Members Present:                                                                  Rodney Napier
                                                                                                 Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                                 James Bauder
                                                                                                 Dave Benner
Alternate Member:                                                                 David Clatterbuck
 

Absent Member:                                                                     Donna Conaway

Zoning Administrator:                                                             John Phillippi

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                      Joni Poindexter

Assistant Law Director:                                                          Dave Ferrell

Mr. Napier stated that the first matter on the agenda is the minutes from July 18, 2002.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to approve the minutes from July 18, 2002 and Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

AMENDMENT #517-02 – William Day, 4821 Nobles Pond NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Amherst Group LLC, property owner, 6929 Portage St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-1 (Single Family Low Density Residential District) 21.399 acres on the west side of Amherst Rd., approximately 536.33 ft. north of Beatty St. and R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-3 ( Multi-Family Planned Development Residential District) 10.367 acres at the northwest corner of Amherst Rd. & Beatty St., Sect. 20SW Jackson Twp.

Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for denial and the facts considered in their recommendation.

Mr. Napier stated that Mr. Benner would recuse himself from voting on amendment #517-02.

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

Mr. Bill Day of 4821 Nobles Pond NW stated that he is the agent for the applicant.  The property is approximately 30 acres and they are requesting to rezone twenty-one acres from R-R to R-1 and to rezone ten acres from R-R to R-3.

Mr. Day stated that R-1 is very similar to the R-R zoning in that they both allow single family.   For the R-R district 20,000-sq. ft. is the minimum lot size and in the R-1 district the average lot size is 14,500 sq. ft.  Mr. Day stated that typically it has been granted that if utilities are there, the R-R gets rezoned to an R-1 but that is not necessarily cast in stone.

Mr. Day stated that he would spend more time on the R-3 proposal, which is shown in green on the map that he is presenting.

Mr. Day stated that the R-3 is a special type of zoning that was introduced three or four years ago.  Mr. Day stated that in the past in order to build more than one unit a multi zoning had to be requested.  The problem was that although people may like what was being done, if multi zoning was permitted then apartments could be built.  The R-3 zoning was initiated with the intent to be more restrictive with the density.

Mr. Day stated that seven units per acre is permitted in the R-3; however, he is proposing only five units per acre.  Mr. Day stated that a site plan is part of the rezoning request and no major changes can be made unless it is submitted back to the board.  Mr. Day stated that basically what he is presenting to the board is what he intends to build.

Mr. Day stated that he is not a property owner, he is only an agent for Amherst Group, LLC who is the present property owner.  Mr. Day stated that the Brenners originally owned the property and they have retained four or five acres and still live on the property.  Mr. Day stated that the property has been in the Brenner family for 169 years.

Mr. Day stated that they are trying to keep an Irish tone and the R-1 project would be called Scottsbury Hills and the condo portion would be called Scottsbury Green.

Mr. Day stated that he has a contract for the 10-acre portion that they are proposing to rezone to R-3.

Mr. Day stated that Skip Rea would speak on the R-1 request.

Mr. Skip Rea 8230 Lutz Ave. NW stated that he has been involved with a lot of the allotments in Jackson Township.  They were concerned about how they were going to handle the two pieces of property that go around the existing house.  They went to Bill Day and enter into a contract with him to try to get the R-3 zoning and then sell the property to Mr. Day and then they would build under the R-1 zoning if approved.

Mr. Rea stated that the homes would sell from $225,00 to $275,000 and he believes there is a need for this because not everyone can afford big expensive houses.  They plan on building a buffer along Amherst with mounding and trees.  Mr. Rea stated that there would be three cul-de-sacs and feels the two plans would blend together.

Mr. Rea stated that the water retention as going to the north, there is a pond on the old Ilg property and they plan on doing one of two things.  Either pipe the water to the pond or put a temporary retention basin in until the 33 acres between them and the old Ilg property is developed.  Mr. Rea stated that they have pretty much worked out everything for the sewer and water, as they are available.

Mr. Napier asked if currently there is water and sewer at Gentry St.

Mr. Rea stated yes and it’s very easy to tie into.

Mr. Day stated that he held a neighborhood meeting on 8/28/02.  Mr. Day stated that a lot of neighbors attended the meeting however not everyone.  Mr. Day stated that there was a concern about the access point of the single family but he believes this was resolved.

Mr. Day stated that the Brenners are in support of the rezoning.

Mr. Day stated that the streets would be private with no through streets and each side would have its own entrance.  There would be a total of 50 units.  Each would be a single story with no basement and 2 car garages.  Mr. Day presented a photo to the board that showed the design of the buildings.

Mr. Day stated that with his project in Massillon, Abby Glenn, of the 70 units sold 100% are owner occupied.  Of those sold, 40 consist of one person households while the remaining 30 consist of two people households totaling 100 people or 1.43 people per household.  Mr. Day stated that 90% of the residents are of retirement age and 100% of the residents are over the age of 21.

Mr. Day stated because there are no basements and there are restrictions on the common areas such as no swing sets etc., they tend to get almost 100% of an adult community.

Mr. Day stated that a traffic study had been done.  Mr. Day presented a copy titled “Traffic Information” to the board and also a letter from URS, Erie W. Smith regarding the traffic count.  Mr. Day stated that the traffic study was conducted in April of 2000 for the Barrington Place Condominium Community at the intersection of Barrington Place and Groton St.

Mr. Day stated that the study shows that the count at Barrington Place for 80 units is 271 trips per day or 3.4 trips per unit.  Mr. Day stated that for single family detached housing with 80 units there is 844 trips per day or 10.55 trips per day per unit.  For Elderly housing with 80 units attached there is only 278 trips per day.

Mr. Day stated that he has calculated estimated traffic flows at the proposed access drives to Beatty.  At the cul-de-sac drive he calculated 5 trips generated in one-hour or one trip every 12 minutes.  At the entrance to the circular drive he calculated 9 trips in one-hour or 1 trip every 6-2/3 minutes.  Mr. Day stated that the calculations are based on taking the average of 3.4 trip/units/day multiplied by the proposed number of units.  That number is then divided by 12 to give the number of trips in an hour and he has used 18 units on the cul-de-sac and 32 units on the circular drive.  Mr. Day stated that this same 10-acre site would accommodate 22 single-family homes.  Using the estimated trips per day for single family detached homes of 10.55 trips times 22 units equals 232 trips per day or 19 trips per hour which is almost 37% higher then the trips generated by condominium use for the same site.

Mr. Day stated that he feels there is less an impact with the proposed R-3 then there would be for an R-1 district.

Mr. Day stated that he feels R-3 is the best choice not only for the neighborhood because of less noise and traffic but it is also the most economic and supports certain goals and recommendations of both the county and the township’s comprehensive plan.  Mr. Day stated that it also allows more affordable choices for housing.

Mr. Day stated that when Regional Planning voted on his proposal the vote was eleven for denial and five for approval.  Mr. Day stated that it seems when Regional Planning is in doubt they go to their favorite expression, which is “could be considered spot zoning generally found by the courts to be illegal”.

Mr. Day stated that the file contains a letter from Terry Moore, Esq. regarding his opinion on the case law.  Part of the letter states, “Case law in Ohio requires that the courts and townships look at all circumstances regarding the proposed zoning request including the actual use and impact rather then just the proposed zoning classification.  In the instant case, Regional Planning Commission acknowledges that there is a nonconforming use for a four family unit to the west and a church near the subject premises along with R-1 zoning uses to the east of Amherst.  All three of these uses would have a more intense impact upon the surrounding area than your proposed development.  Single family and multi-family residential structures with children necessitate increased traffic and use than your low impact seniors development”.  Mr. Day stated that there are also some letters in the file from residents that are in favor of the rezoning.

Mr. Napier asked if the project is designed so if in the future the Brenner’s property was rezoned, would it allow for a contiguous uniform R-3 community.

Mr. Day stated that there is a good chance that it would.

Mr. Napier asked Mr. Day if the Brenner’s decided that they wanted to have their section rezoned to R-3, does he have an overlay that would allow that community to all become one.

Mr. Day stated that they haven’t thought that far ahead.
Mr. Bob Oberlin of 435 16th St. Massillon stated that he is a real estate appraiser.  Mr. Oberlin presented a sheet showing the original sale prices of condos and how they increased in value.  Mr. Oberlin stated that condominium development would have no adverse affect on single family homes.

Mr. George Smerigan of 10 W. Erie St., Panesville, Ohio stated that he is representing Amherst LLC.

Mr. Smerigan stated that utilities are available at the site and the area is not in the outlined area of the township.  Mr. Smerigan explained the different zonings in the area of the proposed site and stated that there is a PRD development to the north.  Mr. Smerigan stated that the Amherst corridor is a developed corridor and there are different types of zoning.

Mr. Smerigan stated that the key issue is what are the impacts of the zoning change.  He believes changing from R-R to R-1 wouldn’t have any impact and R-R to R-3 may be a little less obvious but there are some issues as to what really is the impact.

Mr. Smerigan stated that there are plans to improve the intersection of Beatty and Amherst Rd. and there would be less traffic for this type of development than with conventional single family homes.  There are no through streets within the main development and if developed under the conventional stark county requirements they would require the streets to be looped and there would be through streets.

Mr. Smerigan stated that when Regional Planning recommended denial he is not sure they understood the true character of the area and that it is not really a rural area of Jackson Township.

Mr. Smerigan stated that it is his opinion that what is being proposed complies with the principal’s articulated in both the January 2000 Jackson Township plan and the 20/20 Stark County plan.

Mr. Ed Fenstermaker of 1427 Tylers Mill Lane stated that he wants to speak on behalf of the condo’s.  He previously lived around the Brenners for 58 years.  His wife got sick and they had to move because everything needed to be on one floor.  Mr. Fenstermaker stated that they moved to the condos on Hankins Rd. in Masssillon and they love the place.  Mr. Fenstermaker stated that there is a need for this type of housing and they are very well maintained.

Mr. Napier stated that for the record, there are three letters received by the zoning commission from Mr. & Mrs. Shonk, Maurice & Leona Brenner, and Mr. & Mrs. Robinson stating that they are in favor of the amendment.

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

Mr. Napier asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. William Georges of 5102 Revere stated that he has 4.92 acres in which he has lived on for 29 years.  His tree line immediately adjoins the tree line that borders the purchased property.

Mr. Napier asked Mr. Georges to show the board where his property is located on the map and if it is contiguous to the property in question.

Mr. Georges stated that his property is addressed on Revere.  His east tree line is shared with the Lebo’s and Betty Gross.  His south tree line borders the Lebo property and Mr. Sander’s property.

Mr. Georges stated that his property is not shown on the map.

Mr. Napier stated, “so it is not contiguous to the property in question”.

Mr. Georges stated that he is not contiguous to the property so he did not receive a notice but his property will be affected in a negative way.
Mr. Georges stated that there is no such thing as conditional zoning.  This is only a proposal.  If changed to from R-R to R-3 the only way it can be reversed is with a referendum.

Mr. Georges stated that what he is concerned about is that he does not envision any benefit to his property or any other property owners within the block.  In fact he sees it negatively impacting the properties.

Mr. Georges stated that again the plan is only a proposal and cannot be relied upon for a zoning change and the board needs to look at why Regional Planning denied the request.

Mr. Georges stated that there are no funds allocated for the road improvement at the intersection of Beatty and Amherst.

Mr. Georges stated that the R-3 zoning is not appropriate and he is against the request.  The board needs to remember this is only a proposal and they are not bound in any way, shape, or form to put any of these things in.

Mr. Roger Musser of 8720 Beatty stated that his driveway would be right across from the driveway for the condos.  Mr. Musser stated that he is concerned about maintaining the value of his property.  When there are 50 units crammed into a limited amount of space they are ugly.  Mr. Musser stated that he looked at other condos and does not think they are appealing.  Mr. Musser stated that the price of condos for resale was researched but there was no research done for the prices of the single-family homes.  Mr. Musser stated that he believes the request should be denied.

Mr. Brad Cioca of 8549 Beatty stated that if looking at the big picture, at Fulton and Amherst there’s going to be condos.  They want to put condos on the proposed property and further down there’s another requests for condos.  Mr. Cioca stated that his problem is that the infrastructure of the township is not going to fit the needs.

Mr. Cioca stated that he has trouble pulling out onto Amherst because the traffic situation is so poor.  Mr. Cioca stated that if the developers want to propose these types of developments then they need to pay for the infrastructure instead of using tax dollars.

Mr. Cioca stated that they have talked about lowering the hill at Amherst and Beatty but until they do it nothing should be put on Amherst Rd.

Ms. Debbie Rohr of 8903 Beatty stated that Betty Gross is her mother and she lives to the west of the Brenners.  Ms. Rohr stated that no one has mentioned the hill that is at her mother’s driveway.  It is very dangerous because there is a blind spot and you cannot see.  It will be more dangerous with more traffic.

Ms. Rohr stated that she agrees that the property values will decrease and if the property is developed she thinks it should be with single family homes on large lots.

Mr. Napier asked Ms. Rohr if it is her desire to see the surrounding property remain single family.

Ms. Rohr stated that she would like to see rural zoning and does not think condos would blend in.

Mr. Brian Specht of 9087 Gladys NW stated that the infrastructure is out of hand.  He moved to the area because he wanted to be out in the country.  The schools are over crowded and he does not know how much more they can handle.  Mr. Specht stated that he believes that the property should be developed with single family homes.

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

Mr. Smerigan stated that they are not proposing assisted living or subsidized housing.  They are proposing condos and are bound by the plan that is presented.  If the plan is approved then this is what would be built.  If the plan changed then they would have to start the process all over again.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that previously the board had a similar situation off of Jackson Ave. and the developer had sold most of the units and it was a very successful project.  Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he doesn’t know exactly what people are opposed to.  They are saying traffic but he can’t believe its traffic because his belief is that these units have consistently attracted the older and retired people.  Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he believes the overall traffic will be less and single family would create more traffic.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he does not believe it is spot zoning and is not opposed to the request.

Mr. Bauder stated that he does not believe it will increase traffic as much as single family homes would and the road will be difficulty regardless and is not going to stay at the present traffic rate.  Mr. Bauder stated that he feels this is one way to maximize utilization of ground area for the maximum number of people.  Mr. Bauder stated that he has seen the condos and they seem to be occupied by empty nesters with only one or two people per unit.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she agrees with the traffic analysis and thinks the condos would actually cut down on the traffic as opposed to putting in all single-family homes.  Ms. Magyaros stated that she is sensitive to the fact that there is a need for this type of housing in Jackson Township.

Mr. Napier stated that he agrees that this is a good land plan and blending uses of land.  Mr. Napier stated that he believes the project has merit.

Mr. Napier stated that there was one comment that Mr. Musser made that needed to be addressed and this is the project at Barrington St. where he was concerned that it could possibly decrease the value of homes.  Across from Barrington is Glenmore and there is a house at the entrance of Glenmore that is $500,000 so they can co-exist and have appreciated values.

Mr. Bauder made a motion to vote on amendment #517-02 as submitted.

Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

AMENDMENT#516-02 – The Jackson Township Board of Trustees proposes text amendments to Art. II, III, IV, V, VI, & VIII including but not limited to Planned Residential Developments.

Mr. Napier stated that this amendment was continued from 8/15/02.  The board would like to go out of order and hear amendment #517-02 and then go back to amendment #516-02.

Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion to move amendment #516-02 to the end of the meeting.

Ms. Magyaros seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

AMENDMENT#518-02 – T.O.P. Enterprises, Shawn O’Brien, 216 Navarre Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44707 agent for Wayne & Beverly Spies, property owner, 1240- 21st St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44709 proposes to rezone (C-P) Canal Parkland District to R-3 (Multi Family Planned Development Residential District) 37.43 acres on the east side of Erie Ave., approximately 190 ft. from the intersection of Erie Ave. & Revere, Sect. 30 NE & SE Jackson Twp.
Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for approval and the facts considered in their recommendation.

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

Mr. Shawn O’Brien of 1460 Hill Brook SE, Canton stated that he is the proposed developer along with his partner Fred Tobin.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he would like to clear up something that Regional Planning had stated about part of the property not being zoned Canal Parkland.  The property goes across Revere and the small triangular piece across the street is zoned B-3 and is not included in the rezone request.  Regional Planning also was concerned that the northern part of the property was not zoned Canal Parkland however it has been confirmed that the entire area is currently zoned Canal Parkland.

Mr. O’Brien presented some photos to the board showing the proposed property and stated if looking at the entire area there are several types of zoning.  Across the river is industrial zoning, to the south is B-3, Canal Place condos is to the northeast and zoned R-2, to the east is R-1 and B-3, to the north is R-R, and R-1 is to the west.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the property that they are buying is actually 40 acres; however, they are going to donate three acres of land between the towpath and the river to Stark Parks.  Mr. O’Brien stated that this land could not be developed even if it was not donated.

Mr. O’Brien stated that they envision a trail going across the front of the property then going up Revere for the community to have a safe way to go to the towpath.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the 40 units that back up to Riverbend and the Andyville allotment are going to be villa’s.  Mr. O’Brien stated that a villa is a single family detached home that has an association to take care of snow and trash removal and lawn care.  They are a preferred way of housing for our senior citizens.

Mr. O’Brien stated that when doing Canal Place they were building duplex condos in the area and they were finding that they weren’t selling very well and there was resistance by just having an 8-inch difference between the units.  Mr. O’Brien stated that they switched the plan to single family detached condos and they have done very well.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he has worked with the people of the township as far as developing the plan and has received quite a bit of input from them.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he believes this is within keeping of what they want to see.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the hill is 60 ft. up and the people who purchase the single family detached homes will look directly over the hill.  Mr. O’Brien presented some photos showing the hill and the types of villa’s that would be built.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the townhouse apartments would all be four units.  He purposely put the word apartments on the plan because he did not want to deceive anyone.  It is his vision that he would like to see 4 unit condos, because they are townhouse condo’s which have never been built in Jackson Township as far as he knows.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he is looking to build the townhouses in the $90,000 to $100,000 price range.  Mr. O’Brien stated that if the for some reason they wouldn’t sell he wanted to have the option of them becoming apartments so that he could rent them out.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he held a meeting for the adjoining neighbors and only two people showed up within a three-hour period however he did speak with Mr. Scala and Mr. Ferdinand separately.

Mr. O’Brien stated everything that was heard at the previous zoning change works also for this zoning request.

Mr. O’Brien presented a photo of townhouses that were built in 1970 in North Canton that were originally apartments and then was converted to condos.

Mr. O’Brien stated that Regional Planning had said that they were concerned about the number of entrances or driveways onto Erie.  The reason he felt there needed to be two on one side and two on the other is because of the two different types of housing that would be developed.  Mr. O’Brien stated that the site lines have been checked and every entrance will work.

Mr. Benner asked what the distance is between the two closest driveway entrances.

Mr. O’Brien stated about 100 to 150 ft.

Mr. Benner asked if there is enough room in between the property line and where the properties are to put in an access road to come out in one or two places.

Mr. O’Brien stated that they actually have another option at this point because of listening to what Regional Planning had to say.  He has a modified plan that would eliminate the 4 unit townhouse apartments and also eliminates one of the entrances, which the board would like to consider it.

Mr. Benner stated that Mr. O’Brien had mentioned that he was building two family condos down the road at Canal Place and he was having trouble selling them and asked if he has a reason to believe that he could sell the 4 unit ones.

Mr. O’Brien stated yes and the reason is because of the price.  The duplex condos that they were trying to sell were in the $170,000 to $180,000 price range.

Mr. Benner stated that there is a large drop from Revere to Erie St. and asked if Mr. O’Brien perceives any problems with water.

Mr. O’Brien stated that there is a pipe that runs underneath Erie that goes all the way to the Tusacrawas River.  There has been talk that it has been a desire for the actual Ohio Canal to be returned to its original splendor.  They would like to talk to them a little bit more about using that so that the water that would come from up top would be utilized for their idea of trying to create or make the Ohio Canal back to its original splendor.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the county had approved the drainage.

Mr. O’Brien stated not at this time.  Before he took on the expense of the engineering he wanted to make sure that the zoning was approved.

Mr. O’Brien stated that if the land were developed with duplexes under the C-P district they would actually equal the same number of units that are proposed.

Mr. Benner asked where the water and sewer would tie in from.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the sewer is on Erie and water is on Revere.

Mr. Dan Poole of 8486 Noble Loon stated that he is neutral and lives in the Andyville Allotment.  He does not know if the board knows the history of the land but it’s a sand and gravel pit and there was never a drop off like there is now until they striped all the sand and gravel off.  Mr. Poole stated that they were always told by the board of zoning appeals that after the ground was stripped nothing would ever be built because the ground wouldn’t be conducive to any type of building.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks the board probably was talking about its present use at that time.

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

Mr. Napier asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Bruce Gasber of 4422 Andette stated that although the townhouse apartment may be nice, fifteen or twenty years down the road they loose their value and he is concerned about the property values. Mr. Gasber stated that he is in favor of all single-family homes.

Mr. Napier asked Mr. Gasber if he understands that the single-family homes are the ones that are contiguous to his property.

Mr. Gasber stated yes.

Mr. Paul Ferdinand of 3422 Miles NW stated that he owns Paul’s Auto which is next to the proposed site and his property is zoned B-3.  Mr. Ferdinand stated that he does not like to see residential pushed against his property.  He has been at the same location for 22 years and the property next to his was always commercial until the township decided to rezone it Canal Parkland.  Mr. Ferdinand stated, now there is going to be apartments behind him and after 10 years or so we all know what happens to apartments, they go down hill.

Mr. Ferdinand stated that with residential around him he is afraid that people will start complaining about his business but he was there first.

Mr. Jack Kobie of 4434 Andette NW stated that his property backs up to the proposed villa’s and agrees that apartments are not desirable.  Mr. Kobie stated that he would like the area stay rural.  If there are more people then there is going to be more traffic and he is opposed to the request.

Mr. Harold Smith of 9268 Rohrland stated that he would like to compliment the developer because he does have a nice plan presented on paper.  Mr. Smith stated that he has lived at his property for 30 years and has seen many changes and asked why the property was rezoned to Canal Parkland.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the Canal Parkland zoning came about a number of years ago.  At that time the township thought this would be good idea to allow a bed & breakfast business and other types business along the canal.  Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the group that was helping to revise the zoning thought that they shouldn’t have done that but the township thought they were doing a good thing.

Mr. Smith stated that apparently no one took advantage of the Canal Parkland zoning so now it’s up for rezoning again.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Canal Parkland zoning is all along the canal.

Mr. Smith stated that the property still has trees and elevation changes and would like to know what Mr. O’Brien’s plans are for the elevation changes, especially to the north and west.

Mr. Smith asked what the zoning rules classify as a condo, townhouse, villa, and single family because he couldn’t find them identified in the zoning book.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it is not a physical thing; it’s a political entity, the way the political structure is made up.  Condos could be single family, townhouses or multiple units.  It’s how the government of it is set up.

Mr. Phillippi stated that there are single family detached condos and this is what is being sold at Canal Place.  They are single family units where people own the unit but not the land.  When referring to a villa, it is a single family home where the owner owns the land and the home but there is an agreement where the association takes care of the lawn, snow removal and trash.

Mr. Smith asked how a villa compares to the townhouse.

Mr. Phillippi stated that a townhouse is an apartment that is owned by the developer and rents it out.

Mr. Smith asked if someone could purchase a townhouse.

Mr. O’Brien stated yes.  He said that he would like to have them as condos also but a townhouse type of condo so they would be attached and would be able to sold.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the villas would be 1,400 to 1,600 sq. ft., and 4 unit condos would be 1,200 to 1,500 sq. ft. and the townhouses would be 1,200 to 1,400 sq. ft.  Mr. O’Brien stated that the villas would have a basement but the condos and apartments would be on a slab.  All villa’s will have a two car attached garage and the apartment will have garages attached to the end of the building.  There is also a plan to have the garages actually in front of the buildings but they haven’t decided on which one to use.

Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned about green space and the character of the area and would like to see a plan approved by an engineer before anything could be built.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that Mr. O’Brien couldn’t build until he has a plan approved by an engineer and Stark County.

Mr. Smith asked if there would be any sidewalks.

Mr. O’Brien stated that there would be a sidewalk on one side of street where the villas are located.

Mr. Smith asked what the time schedule is for phases one, two, and three.

Mr. O’Brien stated that phase three would probably be done first, phase two would coincide at the same time and phase one would probably be the last phase to be done.

Mr. Smith asked if there is any possibility that the plan could change.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the zoning is based on the site plan and whatever the site plan shows is what has to be built.  The only changes that can be made are minor changes such as digging down and finding there is bad soil so a building has to be moved a little bit.

Mr. Smith stated that initially he was going to ask if it was possible to have phase one and two designated as R-3 and phase three designated as R-1 so the multi family would be separated from the single family but he is not sure if this is feasible since they are all part of an association.

Mr. Napier stated that it is possible but this is not what Mr. O’Brien is requesting.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. O’Brien if he has figured out what the ratio of green space to paved or built up structure areas would be for the property.

Mr. O’Brien stated that they are considerably less then what the requirement is.

Mr. Smith asked what control Jackson Township has over how the townhouses and condo associations operate so they don’t deteriorate with their effectiveness.

Mr. Napier stated that the township has no control over the ownership status of any organization that operates or manages the condos or associations of any kind.
Mr. Smith stated that he sees this as a weakness.

Mr. Smith asked if there would one or three associations.

Mr. O’Brien stated that there would be three associations.

Mr. Smith asked if personal property storage buildings would be permitted.

Mr. O’Brien stated they would probably not be permitted on the property.

Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned about the wells because he still uses a well for his water.

Mr. Napier stated that he recommends Mr. Smith contact the EPA and they would do what ever is necessary to protect the water supply because the commission has no control over this.

Mr. Smith thanked the commission for their time and complemented Mr. O’Brien on his plan however he recommends that the zoning commission give serious consideration to having two zoning types.

Mr. Chris Scala of 8188 Wales Ave. NW stated that Mr. O’Brien had mentioned that he had an alternate plan and he would like to see it before he speaks if Mr. O’Brien is prepared to show it.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he had just picked up the plan before the meeting.  The 40 single-family units would remain basically the same, the unit quads would continue into the townhouse portion and the townhouses would be eliminated.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he would actually like to have an entrance by the area C15 so there would be four streets coming onto Erie Ave.

Mr. O’Brien stated that there would be 78 condos and 40 single-family lots for a total of 118 units.

Mr. Scala asked if the board would be voting on the first plan or the alternate plan.

Mr. Napier stated that at this time the proposal that the board would be voting on is the original plan however Mr. O’Brien has the ability to change to the modified plan.

Mr. O’Brien stated that when speaking to Mr. Scala the preference was that he was more comfortable with the four unit condos and no townhouses so in order to work with that they came up with the alternate plan.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. O’Brien which plan he would like to submit.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he would like to hear from the residents on their preference and if they prefer the alternate as opposed to the original then he would modify his request.

Mr. Napier asked if there is anyone in the audience that spoke for or against the request that would like to see the plan which is basically eliminating the apartments.

Mr. Ferdinand stated that he would prefer the alternate plan.

Mr. Napier stated that it is up to Mr. O’Brien as to if he wants to modify his request.

Mr. O’Brien stated that he would like to modify his plan to concept layout plan B.  Mr. O’Brien stated that the townhouses would be eliminated and instead of having three associations there would only be two.

Ms. Magyaros asked if there would only be four roads onto Erie as opposed to five.

Mr. O’Brien stated this is correct, as discussed.

Mr. Napier stated that the modified site plan would be marked as exhibit #1 and asked if the commission had any comments on the modified proposal.

Mr. Bauder stated that the plan is satisfactory to him.

Mr. Napier stated that he did have one concern regarding what Regional Planning had indicated about the small portion not be zoned Canal Parkland.  The map still shows that it is included so the board needs to color that portion or indicate with a number that it is not being included.  Mr. Napier stated that this area would be marked as area 51 and the record will reflect that area 51 is not included in the requested zone change.

Mr. Scala stated that he is the owner and president of American Sand & Gravel that is across the river from the property.  Mr. Scala stated that his operation has been on going for about 75 years and believes it has been zoned industrial since zoning became effective.

Mr. Scala stated that he does not object to Mr. O’Brien’s plan but it seems like the transitional zoning between residential and industrial has been taken away and this is something that the board needs to consider.

Mr. Scala stated that an industrial section can’t be set aside and then houses built right next to it and not have the ingress and egress out.  This is something the board needs to think about.  Mr. Scala stated that single-family and duplexes can be built in the Canal Parkland district and if the board decides to change the zoning, it’s been changed several times before.  Mr. Scala stated that he wishes the board would think about this and look beyond that piece of property and what is happening.

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

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to vote on amendment #518-02 as modified.

Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Mr. Napier stated that the board has recommended approval.

AMENDMENT#516-02 – The Jackson Township Board of Trustees proposes text amendments to Art. II, III, IV, V, VI, & VIII including but not limited to Planned Residential Developments.

Mr. Napier apologized to the members of the audience for the delay.  He did not think the last hearing would have taken so long.  Mr. Napier stated that the board typically adjourns at 10:00 p.m. and it is already after 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the board would not be able to get through the changes at this hearing in a reasonable length of time.

Mr. Benner stated that people have been waiting for 3-1/2 hours.

Mr. Bauder asked if the board could find out what the residents concerns are and then review the changes later.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board should at least hear what the residents have to say.

Mr. Napier stated that he would like to have anyone speak that is in favor of the proposed changes.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that there are more changes and the residents may want to speak against the changes.

Mr. Napier stated that he needed to first get the amendment on the record.

Mr. Napier stated that this amendment is continued from 8/15/02, which are proposed changes to the zoning resolution.

Mr. Napier stated that he would like to go out of order and ask if anyone has any opposition to the proposed text changes.

Ms. Pam Richarson, manager of Lake O’Springs, stated that it is her understanding that the township wants to get rid of the PRD or modify it in some way.  Ms. Richarson stated that her property is zoned commercial non-conforming with a residential overlay and it is her understanding that Jackson Township paid to have a study done that recommended the Planned Residential Development to allow a creative configuration of the homes to accommodate such areas as walking trails, play areas and sports fields.

Ms. Richardson stated that there must have been a good reason why the township approved PRD’s to begin with and now less than three years later the township is talking about changing it.  Ms. Richardson stated that it seems like it’s because of one development that the residents had a problem with.

Ms. Richardson stated that PRD’s were recognized as a way to allow developers to plan homes around existing natural structures and to save large trees.  Ms. Richardson stated that her property is a perfect example for the logic of using such a plan.

Ms. Richardson stated that her property is for sale and they have a potential buyer however if the change is made her property will be devalued and she asks that the board consider the benefits of the PRD and not to eliminate it.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that they board is looking to restructure the PRD to a PUD which would be a zone change.

Ms. Richardson stated that her objection to this would be that the residents never want anything rezoned so it would still affect her property values.

Mr. Shawn O’Brien wanted to know if the board received a letter a letter from the BIA.

Mr. Napier stated that they have received a letter dated 9/19/02 that is part of the record and he will make sure that it is part of the information that they vote on at the next hearing.

Mr. Dan Poole stated that he came to the meeting more or less for an education on the PRD.  There is an area by where he lives that is being considered for a Planned Residential Development and he would hate to see something acted upon that may be relevant to the case.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the PRD he is talking about would be applied for under the present law.  What they are talking about will have no effect on anything already applied for because the rules have not changed.

Mr. Phillippi stated that there is a hearing on 9/26/02 for a PRD and if Mr. Poole has any questions he can come into the zoning office and get his concerns addressed.

Mr. Poole stated that he came to the meeting to find out if there is anything that they need to know to address the hearing on the PRD scheduled for 9/26/02.
Mr. Napier stated that he does not believe so.  There is a packet that has all the text changes highlighted that is available to the public.

Ms. Poindexter stated that Mr. Poole could come into the office and pick up a packet of the proposed changes.

Mr. Phillippi explained what the proposed changes are for the PRD regarding modifying it to become a PUD and a zone change.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments.

Mr. Napier stated that before a motion is made to continue the amendment he would like to compliment John and Joni for the fabulous job in organizing the changes.

Ms. Ann Markel stated that she would like to tell the residents in the audience that the township has a very good Zoning Administrator and if the residents have any questions or concerns regarding the PRD they can go into the zoning office to have them answered.

Mr. Napier asked that the new items be included in next months packet with a different highlighted color and all amendments presented again as one packet because the way it has been presented is very easy to follow.

Mr. Napier stated that the last item for the evening are the minutes from 8/15/02.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to approve the minutes from 8/15/02.

Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion to continue amendment #516-02 until 10/17/02 at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Magyaros seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary