Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Member absent:
Jim Giulitto
Alternate absent:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #1993 – Steve & Pam Porter, property owner, 2719 Mill Ridge Path NE, Massillon OH 44646, applicant is Tom Collins. Property located at 5757 East Shore Blvd NW, Sect 14SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer stated that he has a memo from Joni Poindexter stating that the applicant has withdrawn and re-filed for the September 8 meeting due to changes made in the application. He read the file into record.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to withdrawal appeal #1993 as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #1994 – Gary & Sherie Brown, property owner, 7045 Waltham NW, Canton, OH 44708 requests a variance for a 3 ft. left side yard setback where 10 ft. is required and a 3 ft. rear yard setback where 15 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 7045 Waltham NW, Sect. 34NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Gary Brown with reason being there is a drainage line in rear of property, therefore, he is unable to put shed in back of property. The file contained a letter from Hills & Dales Free Methodist Church expressing their opinion on the appeal, however, the letter was not notarized therefore, it was not read in to record. The file also contained colored photographs of the property and a map showing the adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Gary A. Brown, property owner, as representative of appeal.
Mr. Brown stated the he is requesting a variance for a 12 x 18 yard barn. The structure cannot be located 10 ft. from west line to due catch basin as noted in map. Catch basin was installed in 1997 by Stark County Engineers. Line was originally suppose to be further to left, however, due to tree obstruction, he gave permission to install on his property. If within the 10 foot setback I would be in the catch basin.
Mr. Brown stated the side yard picture reflects if structure was 15 ft. from south, it would be too close to residence on side yard. The picture facing towards property of church shows there is no other structures close to yard barn. The last picture shows a dip in the back yard with a 3-4 grade difference. Even though there is a catch basin, previous to 1997 there was a creek in the back yard, therefore, the yard fills up when it rains.
Mr. Brown stated the reason for 12 x 18 shed is he recently purchased a lawn tractor with a landscape trailer to maintain rental property that he owns in Massillon. He needs an enclosed shed to store his equipment to keep out of weather.
Mr. Brown stated he has a letter from Hills & Dales Free Methodist Church signed by all trustees showing they do not have problems with shed in that location.
Mr. Deremer asked how wide the easement is in the location of the catch basin.
Mr. Brown stated that he does not know.
Mr. Deremer asked how thick the pipe is.
Mr. Brown stated that he believes it is 40 inch pipe.
Mr. Deremer stated he understands the difficulty with the side yard, however, he is struggling with his point in the rear yard.
Mr. Brown’s response was if he pulls it up from the rear yard, he will be reaching the side yard and esthetically looking at the property from the road, it will bring it closer to the side. As far as location, it is best location in his opinion.
Mr. McDonnell asked how far it is from the barn to the tree?
Mr. Brown responded about 20 feet.
Mr. McDonnell asked if shed is yet to be build or already in place?
Mr. Brown responded that the shed is already in place.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the fall of land is different in the backyard versus the corner where shed is currently located.
Mr. Brown stated that when the county came in and enclosed the creek and built up the grade to about 4 foot to stop flooding of his basement, which happened previously. The county built the property up to keep water in catch basin. Location where shed currently is located is higher than other yard.
Mr. Deremer asked if shed is on a concrete pad or if it would be easy to move.
Mr. Brown stated it is on skid and would be tough to move. Probably weighs about a ton.
Mr. McDonnell asked why there is gravel around shed.
Mr. Brown stated the back corner was off about 3 feet, and the gravel was put there to bring it up to level.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in audience would like to speak in favor.
Ms. Rosemary Gallucci, 7025 Waltham NW, Canton, OH property owner next door, was sworn in. Her only question was if this is concerning the shed that is already in place or a new structure.
Mr. Deremer answered this is for the shed that is currently in place.
Ms. Gulleche stated she had no problem with the structure.
No one else spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed the meeting for public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. McDonnell stated that they need to find a practical difficulty with the property or structure itself to grant a variance. He feels that the fact that the county came in and put in a storm sewer, shows there is a water problem. Also, he can see where there is a problem with the storm sewer moving it closer to the house. Having difficulty with rear yard set back, just being 3 feet off the rear. The character of neighborhood would not be essentially altered allowing this variance. Not strong on back yard set back, however can go either way. He feels he met requirements for side yard set back.
Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. McConnell concerning set backs.
Mr. Deremer agreed with the side yard setbacks. Water is running from the north across the property and not catching in the catch basin, therefore water is in the rear yard. He stated that he would agree to approve the variance.
Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. Deremer.
Mr. Dodson asked if it would be possible to split the request in two requests. One for rear and one for side yard setback.
Mr. Deremer stated that both requests are already presented in one.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1994 as requested.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer informed Mr. & Mrs. Brown that they are approved by a 3 to 1 vote.
APPEAL #1995 – James & Janette Summers, property owner, 6517 Amblewood NW, Canton, OH 44718 requests a variance to allow a swimming pool in the side yard where a pool is only permitted in the rear yard of a residential lot per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6517 Amblewood NW, Canton, OH Sect. 15SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by James Summers, with reasons being that their home has no backyard and there is an easement to Dominion East Ohio Gas. If home was facing Corrine Drive, they would have no problem. The file contained a mortgage location survey and an aerial view of the property and adjoining properties.
Mr. Deremer swore in James Craig Summers, 6517 Amblewood NW, Canton, he and his wife own the home and he will speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Summers stated to the rear of his home there is another home about 10 feet off the property line. The side of his home is completely open. Since he has a corner lot, if the house was facing Corrine, they would have no problem. Mr. Summers called attention to the aerial map showing the tree area beside where the pool will be built. He stated this entire project will cost approximately $60,000. They intend on structuring with rod iron fencing and landscaping. To the rear is a gas transmission line which makes a 90 degree right angle on his property line and heads east, therefore, must meet a 30 foot easement to Dominion East Ohio Gas. They would like to set the pool back at least 4-5 foot from the front of home.
Mr. Deremer questioned if the gas line setback changed since he bought the house.
Mr. Summers stated that it has not changed. It was filed in 1945. Mr. Summers stated that he called Dominion East Ohio Gas Company and the transmission group flagged the line of the gas pipe. They measured from the flags, not from the plot map. The plot map may not show precisely where the line is at. It is 30 foot from line from either side.
Mr. Deremer asked if it would be an in ground pool.
Mr. Summers stated that yes it would be a fiberglass in ground pool with a concrete patio and deck with a rod iron fence with additional masonry features. The home is brick and they would like to replicate the same brick in the pool as in the home.
Mr. Summers stated that they have talked to most of their neighbors and they have not received any rejections to place the pool on the side.
Mr. Deremer asked if any part of the pool will set behind the house.
Mr. Summers stated that it will be close to the rear corner of the home but not behind the home.
Mr. Dodson questioned Ms. Poindexter if the house owner had the option of changing the address to Corrine Drive since it is a corner lot.
Ms. Poindexter stated no due to the house requires a 40 foot setback off of Corrine Drive and they only have a 30.6 off of Corrine Drive.
Mr. Juergensen asked if they intend to comply with all other respects of the zoning resolution for swimming pools and landscaping.
Mr. Summers stated absolutely they are planning on complying with all other zoning resolutions.
Mr. McDonnell questioned the 30 foot gas line setback that is hand drawn on the survey map. Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Summer to clarify that the gas company did come out and flag the gas line.
Mr. Summers stated that the transmission department from Dominion East Ohio Gas came out and placed the flags exactly where the gas line is located on the property. The gas line is suppose to be right on property line, however, the line is actually in his property line. The 30 foot drawn on map, is roughly the distance between where it is going to be placed and the pipeline.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the problem he is having is that the board is required to find a practical difficulty and if they do grant a variance to make sure the variance is least offensive to the zoning resolution, meaning the minimal variance required. Mr. McDonnell stated that he has a hand drawn sketch showing a 30 foot setback versus a professional surveyor showing it appears to be 10 foot further back. To be less offensive to zoning resolution would be to move the pool further back in the yard. Mr. McDonnell clarified that he is not saying he does not trust the gas company, however, the professional surveyor is stating differently.
Mr. Summers stated that he contacted the Director of Dominion, Steve Williams, who is located in the Cleveland office. He looked at the deed restrictions and he stated it is 30 feet on either side of pipe line. Mr. Summers stated that he can only go by what Dominion is stating and that is 30 foot from flags. Mr. Summers stated that he would also like to place the pool further back in the yard, however he has to respect the information that Dominion East Ohio Gas Company is supplying to them.
