, “Would this not qualify for section eight subsidized money rental then?  I would think it probably would.  Ladies and Gentlemen bring on the yahoos.”

Mr. Mark Warren, 5858 Woodhill Dr. NW, stated, “With the proposed development 1.8 houses would be proposed, and it would be a clustered or a high density development based on a smaller area out there.  The current zoning requirements are for 2.2 houses per acre.  My main comment on this is that I want to agree with Mr. Gray that due to the lay of this land and topography, there is a very large percentage of this property that is undevelopable because of either wetlands, ponds, natural drainage ways, and let’s not forget about the high ground water tables that would make it more of an unsuitable property for a housing development in that area.  I think as this relates to the development of that property and the number of houses being development and also the traffic count that would ensue because of that development, I think you get into a lot fewer cars during that peak traffic hour.  I can’t justify and I don’t know if the board can, that 129 houses in that area considering all those other factors, would be reasonable and be expected considering the topography.  I think that number of houses would be less than that.”

Ms. Kaye Rousos, 4715 Charlane Cir. NW stated, “My husband and I are senior citizens and were in a big home, came to Canton, went into a condo, and now we’re back in a two story house but that is not a plus for the development.  One on my big questions, and we weren’t at the August meeting due to being away, you said several times that there won’t be any impact on the schools.  Now how can you definitely say that you’re only going to sell to senior citizens?  You’re going to get families in there and we’re already building onto the high school to accommodate for children.  Also I have a question to, “Is Mr. Corsi’s company going to be the exclusive builder for the homes or will there be others?”

Mr. Corsi stated, “At this point in time we are looking to build many of the homes but we hope to build all of them.  We have design criteria that any purchaser, if we make available for anybody else to buy a lot who wants their own individual builder, they will have a design criteria which they would have to meet.  Just one clarification, many people have stepped up here and said that we have said this is a senior’s development.  We have never said that.  We said that a third is duel income-no kids, a third empty nesters, and probably a third seniors.  And that definition depends on what you want to call a senior.  I think I’m getting pretty close to a buckeye care myself.”

Ms. Rousos asked what the regulations would be for the buildings and if any are in the wetland areas would there be floating foundation.

Ms. Magyaros stated that they do not intend to destroy any wetlands by building on them.

Mr. Corsi stated that this is correct.  The locations of all of the homes are out of the wetland areas.

Mr. Ken Kot, 3465 Cornwall Dr. NW asked how many units they are allowed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that under the zoning for the R-3 PUD they are allowed to have 2.2 units per acre and their plan proposes 1.8 units per acre.  Under rural residential it’s by square footage and the minimum lot size is 20,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Kot stated, “That averages about 2.2 but the point is a lot of that land is probably undevelopable and that’s why they have to crowd all the houses in there.  If you take their comments they made in their presentation about the 35 acres of open space and if you subtract that from 69 acres you’re only left with 34 acres and if you put 129 houses on there that’s four houses per acre.”

Mr. Chris Weygandt, 3748 Wackerly NW stated that Wackerly will be overlooking the clusters of homes but the real issue is not the development of the area but the number of homes and right now all of the homes around them are the typical Jackson one-half acre lots.  Mr. Weygandt stated that he is looking for a home to buy and this area does not appeal to him at all in terms of the way the area is constructed.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. Magyaros stated that there are certain criteria under the zoning code that the commission is required to consider.  However, that isn’t always the case when they are considering amendment changes, but it is for PUD’s.  Ms. Magyaros read section 805.10 (A-H) of the zoning resolution.

Mr. Bergman stated, “As I look at the criteria there are a lot of things going through my head right now as there were before hand and probably will after I leave tonight.  I can’t find any statistical information that tells me that any of the hazardous situations with traffic or the growth of the school district or police departments or fire departments would be more adversely affected by doing the PUD verses a rural development.  I do, however, believe that the essential character of Jackson Township might be changed.  As presented by Mr. Grabowsky especially, thank you, we do tend to think of Jackson Township as much more of a rural district.  Thinking of a developed area much as I have seen up in Cleveland, and I to worked many years in Cleveland, as nice as they are and as much as I lean towards the character and what’s been developed here, I do believe that the character of Jackson Township could be changed dramatically by the introduction of a PUD in this method.”

Mr. Benner stated, “The main thing that I’ve heard tonight and I’ve heard for most of the time that I’ve lived in Jackson Township, are concerns over traffic.  Those concerns are legitimate concerns about traffic in this particular area and many of the other areas of Jackson Township.  I think there is some progress being made toward helping the situation in forming a four lane square around the township that helps move the traffic but the reality of it is the traffic is and will probably continue to be problems in Jackson Township.  You just don’t have the kind of roads that it takes to carry the traffic that all these homes, housing developments, and businesses actually generate.  Notwithstanding that I think the study that was done, I think that you look at the numbers that are there and as was pointed out there is a lot of traffic on some of those roads that are near this intersection.  Those roads are four lane roads and they were designed at one point in time to carry that kind of traffic.  You’re seeing changes being made to Portage to help carry that same kind of traffic away from Frank Rd. and other areas.  You’ve seen the same thing happen on Fulton Rd. which is one of the main thoroughfares into the Belden Village business area from the residential areas that are there.  So I hear what you’re saying about traffic.  I think this area is going to be developed whether it’s NexTerra’s plan to develop it or whether it’s someone else’s.  The bottom line is you’re talking about 10, 15, 20 homes.  The difference in traffic by 10, 15, or 20 homes is not going to make that much difference in a 21,000 a day traffic that you’re already maintaining.

The second thing, and it kind of comes back to some of the other comments that are made, I believe that three of the corners of that intersection of Brunnerdale, the Brunnerdale and Hills & Dales area, have planned developments or multi family homes already there.  As you pointed out there was observations from the map review committee that looked at those areas and looked at places like Glenmoor and others, that those are planned unit development areas already and there are already those kinds of homes there so I don’t think it necessarily changes the character of that part of the neighborhood.  There are a number of those already in that place.  I think a lot of the issues and concerns that people have as far as the cost of these homes that are going to be built in this development I know for example you live in a $300,000, $400,000, or $500,000 house, that someone building a $200,000 house some where near your house is a concern.  This is what I’ve heard loud and clear from you.  But a $200,000 house is not, as one of the gentleman stated here, is not section eight housing.  That’s not the kind of thing that these folks are trying to bring in to here.  They are trying to bring in a development, I believe, that does meet what Jackson Township’s regulations and requirements call for.  I’m not saying that the zoning book is everything that I think it should be or it’s everything that you certainly think it should be or you wouldn’t be here, but the zoning book is what the zoning book is today and the regulations that are there have been exceeded by the kinds of things that this developer has been proposing for here today.  Has he or his agents worked with you the way you would have liked them to work with you?  I don’t know, maybe, maybe not.  He is in this to make money and this property is going to be sold whether it’s developed by this developer or the next developer.  This type of development is on the books and that’s kind of the way I look at it.”

Ms. Conaway stated, “I’m going to pick up right where you left off.  This kind of development is on the books and I’m sitting here wondering tonight, why, because I don’t hear any of you saying this is what you want.  I hear all of you saying you want rural residential.  You want the rural flavor of Jackson Township.  I grew up on an 80 acre farm.  My father lived in Jackson Township.  My grandfather lived in Jackson Township.  I grew up on a farm.  I know what Jackson used to be better than anyone else probably in this room.  But I think they came up with a good plan.  This land is going to be developed one way or another.  I think sometimes when you leave it kind of out there, left rural residential, you really are taking a chance.  It makes me a little nervous but at the same time when I have a room full of people in front of me telling me for the majority that you are not happy with what is being proposed I have to listen.  I really do.  That’s how I feel.”
Ms. Magyaros stated, “I guess I’m a little bit disappointed in that I am a new member to the commission and we worked so hard formulating the PUD’s and changing them last year because we heard from everybody, green space, green space, green space, and tonight and even last month there was very little talk about green space.  I mean that was really my understanding at least of the purpose behind the PUD, so we could preserve green space.  So like you say, now maybe the residents don’t really care about that.  I don’t think that’s true, but that was at least one of the main purposes for the PUD.  I think the plan is a good plan.  I think the plan incorporates the existing features of the property and it is a beautiful piece of property.  It’s going to keep tree lines.  We’ve talked about buffer zones.  They’ve increased the buffer zones and it preserves 50% of the green space.  They are only required to keep 25% under the plan.  As I stated earlier, it only has 1.8 units per acre instead of the permitted 2.2, and the density is not greater than that permitted in the rural residential district according to the Stark Regional Planning Commission.  We’ve discussed the issue of buffers.  They’ve increased those buffers.  We did not hear anybody really, even last month or at this meeting, concerned about buffers, and that’s usually one of the big issues that we address at these meetings when we’re talking about rezoning.

We did hear the traffic study.  The traffic study indicates, based on the numbers from Stark County, that there is less traffic then there would be with rural residential by 35% and there is no roadway or signal controls warranted at this time.  We did not hear any negative impact on police or fire services.  No negative impact as far as the schools.  The best I can tell it complies with the State, County, and Township regulations.  We did address the one issue of the right hand deceleration lane that Mr. Corsi has agreed to put in and I think overall it conforms with the township’s land use plan for responsible growth.  I pointed that out in this document from the map review committee.”

The board had no further comments.

Ms. Magyaros asked for a motion to vote on amendment #530-03.

Mr. Benner made a motion to vote on amendment #530-03.

Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Bergman-no, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Conaway-no, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the vote is a tie.  Under the zoning regulations a tie vote goes as a no recommendation to the township trustees.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board recently adopted a procedure in case there is a tie vote.  Ms. Magyaros read section nine under the Jackson Township Zoning Commission rules of Procedures which stated, “Upon the commission registering a tie vote on any amendment a motion may be made by any member to withdraw the previous vote and table the matter for further rehearing.  Such a motion for reconsideration must receive a concurring vote of a majority of the members present in order for the matter to be tabled.  The matter shall be considered tabled, a new hearing date and time shall be determined and no further public notice shall be required.  At the hearing on reconsideration the matter shall be reconsidered by the members then sitting on the commission, including alternates, regardless of their involvement at the original hearing.”  Ms. Magyaros stated that there is a member that is absent this evening who is out of the country.

Ms. Magyaros asked for a motion by the board to continue the hearing for the vote so Mr. Russell may be present and stated it is her understanding that it would have to be a concurring vote of the majority of the members present.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion, according to section eight of the rules of procedures for the zoning commission, that the board reconvene this matter and take another vote because of a tie vote.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Bergman-no, Mr. Benner-yes, Ms. Conaway-no, and Ms. Magyaros-yes.

Ms. Magyaros stated that there was not a majority vote for reconsideration so the board will not reconsider the vote.  The recommendation will go as a denial to the trustees who will schedule the hearing at their meeting on September 29, 2003.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary