Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS FOR 2007
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Deremer stated that administrative
decisions needed to be made regarding the appointment of officers for the
new year. He asked if anyone had a nomination for the position of
chairman.
Mr. McDonnell moved to nominate Mr. Deremer to continue as chairman for another year, stating that he thought he has done a fine job and would continue to do so.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-abstained
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. Dodson moved to nominate Mr. McDonnell
for the position of Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-abstained, Mr. Deremer-yes
APPEAL #2056 - Jeffery V. Scott requests a variance for a minimum lot width of 50 ft. at the 100 ft. setback where 100 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.5 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 7507 Braucher St. NW, North Canton, Ohio, 44720, Section 9 NE, Zoned R-R, of Jackson Township.
Mr. Deremer explained the reason for the appeal is to split an existing lot into two lots which will not meet the zoning requirements due to existing structures and leach bed location. He went on to list the artifacts present in the file: a sketch of the parcel in question, showing the lot split as requested, and an aerial view and map from the Stark County Auditors office showing the parcel, along with the adjacent parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Jeffery Scott, 7507 Braucher St. NW, North Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Scott stated that he had been approached by someone who is interested in building a house on part of the property that he owns. There is roughly 3 and ½ acres, which is more than he believes he needs. The lot would probably be split about fifty-fifty.
Mr. Deremer asked if it would then be a flag-shaped lot, cut out of the rear.
Mr. Scott answered yes, adding that the people desired this kind of a lot, where their house would sit back off of the road. The lot that sits directly behind is one that no one could ever build on. It’s one lot with three different property owners. This proposal would not affect the privacy of the surrounding lots.
Mr. Deremer said it shows the property goes back 350’ at 50’ wide and asked what precludes them from widening out to 100’ at 100’ back?
Mr. Scott answered that the garage that he built a year ago would be within the 80’ setback area. And the septic lines also run in that area. The way the proposal is laid out, these things would stay on the parcel owned by him. There’s a barn in the back with 30 feet behind it to the property line.
Mr. Deremer asked if the parcel that would be created is big enough for a sewer to be installed.
Mr. Scott answered no, that the owner would be installing a septic system.
Mr. Deremer asked if this issue had been researched and found to be a viable option.
Mr. Scott said that he was about ready to do that testing, along with a survey, but had decided to pursue the zoning variance appeal first.
Mr. Deremer asked for questions.
Mr. McDonnell asked for more specific details on the exact location of the garage. He noted that it appeared to him that it would be situated about 50’ from the new proposed property line.
Mr. Deremer asked if there was a sewer line anywhere on Braucher, and if not, whether there were any plans for putting one in, in the future.
Mr. Scott said no, and that he is not aware of any plans for installing one in the future. There is a sewer line in the allotment to the West.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any other persons present who would like to come forward to speak in favor of the appeal.
No one replied.
Mr. Deremer then asked if there was any person present who wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.
No one replied.
Mr. Deremer asked for comments from the board members.
Mr. Dodson said he believed that flag shaped lots are unfavorable and did not see a practical difficulty unless someone could enlighten him.
Mr. Deremer shared that he foresaw practical difficulty with the size of the new lot and the situation of the garage and the septic tank.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he had reviewed the zoning resolution book, page 803.5, sub-section B. He believes that the garage would be the problem for the applicant himself, but that the position of the septic tank could present some practical difficulties, however it will not adversely affect government services.
Mr. McDonnell moved to approve the appeal as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
Mr. Deremer informed Mr. Scott that his request had been approved by a vote of 3-2, however he warned him about possible challenges ahead with the office of regional planning.
APPEAL #2057 - Don Chen, 5833 Vantage Hill NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646. The applicant is Cavella & Hair Inc., 515 Perry Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708.
Mr. Deremer: The decision being appealed is a request for a variance for a 22 ft. south side yard setback where 25 ft. is required when abutting a side street per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. The property affected is 5833 Vantage Hill NW, Massillon. This property is located in Section 16 SW, and is zoned R-R, of Jackson Township.
The reason given for the appeal is that the lot in question is a corner lot and no neighbors would be directly affected by this variance.
The application was signed by Douglas Hair. The artifacts present in the file: a site plan and an aerial view from the Stark County Auditor website showing the parcel in question, as well as the adjacent parcels.
Who will be speaking on behalf of the appeal at this time?
Mr. Deremer swore in Douglas Hair, 515 Perry Drive NW, Canton.
Mr. Hair referred to the drawing and asked those present to notice that there is a septic tank and a leach bed where the new garage is, on the rear of the property. This shows that the rear of the property was not an option and the front would also require a variance, which left the side option. The two service doors are adjoining. Mr. Chen’s wife has MS, so there needs to be enough room in either side of the garage for a five foot turn around for her wheelchair. The garage will be offset and will have a gable roof to match the home and neighborhood. In looking at the aerial view it’s clear that the garage will not inhibit views in either direction.
Mr. Deremer asked if the garage would be built on the same side of the lot as the house.
Mr. Hair answered yes. He added that there will not be an entrance between the house and the garage, but rather the service entrance will be set apart.
Mr. McDonnell asked why the existing garage did not allow for the necessary five foot turn around.
Mr. Hair answered that it would if there were only one car using the garage, but we need the garage to accommodate two cars.
Mr. McDonnell asked how close the adjacent property was on Cranford Street.
Mr. Hair answered that he didn’t measure it, but that in eyeballing the situation, the garage on Cranford and his new proposed garage are in a similar position. This request is based on need, not what others in the neighborhood have done.
Mr. Deremer asked for any other people present to come forward to speak on behalf of the appeal.
No one replied.
Mr. Deremer asked for anyone present to come forward to speak in opposition to the appeal.
No one replied.
Mr. Deremer asked the board members to share their thoughts.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he believes that the variance request is minimal, being that it was only a request for a difference of three feet and the applicant needs the extra space. The spirit and intent of the zoning resolution is not being violated, therefore I would give my approval to grant this request.
Mr. Giulitto moved to approve the appeal as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
APPEAL #2058 - Jackson Friends Church, property owner, 7945 Portage NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646. The applicant is The McKnight Group, 3351 McDowell Rd., Grove City, Ohio 43123.
Mr. Deremer:
The decision being appealed is the request
for a conditional use permit for an existing church with an addition where
a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning
resolution. Property located at 7945 Portage NW and the premises
affected is at the same location. This parcel is located in Section
9 SW and is zoned R-R, in Jackson Township.
The reason for the appeal, as written by the applicant, is for addition of a multi use facility and additional parking.
The application was signed by Matthew Davis. Artifacts found in the file: some typed answers to the issues dealing with conditional use permit, the specific standards, the general standards, standards related to the specific use, a site plan prepared by the McKnight Group on September 8, 2006 for the Jackson Friends Church labeled as Phases I and II Site Plan, some color renderings of the site improvement, an aerial view from the Stark County Auditor’s website showing the existing parcel, adjacent parcels, and the current zoning and a full size drawing of the church’s proposed improvements.
Mr. Deremer swore is Matthew Davis, representing the McKnight Group, 3351 McDowell Rd., Grove City, Ohio.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Davis what was his relationship with the McKnight Group.
Mr. Davis replied that the McKnight Group is the design build group for Jackson Friends Church. The group is looking to add a multi-use facility to the existing facility and also potentially add more parking around their facility as well, increasing their ability to minister in this area. There will be several classrooms added on the East side and the parking goes along the North side of the existing lot that they have. Some of the existing parking will be eliminated and replaced in the new space. The design group has remained worked to stay within all of the published ordinances for setbacks, etc. and the effort includes trying to create more green space.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Davis if he was requesting the permit for both Phase I and Phase II at this time.
Mr. Davis said that they are currently looking at implementing Phase I only, and will attempt Phase II in a year or so, however would like to have both approved at this time.
Mr. Deremer asked the main differences between the two phases.
Mr. Davis explained that Phase I is the construction of the multi-use facility with improvements to existing structure, while adding a gymnasium. On the East side is a two story addition with a kitchen, and there will also be parking changes and expansion. Phase II is a single story classroom addition that will be built in the future as they need to expand.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if she had a chance to review the site plan.
Ms. Poindexter answered yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the proposed conditional use permit met all setback requirements, parking requirements, and landscaping requirements.
Ms. Poindexter answered yes it does.
Mr. McDonnell then verified that there would be no variances required. Ms. Poindexter confirmed this to be true.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if there was a time limit on the conditional use permit since the applicant stated that he may not be attempting Phase II of the project for one or more years.
Ms. Poindexter answered that as long as they pick up the conditional use permit within a year and then they pick up their zoning permit within a year of obtaining the conditional use permit. Once they pick up the zoning permit they have to start construction within a year.
Mr. McDonnell then verified that if the board approved the entire request, that Phase II would have to begin within two years, otherwise they would have to come back for another conditional use permit.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Davis the following questions from the Jackson Township Zoning Resolution Book:
Questions from section 431.2:
Is it your testimony that this will not be detrimental to the property values in the immediate vicinity?
It will not.
Is it your testimony that this will not adversely restrict the existing use of the adjacent property owners?
It will not.
Is it your testimony that this will be constructed so that all access points, streets, driveways, parking areas, shall meet with the approval of township trustees or country and state agencies where applicable?
Yes it is.
Is it also your testimony that the construction shall meet the requirements of EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable?
Yes it is.
Is it your testimony that it will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe condition?
Yes it will be.
Questions from section 431.3 C:
Do you happen to know the hours of operation?
No, I don’t and unfortunately there is no one here from the church that can answer that question due to the fact that they just received the letter about this hearing yesterday and all of them had previous engagements this evening.
Are there currently any classrooms existing at this church?
Yes there are.
Are there currently activities taking place at this church that are similar to what will take place after the expansion?
Yes there are.
Is it your testimony that all points of vehicular entrance and exit are located no closer than 100 feet from the intersection of two arterial streets?
Yes.
Do you happen to know how far the entrance on Portage is, from the intersection at Arlington and Portage?
Not exactly, but it’s about a couple hundred feet. It’s certainly more than 100 feet.
Do you know if they intend to increase the amount of lighting at this facility?
There may be a couple of new lights added for the parking in the Northwest section, if needed. On the Northeast side, the existing lights will be relocated to take care of that area and all of that will be done to meet local ordinances.
And the type of lighting that will be added will be similar to what’s currently there?
Yes, if we can get the same materials.
Are you aware of whether the owners have any floodlights, search lights, or loud speakers and/or the intention to use them?
No, not to my knowledge.
Are trash receptacles going to be moved from their current location? Or will there be any new trash receptacles added?
There are not to be any added, and the existing ones will remain in their current location.
Have the grading and service draining provisions been prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County subdivision engineer, if applicable?
They’re actually in the process of being finished up so that they can be submitted for approvals.
Questions from section 431.6 F
The schematic indicates that Item 1 has been met. It is located on an arterial collector street with direct access to such and is not going through a residential area.
Yes.
Are there any outdoor children’s activities that are part of the conditional use permit?
No I don’t believe so.
Is it your testimony that all activities, programs and other events shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted and shall be adequately and properly supervised so as to prevent any hazard and to assure against any disturbance or nuisance to any surrounding properties, residences or the community in general?
Yes.
The drawing does not indicate where the emergency exits will be. Are you familiar with where these exits will be placed?
I am somewhat familiar.
Mr. Davis marked on the schematic, where the exits will be.
This concluded Mr. McDonnell’s line of questioning from the zoning resolution book.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience would like to come forward to speak in favor of this conditional use permit.
No one replied.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience would like to come forward to speak in opposition to this conditional use permit.
Mr. Deremer swore in Dan McKim, 7876 Shanta Clara Avenue.
Mr. McKim said that he is not necessarily opposed to the appeal but that he did have some concerns. He believes there is some question of detriment to the property value of the surrounding homes, one of which is his. It sounds as if this is going to be turned into a school of some kind that would be expanding beyond what the church’s normal activities are. He said he was not aware of the addition of classrooms until this evening. Another major concern is the storm water runoff and the general conditions in the immediate vicinity. There are hydric soils that surround the homes in his development which is directly adjacent to the church in question. In the last four years, there have been two situations of considerable flooding and because the property is in a low land area, and there are wetlands and hydric soils immediately around that area, he is concerned that the results of engineering studies may be absent or perhaps inaccurate. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a compromise cannot be reached and the church has been a good neighbor, however he is very concerned about these conditions.
Mr. Deremer asked is he knew which way the storm water hits, off of their property, in general.
Mr. McKim said if the parking lot is taken into consideration, it heads toward his property. The grade is toward his backyard. As it relates to the building, however, he said he wasn’t sure.
Mr. Deremer verified that Mr. McKim’s property is on the East side of the church.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. McKim to clarify the conditions that he would like the Board of Appeals to impose upon the church.
Mr. McKim said he would like assurance that there would be an adequate engineering study done. This neighborhood has had its fair share of storm water issues and issues related to development in the past. The first concern is the storm water runoff. Secondly, an assurance that this addition would not affect the property values of the homes nearby. Perhaps one idea might be to erect a better barrier, such as a fence or landscaping, that would separate the church property from the neighboring houses. This is a suggestion for discussion.
Mr. Davis replied that The McKnight Group has employed a local engineer that is designing a storm water system for this project. The plans are not complete but are being done to comply with current EPA, state, and local guidelines and restrictions. From the time that the church was built, up until now, a lot of restrictions have changed in storm water management. Hopefully the drawings will be done by the end of the month.
Mr. Deremer asked if the basis of the new regulations were targeted to create less impact on adjacent properties.
Mr. Davis replied yes that’s true. Post construction runoff has to be equal or less than the amount that occurred prior to the new construction. The addition and the new parking should not impact what’s there, if anything it will help improve some of that.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Davis to verify that registered engineers are exploring these issues.
Mr. Davis replied yes, that is correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked if that report will go to the Stark County sub-division engineer for their review.
Mr. Davis replied yes, it will go to all required municipalities and agencies.
Mr. McDonnell asked if that was, in fact, a requirement, not a choice.
Mr. Davis replied yes, that is correct.
Mr. Deremer asked for final questions or comments.
Mr. Davis reiterated that he was working for the church and that all restrictions and guidelines are being followed and that the church is paying for everything necessary to make sure the project stays within all legal boundaries. He said that he would speak with both the church and the neighbors about easing any concerns that may remain.
Mr. Deremer closed the floor to public comments and asked the board members to share their thoughts.
Mr. McDonnell said that the board historically approved conditional use permits where the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the general criteria and specific criteria that had been developed and laid out by the trustees in the zoning resolution and this case looks like that. The concern about the drainage is being addressed and must be approved by the Stark County sub-division engineer. The only area that this board member has a question with is the fact that the applicant (or the representative for the applicant) could not address it, was hours of operation. If the board were so inclined to grant the conditional use permit, because they had no testimony as to hours of operation it is preferred that a condition be added that the hours of operation for the addition shall be the same as the current hours of operation. Any deviation from that would require them to come back to the board. Current hours of operation should be provided and that can be done through the zoning office.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the original construction of the building obtained a conditional use permit.
Ms. Poindexter answered no, it did not. She stated that the reason for the conditional use permit at this time was because the church, with the new addition, would be larger than 25%, which is non-conforming.
Mr. Juergensen stated that his opinions match Mr. McDonnell’s in this case.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the conditional use permit, with the additional condition that the hours of operation remain the same.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES for October 12,
2006
Mr. Juergensen moved to approve these
minutes as written.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES for November 9,
2006
Mr. McDonnell moved to approve these minutes
as written.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McDonnell moved to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Saba
Zoning Data Coordinator