Mr. McDonnell understood what Mr. Summers was stating however he was just sharing his concerns on the differences of where Dominion East Ohio Gas placed the flags versus a professional surveyor.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the drawing is a representation of what they want to do as far as placing the pool.
Mr. Summers stated yes, within a few inches this is where they will place the pool if approved.
Mr. Deremer asked if they went 30 foot from the property line they would be able to place the pool.
Mr. Summers answered that was correct.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Deremer closed the meeting to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Dodson stated that his thoughts are that due to the 30 ft. easement with Dominion that they met the requirement for a practical difficulty and he would be in favor of granting the appeal.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agreed with Mr. Dodson that the 30 feet easement from the gas line is a practical difficulty and they are as close to the setback by putting it somewhat in the back yard. That would make it less offensive to the resolution, therefore he would be in favor.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1995 with the provision that the pool be placed not more than 30 feet from the gas line.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer advised Mr. Summers that they are approved.
APPEAL #1996 – James McCormick, Two Chatham Center, Suite 401, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 agent for Hillsdale-Canton, LLC, property owner, One South Main St. Second Floor, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022. Applicant, Sheetz Inc, 5700 Sixth Avenue, Altoona, PA 16602 requests a conditional use permit for a car wash facility where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property located approximately 1.82 acres at the southwest corner of Hills & Dales and Whipple Avenue, Sect. 36NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed
by James McCormick, and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.
The file contained a letter dated August 3, 2005, addressed to Ms. Poindexter,
from Hillsdale-Canton, property owner, advising her that they are leasing
the property to Sheetz for a carwash and Hills-dale Canton consents to
the structure. Also in the file is an overhead view from the Auditors
office showing the adjacent parcels. Marked as ‘Exhibit A’ is a 6-page
document with responses to general criteria for specific uses. A
site plan, from Atlas Surveys showing the proposed layout. A proposed
site plan of the Sheetz Store and a landscaped plan for the property.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak
in favor of this appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in James McCormick, Leonardo
Sferra, and David Hazelet that will testify on behalf of Sheetz, Inc.
Mr. McCormick stated that the carwash will be a portion of the overall project. The project will be a Sheetz Store and will have 18 fueling stations with 16 pumps. The car wash is approximately 819 square feet. The resolution book requires a conditional use permit for the car wash in a B-3 district. They comply with the general criteria for conditional uses in Sect 431.2 and specific standards contained in Section 431.3. They also comply with the lot and yard requirements in Section 431.5, and the one supplemental 431.6 in the resolution book.
Mr. McCormick introduced Leonardo Sferra as the project engineer who works for GBD Group, 520 South Main St, Akron, OH 44311 and are the design professionals for the overall project. Mr. Sferra took part in full design of the project.
Mr. Sferra walked through the site plan showing the proposed layout of the property. The building is 5800 sq foot, and the car wash is 819 sq feet. The building will be used as a restaurant/convenience store/gas station. All of the gas islands will be under a canopy. There are 8 gas islands, 16 bays, and underground storage tanks for fuel. There is an enclosed dumpster that will have the same masonry as the building and car wash. There are 43 parking stalls and the size of property is 1.82 acres.
Mr. McCormick stated he would like to walk through the requirements for the conditional use permit in Chapter 431 Section 431.2 of the resolution book. Response to the criteria is marked Exhibit A.
Mr. McCormick asked Mr. Sferra the following
questions:
A. If the proposed car wash will
be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity?
Response was No.
B. Will the car wash proposed by Sheetz adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners? Response was the car wash will replace an existing car was and is in accordance with governmental requirements.
C. Is the car wash designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or county state agencies where applicable. Response from Mr. Sferra was yes, we are working with ODA because we had to modify the drive. Asking for a right in only from Whipple. We are in the process of working on this, so this will be the only modification from plan.
D. Will the site meet the requirements of EPA for storm water run off. Response from Mr. Sferra was yes it will.
E. Will it be properly landscaped according the Section 411.9 pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval? Response from Mr. Sferra is yes, we are working with planning department.
F. Will it be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe condition? Response from Mr. Sferra was yes to the best of his knowledge it will be.
Mr. McCormick stated that they meet all of the general criteria for conditional uses now would like to proceed to Section 431.3 and review the specific standards for conditional uses.
B. Conformance with District Regulations: A conditional use shall conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located and to other substantive requirements of the Zoning Resolution, as well as satisfy the conditions, standards and requirements of this Chapter. Whenever there is a difference between the provisions of the conditional use regulations and the district regulations, the provisions of the Chapter shall prevail, unless clearly indicated differently in the regulations.
Response from Mr. Sferra was that yes, project will comply to above.
C. Specific Development Standards.
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals may limit
the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible
with the surrounding uses.
2. For parcels of one or more acres, all
points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than one
hundred feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or fifty feet
from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.
3. No lighting shall constitute a nuisance
or in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.
4. Floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers
or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will
cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants
of adjacent property.
5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately
screened.
6. Grading and surface drainage provisions
shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by
the Stark County Subdivision Engineer, where applicable.
Mr. Sferra answered that yes they will comply to all of the above.
Mr. McCormick moved on to Section 431.5 showing the schedule of minimum lot and yard dimensions for conditional uses in commercial and industrial districts.
Mr. Sferra stated that they meet all of the regulations for a B-3 Commercial Business District.
Mr. McCormick stated that he believes it is safe to say that they comply with all of the general, specific, and the supplemental regulations for a conditional use.
Mr. Juergensen asked the hours of operation.
Mr. Sferra stated that he believes it is open 24 hours, however, Mr. Hazelet would be better qualified to answer that question.
Mr. McDonnell asked how far the nearest entrance is to the intersection and if it meets the 100 ft. setback.
Mr. Sferra stated that it measured 180 feet and yes it meets the necessary requirements.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the plan meets all of the necessary setbacks for a B-3.
Ms. Poindexter answered yes it does meet all the required setbacks.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if she reviewed the landscaping requirements and if the plan meets all of the requirements.
Ms. Poindexter answered that yes, it meets all of the landscaping requirements.
Mr. McCormick introduced David Hazelet, Director of Real Estate, he has worked for Sheetz Inc, for 30 years. Sheetz currently has 314 stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland.
Mr. McCormick referred back to Section 431.2, will it be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe condition.
Mr. Hazelet responded that yes it will
Mr. McCormick referred back to Section 431.3, floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants of adjacent property.
Mr. Hazelet responded that they will not
Mr. McCormick referred to Section 431.6 Supplemental Regulations for Certain Uses. A. Automobile, truck, boat, trailer and farm implement sales, storage or repair and car wash shall be operated so that all activities, except those required to e performed at the fuel pumps, shall be carried on inside a building; if work is performed on a vehicle, said vehicle shall be entirely within a building.
Mr. Hazelet responded that yes they will
Mr. McCormick asked the proposed hours of operation.
Mr. Hazelet responded it will be open 365 days a year and 24 hours a day.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the Bell Store to the east of the property is opened 24 hours.
Mr. Hazelet said he could not answer that.
Mr. McDonnell questioned if there will be any loudspeakers outside of the building.
Mr. Hazelet answered that there is one automated loudspeaker outside of the carwash built in the unit and as you pull up it asks you what type of wash they want.
Mr. McDonnell asked if this station’s lighting will be substantially different as the Sheetz station currently located on West Tuscarawas in Perry Township.
Mr. Hazelet stated that it would not be substantially different.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it would be the same lighting on the building and pumps as the station in Perry Township.
Mr. Hazelet stated that it will be the same lighting on the pumps, however the building design has changed. Along with that design change it involved relocating some of the light fixtures on the building.
Mr. McDonnell asked what type of light fixtures are on the building.
Mr. Hazelet stated that he can not answer that.
Mr. McCormick entered the map Mr. Sferra walked through as Exhibit B for the file. He stated the only change will be the landscaping has moved over.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one spoke in opposition. The meeting was closed for public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the gas station is allowed in a B-3. He feels the applicant meets the requirements for the car wash. He does not have a problem with approving.
Mr. Juergensen stated he concurs with Mr. McDonnell and also has no problems with it.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with both Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Juergensen.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion for the approval of appeal #1996.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer informed the applicant that they are approved.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of 7/28/05. Mr. Deremer and Mr. McDonnell were absent at the beginning of the meeting. Since only two members were present that are able to approve the minutes, the decision was made to hold for next meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator