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

Alternate Member:                                                                         Richard Russell-Absent

Planning & Development Director:                                             John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                            Joni Poindexter

Ms. Magyaros asked if the commission had any comments on the minutes from the meeting held March 18, 2004 or a motion.

Mr. Bauder made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held March 18, 2004.

Mr. Benner seconded the motion.

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

AMENDMENT #540-04 – Thomas Winkhart, 801 South Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Willmoll Development Co. Ltd., property owner, 821 South Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 proposes to rezone R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) to B-3 (Commercial Business District) 12.8680 acres of a 57.91 acre tract located on the east side of Wales Rd. south of Fulton Rd., Sect. 21NE/SE Jackson Twp.

Ms. Magyaros read the file application signed by Thomas Winkhart and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of a modification to B-3 Commercial Business for approximately 5.645 acres north of the quarter section line in the NE ¼ Section 21; the land south of the quarter section line to remain R-4 Multi Family Residential to provide a buffer to the residential uses to the south and east and the facts considered in their recommendation.

MS. MAGYAROS:  This matter went before the Stark County Regional Planning Commission on June 8th for a recommendation for reclassification of land from R-4 (Multi-Family Residential District) to B-3 (Commercial Business District) for approximately 12.7939 acres located on the east side of Wales Ave., south of Fulton Dr. in the northeast and southeast quarter section 21, Jackson Township.

RPC recommended a modification and the facts considered were as follows:
1. The acreage proposed for rezoning is part of two tracts (26.60 and 23.05 acres each), both located on the east side of Wales Ave, south of Fulton Dr.  The said acreage was part of a larger area rezoned to R-4 Multi-Family Residential is 1989, to serve as a buffer to protect Nobles Pond, a single-family subdivision, located to the south and east.  Density requirements in the R-4 district have changed from 12 dwelling units per acre to 10 units since 1989.
2. In 1962, approximately 171 acres at the intersection of Wales and Fulton was rezoned to Commercial.  The northern 5.645 acres of the area under consideration has been zoned B-3 prior to 1989.
3. While the township offices and garage have been located near the intersection of Wales and Fulton for many years, the remainder of the northwest corner has developed over the last fifteen years to include the park, library and safety building.  Jackson High School and the park are located on the south side of Fulton, along with a medical office and gas station; the northeast corner of the intersection is retail and commercial.  Construction is underway on the west side of Wales, for the Mercy Medical Health Park of Jackson, where the YMCA will be located, along with several office buildings.
4. The application for rezoning refers to a master plan for the Marketplace at Nobles Pond; however, a copy of the plan was not provided.  Any development of the approximately 57 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection, owned by Willmoll Development and Aultman Health Foundation, will have an impact on the intersection of Wales and Fulton.  Improvement plans for modification to the intersection are being reviewed by Ohio Department of Transportation.  Since changes are proposed to the abutting highways, the zoning administrator is required to give notice to ODOT prior to the issuance of a permit, in accordance with ORC 5511.01.
5. Some of the uses permitted in the B-3 district, such as day care facilities, churches and hospitals, could also be allowed in the existing R-4 district as conditionally permitted uses, after review and approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Other uses, such as hotels, wholesale outlets, and wireless telecommunication towers, could be detrimental to the existing residential uses to the south and east and should not be encouraged to expand further south than the quarter section line and the boundary of the adjacent B-3 district.

Before we allow Mr. Winkhart to make his presentation I’d like to let the members of the audience know that everybody here that wants to speak tonight will definitely have an opportunity to do so.  I only ask that if your neighbor maybe has already made a comment, a similar comment, or the same comment that you were going to make, please try to come up and hit some different points that you want to express to the commission.  Only so we can keep matters moving and give everyone here an opportunity to speak.  With that Mr. Winkhart I will turn things over to you for your presentation.

MR. WINKHART:  Thank you.  Good evening.  My name is Tom Winkhart.  I’m general counsel for DeHoff Development Company.  I reside at 7008 Victoria Court in Canton, 44718.  That is in Nobles Pond.

In the interest of efficiency and time for the board and the audience we have two map amendment requests that we are going to hear tonight and both of them are located at Nobles Pond.  So I’m going to go through a presentation that kind of incorporates both of them.  When we get to the second map amendment, which is for the B-1 section on Fulton Rd., if there are any specific questions or issues that I need to address I will be happy to do that.

I represent both of the applicants tonight.  One of the applicants is the Aultman Health Foundation, which is the owner of a 5.26 acre site on Fulton Rd.  I also represent Willmoll Development Company, the owner of a 12.868 acre parcel located on the east side of Wales Rd.  As Aletha indicated in her introductory remarks, the application for the five acre parcel from R-R and R-1A was unanimously approved by the Stark County Regional Planning Commission.  With respect to the twelve acre parcel, Stark County Regional Planning Commission approved unrestricted B-3 rezoning for property that amounts to a little less than one half of that site on the north half of that property along Wales Rd.

What I’d like to do tonight is review, because I think it’s very important so there is an understanding, the existing zoning classifications that exists on this Nobles Pond site and explore some of the permitted uses under the existing zoning.  I’d like to then review the proposed rezoning classification along with the permitted uses that we have contemplated and so restricted.  I’d also like to review the preliminary land use plan, which you will each have a copy of, and with the chairman’s permission I’d like to reserve a few minutes for comments at the end of the comments that are made by anybody that wishes to speak against these rezoning’s.  I’d also note that present tonight are Bob DeHoff, partner and principal in Willmoll Development Company, along with Mr. Tim Beauch from the Aultman Health Foundation.  While it is not contemplated that they will make any part of the formal presentation they are available for the commission’s questions.  Obviously as I work through this I am happy to entertain any questions that you may have.

What I’d like to go through is just a quick explanation of the zoning that currently exists at that site.  I believe you all are familiar with this but as regional planning pointed out in their staff comments this property was the subject of initial zoning when zoning was implemented in Jackson Township and then a comprehensive rezoning in 1989.  It should be specifically noted that no zone change applications have been entertained by this commission or have been granted since that time.

For the board’s purpose and orientation the property currently zoned R-R in the front and R-1A in the rear on the south side is where the Altercare Nursing home has recently been constructed.  The road going east and west on the top of the screen is obviously Fulton Rd.  Point of clarification, because in some of our homeowner meetings that we’ve done, Altercare is not Aultman Hospital.  This is a family owned company that has several nursing homes in the Stark County area and are not affiliated in anyway with Aultman Hospital.  This property is currently zoned R-R and R-1A and that nursing home facility was constructed under a conditional use permit as granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.  They did not obtain a zone change.

To the west of that property is approximately the 5.2 acre site currently zoned R-R and R-1A that is the subject of our second amendment request this evening.  Going further west is a 6 acre parcel also currently owned by Aultman Health Foundation.  They have a total of 11 acres here on this site that is zoned B-3 and of course Willmoll Development Company owns the remainder of the property in blue which is the B-3 commercial site.

There is an 8 acre parcel that is down on the south side of these two parcels contiguous to the homeowners association property north of the pond, and that is currently zoned R-1A which as this commission knows is four units an acre cloister type detached single family housing.  Then finally the property that is the subject of this request is about 28 acres of R-4 Multi Family, which as was pointed out is the Multi Family zoning district in Jackson Township, which affords ten units per acre.

It is important to note that both the Willmoll Development Company and Aultman Health Foundation have sufficient property properly zoned as we sit here tonight to build their prospective projects.  Willmoll Development Company has a site at the corner currently zoned retail that is about the size of the piece of property in North Canton that is the home of Washington Square.  So to put that in prospective that shopping center and outlot parcels is about the same size site as exists here.

Aultman Hospital, as I said, also owns a 6 acre parcel.  When combined with the parcel to the east it gives them an 11 acre site.  Again, already zoned B-3 for the 6 acre parcel which supports all of their contemplated uses.

You might say well if Aultman Hospital already has an eleven acre site properly zoned for their purposes then why are we here tonight; why do they want to rezone a different site to allow them to do what they are already permitted to do.  I’m going to spend a fair amount of the rest of the evening in my comments focusing on that.  I think it is very important to understand that on this 11 acre site Aultman Health Foundation could build that permitted hospital facility which under B-3 has a height requirement or restriction of 80 ft.  Aultman Health Foundation has owned this property for approximately four years and that seemed like the appropriate site for them to purchase back in 2000.  It is difficult for me to picture an 80 ft. high hospital across the street from that beautiful yellow farm house that exists there right now.  Our development company, our land planners, and very recently Aultman Hospital have concurred that this site probably lends itself to a little bit different development orientation.

There are probably going to be some people tonight that stand up and say you know Bob DeHoff told us that this property was always going to be zoned residential, referring to the R-4 property down here.  At the time those statements were made, the extent they were made in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s and even as recently as three months ago, that property was zoned R-4 and is zoned R-4 and will support about 280 apartment units.  So it is true that was always contemplated to be residential.  Time has a way of changing things though.  Time has a way of changing people’s minds including land planners, including people who would otherwise want to develop apartment units and particularly people who live in this neighborhood.  We’ve seen examples across the country and certainly right here in Jackson Township where neighborhoods have had the choice to have apartments or high density condominiums up against them and have chosen what I believe to be a less burdensome use and that is a B-1 office type use.

Our land planners certainly believe and have indicated to us that it is their professional opinions that ten units an acre, apartment buildings, are a more burdensome use than is a more modern B-1 suburban office type use and we certainly concur.  We believe and a lot of my neighbors at Nobles Pond believe that a wellness center type facility on the northern 10 acres of this site is a much less burdensome use than is the corresponding 120 apartment units that could be built there under the current zoning.

I believe all the members of the commission have this map or one very similar to it.  Very quickly, this shows the entire Nobles Pond site.  The existing residential which is comprised of about 300 lots, and I believe all but, or 298 of them are spoken for.  Maybe there’s one or two left.  The properties in the purple are the two properties that we are going to be discussing tonight; the 12 plus acre site to be zoned restricted B-3 and the 5.2 acre site to be rezoned as B-1.

Obviously the nursing home is already in place here.  It is our strong belief that the B-1 suburban office zoning district which would allow attorney’s offices, doctor’s offices, dentist offices, and financial institutions without drive thru’s is an appropriate step up zoning between the commercial residential use to the east and the B-3 use to the west.

The large piece of property, the 12 acre site, is being proposed to be rezoned B-3.  It is important to note we’re going to spend a fair amount of time talking about the way we intend to restrict that B-3 zoning because it’s very important not only to Willmoll Development Company that the property be restricted, but it is also important to the neighbors in the Nobles Pond area and to Aultman Hospital.

The reason that we need to have a B-3 zone here is really a deficiency if you will that exists in our code, in the Jackson Township code.  For a medical service provider there are doctor’s offices which are permitted in the B-1, there is a hospital that’s permitted in the B-3, and there really isn’t anything in between from a definitional standpoint.  The delivery of medical services as we’ve all seen recently is somewhere in between.  In Aultman Health’s Foundation’s case the Aultman north site and the Aultman west site are perfect examples of that.  Under one roof is a combination of a stat care facility, an immediate medical facility and traditional doctor’s offices as well as same day surgery type procedures and for some of those kinds of procedures, and many of us have experienced them, they don’t fit neatly in a B-1 zoning district.  It’s something more than a doctor’s office.  It’s certainly something less than a hospital, but our code gives little guidance to the wellness center type facility that a lot of hospitals have in our area.  Mercy medical has one and Aultman Hospital has two of them in very close proximity to us here, so that’s why the request for B-3 as opposed to what might be a more appropriate B-1 use here.  The key is and as part of my presentation will demonstrate, the key to the B-3 request is that it is very specifically limited to B-1 uses or the suburban office uses and only B-3 uses relating to medical services.  Once again, it is limited only to B-1 suburban office and medical and medical related services permitted in a B-3.

So why the change; why not leave Aultman over on Fulton Rd. where they can do this thing tomorrow if they choose to.  There are really several reasons and I think this photograph probably captures it best.  First of all Nobles Pond, the residential community, has developed really over a period of twelve years or so into a really very nice residential area.  As many of you know there are sidewalks pretty much throughout the neighborhood, street trees that have matured very nicely, and a very special pond and surrounding park that make that one of the more unique properties in Jackson Township.

Since the year 2000 when Aultman Health Foundation purchased their property on Fulton Rd., those eleven acres, there have been really dramatic changes that have occurred in Jackson Township that really in our minds and in our land planners minds have forced their location over to the Wales Rd. site.  As many people know several years ago the Jackson YMCA was planned for a site in the north park area.  That site has been moved to a new orientation on the south side of Fulton Rd. west of Wales Rd.  Also the new safety center opened up, as you can see in this somewhat dated picture partially under construction, which orients directly opposite the Market Place at Nobles Pond.  Since that time and very recently all of us have final comfort that the Ohio Department of Transportation really supported by Jackson Township itself has finalized plans for the reconstruction of the intersection of Fulton Rd. and Wales Rd.  Many of us have seen those plans and that intersection is going to be five and six lanes in all directions and will really allow for the efficient movement of cars through that area.  So those of us that go through there a couple of times a day can all appreciate that need.

One of the reasons that this property, the commercial property and the related property, has not been developed is that intersection needs no more pressure right now.  The reason this has come to light recently and the development plans have finally moved ahead is there is light at the end of the tunnel as to when that intersection will be completed.  Also as many of you know the Jackson Local Schools have recently undertaken a 44 million dollar 150 thousand square foot addition to the high school as well as a 300 thousand square foot renovation of the existing building.  That facility is going to be significantly upgraded both in size and quality.  It is on the drawing board right now and probably one of the neatest improvements that will either happen this summer or next summer is a tunnel to be constructed from the high school property underneath Fulton Rd. over to the north park property.  So as a result of a really great collaborative effort with Mercy Medical and the Aultman Health Foundation and Jackson Township, the YMCA project and the Mercy Medical project are literally coming out of the ground on a daily basis.  The product of that is a new road.  A dedicated road that will terminate in a cul-de-sac near the southern part of the soccer stadium and go out to Wales Rd. at a fully signalized pedestrian controlled intersection.  The plans are pretty well through the preliminary design phase so that there will be a traffic light at Wales Rd. and as you drive down there you can pretty well see where that road is cut through on the west side of the road there.

The residents of Jackson Township certainly owe a debit of gratitude to the YMCA and Mercy Medical for having put that project together because certainly as those in the development business know it is very difficult to get a traffic light on a state highway.  Were it not for those projects on the west side of the road we would not get a traffic light on Wales Rd. there.  So as a result of this big change in our community, this resent change in our community, certainly our land planners for our small part in this overall project have unanimously and consistently I believe, the Aultman Health Foundation site here is much better served over here for a lot of reasons.  Obviously it orients itself in this community campus area here with the safety center, the library, the north park, the high school, the YMCA, Mercy Medicals facility and a similar type use facility that will share as we’ll see on our land plan that new traffic light.  So if you will, the community has kind of reoriented itself on the south side of Fulton Rd. along that Wales Rd. corridor.  This aggregation, if you will, of public and quasi-public uses in this area right here really lends itself to something that is special for our community.

What I would like to do is review our proposed land use plan and the disclaimers that I need to say are obviously these buildings are for demonstrative purposes only.  We’ve probably been through 30 different, maybe more, iterations of this land plan and this is about as close as we’ve come to what we think is going to be a very special project on this corner.  We took significant artistic license with a proposed Aultman Facility here.  What we’ve done is basically rip off the footprint of the Aultman north facility on Whipple and Glenwood and superimposed that onto this site for representation purposes only.  Walking around this site plan the nursing home site is just off the site plan on the far east here.  This piece of property is the property that is proposed to be changed to B-1 Suburban Office.  You’ll note, and this is an accurate orientation of what the intersection will look like, you can see that the intersection becomes four lanes in both directions of travel to a point not quite to the Foxboro intersection about half way down and then tapers back to the way it is now.  You see the large intersection here goes four lanes in both directions with a turn lane down to the new intersection.  As I said earlier, that will be a fully signalized pedestrian controlled intersection from the new, I believe it is Caritas Rd. and I’m probably not pronouncing that right, that will serve the YMCA and Mercy Medicals facility and then the four lanes with the turn lane will taper back as you come back up the hill towards Shady Hollow Country Club.  Again, our land planners have laid out several types of buildings on this site.  The large building here would be a grocery store.  This would be a grocery store anchored neighborhood center along with some inline additional retail, several out parcels, a larger building on the corner with perhaps a bank or related type building also on the site, and as I said the Aultman Hospital facility.  I want to make it very clear this could change, but it’s a representative of a type of development that is about like Washington Square in North Canton.

What we have proposed on the B-3 site and the B-1 site are a series of declarations of covenants and restrictions that are private deed covenants between the owners of the commercial property at Nobles Pond as well as the residents in the residential area of Nobles Pond.  I’m going to go into them in a little more detail but generally these covenants and restrictions deal with permitted lighting, signage, landscaping, and required building materials on the site.  As Aletha mentioned, per Stark County Regional Planning in commercial zones in our township wireless communication towers are permitted uses and we would have a strict prohibition against wireless communication towers in this area which I think is a benefit to certainly all of the residents but also commercial users.  There is also a conservation easement contained in the declaration that preserves the existing buffer area along the north side of the lots that front on Shady Hollow Dr., on the east side of the lots that front on Cardington Green, and then as many of you will know there is a really dense stand of big mature trees in this triangle area that’s right along Wales Rd. and behind several of the lots on Cardington.  Those also are preserved as a result of this declaration.  I believe all of you have copies of those.  I left them at your places.

I want to take a few minutes because this is a little outside of the box when it comes to zoning. but very, very important and something that we’ve used with great success in frankly Jackson Township but in also other communities in Stark and Summit counties is the declaration.  I guess the best analogy I can give is when all of the residential lots were laid out in Nobles Pond before anybody bought a lot out there the developer recorded a declaration of covenants and restrictions very similar to these in legal form.  Obviously they dealt with issues like how big the houses had to be, what the exterior materials had to be, what the landscaping needed to be like, whether you could store motor homes in the driveway, and the kinds of fences you were allowed to have.  All things that all of the residents of Nobles Pond are now subject to and are now bound to and frankly that protect all of the residents from that neighbor that might otherwise want to do something that would be deemed detrimental to the neighborhood.  So the analogy between those restrictions that apply to the residents that are here tonight and that benefit the residents that are here tonight, it’s a very similar analogy here.

These restrictions will apply to both the B-1 site and the B-3 site and the legal descriptions are attached.  The most important one in my mind is the use restriction that applies to the Aultman Health Foundation parcel.  It’s very important to note that the Aultman Health Foundation does not own that parcel as we sit here tonight.  These restrictions that become recorded with the Stark County courthouse are binding upon Aultman Health Foundation and frankly anybody else that might acquire that property in the future.  I’m reading from section one of the restrictions that I think you have.  The B-3 property here shall only ever be used for permitted uses under B-1, your suburban office zoned district under Chapter 411 of our code as may be amended, and for permitted medical and medical related uses only under the B-3 commercial district.  So what we’ve done is taken a B-3 district that frankly could support an 80 ft. high shopping mall under our current zoning and by private deed restriction said that it could only be used for B-1 suburban office use or B-3 medical use.  All of the buildings in section two are required to achieve certain aesthetic levels.  We regulate the kind of exterior materials that can be used really to create and reflect an upscale mixed use development.

At the end of that section, and I think this is as important as we found out in one of our neighborhood meetings, all of the buildings in the B-1 office area are limited to two stories with potentially a three story lobby if the user were interested.  As you know you’re permitted to be 35 in height in a B-1.  Most importantly I think to the residents in Nobles Pond is the height restriction that applies to the proposed restricted B-3 site.  In hearing several of the comments, good comments from the neighbors, they were very concerned about an 80 ft. tall hospital on that site.  I went back to Aultman Health Foundation and Aultman Health Foundation agreed to a 45 ft. high building height restriction.  For reference purposes that’s the exact height of the peak of their building at Aultman north on Whipple.

Reading through these we feel very strongly about using low profile smaller scale signage.  It’s worked very well at Washington Square and I think it creates a cleaner much neater appearance and certainly does what it needs to do and that’s direct people where they need to go without creating a lot of site noise if you will.

Again, with respect to lighting there has been good advances in lighting with respect to sharp cut off luminaries that prevent and restrict light pollution spilling off the site.  Those are all required in here.

Landscaping, again we are looking for as much green space and buffer area as is appropriate.  I’m not going to read through it but we think we’ve done a very good job making the users of that property green them up as appropriate.

There is also a prohibition against wireless communications towers that I think is very important.  Relating specifically to some of the Nobles Pond residents that are here tonight, there is a 25 ft. wide landscape buffer along the lots that are spelled out in here and those are lots 17 through 24 in the Farms along Shady Hollow as well as those lots that are on the east side of Cardington.  The purpose of that is at the time that development was put in a buffer mound and planting area was constructed by the developer.  In many instances those plantings have now matured very nicely and depending on how they been maintained over the years with respect to trimming they have provided a pretty nice barrier between the residential homes along Shady Hollow Dr. and the big open field behind them.  The purpose of this easement, if you will, is to allow and require that those trees and that buffer area stay there.  The developer will replace any of those originally planted trees that die.  The homeowners are restricted and are not allowed to take any of those original plantings out because obviously that buffer serves not only their immediate back yard but also the back yards of their adjacent neighbors.  But, they are given a specific license to go on that 25 ft. for their purposes of landscaping.  If they want to add additional things to it, mulch it, mow it, or whatever they’re preference is they are free to do that.  Also as I indicated and very important to the homeowners on the back side of this curve, this dense stand of trees shall be preserved under this declaration and as that stands there right now it’s almost impossible to see from their back yard down to Wales Rd.  So that will stay.

The duration of these covenants and restrictions is for a period of ninety-nine years and these are binding upon Aultman Health Foundation and Willmoll Development Company together with anybody that takes title from them so they run with the land.  If Aultman Health Foundation sold it’s ten acre site whoever bought it better be in the medical service business or plan on doing a B-1 office use because that will be the only use that property will be afforded.

So how do we know that these stay in place?  The enforcement is obviously very important.  Not that they would do this but for instance if Aultman Health Foundation decided to build a building that was going to go 75 ft. in height these restrictions are specifically enforceable by Willmoll Development Company so the developer could stop Aultman Health Foundation.  They’re specifically enforceable by the Villages Association Inc., which is the Nobles Pond homeowners association the actual legal entity that has been formed over there, and they’re specifically enforceable by any individual that owns a piece of property in the Farms, the Woods, and the Meadows at Nobles Pond.  There are some 302 potential watch dogs out there to make sure that these restrictions are in fact enforced.

By the plain language in the enforcement section in the event that Willmoll Development Company or Aultman Health Foundation breach these covenants and do something that they are not suppose to do and one of the neighbors or the association files suit to stop them and if its found that they did in fact violate then that violating party has to pay the attorney fees for whoever it was that brought suit against them.  So if the association goes after them for a breach of a height restriction and they were in fact violating that then Aultman Health Foundation and Willmoll Development Company has to pay the attorney fees.

This declaration has been signed by Aultman Health Foundation and has also been signed by Willmoll Development Company and they’ve been delivered into escrow, if you will, with the board of the Nobles Pond homeowners association.  If I’m on the side opposing this I’m going to say well sure you say that tonight but how do we know that tomorrow if this is approved that you’re not going to do that; that you don’t record them.  That’s our way of saying that commitment has already happened.  They have been signed and are in recordable form and delivered to the association.

I’ve also heard one of the residents say, ‘Well Aultman Hospital doesn’t own this property yet.  They don’t own the 10 acre site that you want to rezone so it doesn’t matter what they agree to now.’  That’s a good question.  They do own the site that is being proposed B-1 and that’s why they have signed them.  Their consent I think with respect to the 10 acres is also implicit because they’ve signed them.  But just like the restrictions that were there for the residential portion of Nobles Pond that were in place before all of us purchased our properties out there, as soon as we become owners those restrictions apply to us.  When we sell those restrictions apply to who buys from us and we’ve all had that very direct experience.

One of the things that are a very important part of the consideration that I think a lot of the residents in Nobles Pond have gone through is the proposed extension or potential extension of Nobles Pond Dr.  Nobles Pond Dr. currently exists to a point really on the north side of that last lot and the pavement ends right there.

This is our land use plan and we put it out there for comments; for all the comments both good and bad and we’ve received a lot of both frankly.  This road is obviously necessary, at least a portion of it, because we are going to intersect this road with the new signalized intersection on Wales Rd. so there will be an opportunity to access the shopping area from that new signalized intersection.  Again, one of the major reasons our land planners believe that Aultman Health Foundation was better served over here then on Fulton Rd.  On Fulton Rd. there may or may not be a traffic light.  Here there is a traffic light and in the interest of safety for the patients and users of that facility as well as the rest of us driving up and down Fulton it’s much better for this parking lot to access a signalized intersection on Wales Rd.

This road also then becomes necessary to get back to this area.  As I indicated to you there is a cloister single family development that at some time will occur on the north side of the pond and this would be the primary access for that residential development as well as the future development of this site down here, the remaining R-4 property.  Very probable because of the topography here that this site will need to access Wales Rd. through that road.  The real issue for the residents, and while it has nothing to do with zoning, is that connection.  I know it’s very clear to this board that is not a zoning issue, but I think it is very important that you also understand a little bit of the background from where we came I guess.  The bottom line from the developer’s standpoint is that the developer will support what ever the Nobles Pond homeowners association deems is the appropriate thing to do.  If they want that road extended then the road can be extended.  If they want that road not to be extended then we will support the road not being extended.  The key is that the developer doesn’t control that ultimate decision.  That ultimate decision probably comes from Stark County Regional Planning, the Stark County Commissioners, and even perhaps Jackson Township.  So we have given a letter of commitment to the homeowners association that whatever they tell us, whatever the home owners association says, we will support subject to whatever the township or county imposed.

There are several things that I know this board considers as required in the code and there are several points that I think need to be made.  The restrictions, this developer’s track record, and certainly the development that has already occurred in the Nobles Pond area should lead this board to the conclusion that this will be developed, as I indicated earlier, as a high end mixed use type development.  Mr. DeHoff has lived in this community for a lot of years.  This Nobles Pond project has been near and dear to me and I think the proof is in the pudding to date.  I’m here to tell you it is my opinion that I believe that will be carried out through the completion of that development.  I think it is an appropriate step zoning for not only the proposed B-1 site in between the residential nursing home use and the contiguous B-3 site, but I also think it’s an appropriate step zoning here.  We know this is B-3 zoning and will promote a neighborhood shopping center.  A B-1 type use between the B-3 and what is currently residential and single family residential is text book step zoning.  Our land planners have encouraged us that this is the best plan and we have agreed with that.

I think it is important to note, obviously, that this property is supported by all available utilities and very important from a safety aspect that this site have direct and immediate access to a signalized intersection as Wales Rd.  From a drainage standpoint the developers of the commercial properties have entered into or have finalized a drainage district agreement with the homeowners association that really will provide for the financial resources necessary over the next 20, 30, or 50 years to make sure that the integrity of Nobles Pond is maintained with respect to sedimentation, controlling the outlet structures, and the potential dredging if necessary if the siltation becomes any worse there.  So a nest egg is being attributed to the commercial users and the residential users to afford that continued maintenance going forward.

Obviously, and one of your criteria is will this negatively affect the school system.  Something near and dear to my heart this is the kind of development that truly benefits the school system.  Obviously we take all comers from a residential standpoint, but this kind of development adds to our ever going tax base and does not bring with it a corresponding burden to educate kids.  So this is a true win-win from a standpoint of economics for the school district.

As I said this project can be developed today as it’s currently zoned and both parties have that legal right as we sit here tonight.  We believe that the project is better for all the stakeholders, both the property owners, the residents of Nobles Pond, and certainly the residents of Jackson Township if it is reconfigured as we’re proposing for the reasons that I’ve touched on.

Obviously, and I don’t want to belabor this, but if this becomes an Aultman Health Foundation site it obviously is no longer available to support 120 apartment units.

The Nobles Pond residents will certainly be protected in the sense that the use of that site will be in fact limited to a B-1 use and medical related B-3 uses with a 45 ft. height restriction addressing many of the concerns that we’ve heard.  So, as we sit here tonight Aultman Health Foundation could build its 80 ft. hospital on Fulton Rd. on the 11 acres that it currently owns.  What we are proposing is a rezone that allows Aultman Health Foundation to build on 10 acres in this orientation limited almost in half in height to 45 ft.

Under existing zoning this site can accept 120 apartment units.  Under the proposed zoning it’s a B-1 use and as I said a limited B-3 to medical.  And as I’ve indicated, I believe and our land planners believe that is a better and more appropriate transition of zoning from the B-3 to the R-1 residential at Nobles Pond.

Where Aultman Hospital could go right now it’s a stand alone facility accessing and dumping onto Fulton Rd. exclusively.  Under our proposed zoning whatever facility Aultman may build accesses the new fully signalized intersection at Wales Rd. that is supported by four lanes, two in each direction to that intersection.

Under the existing zoning there is no declaration of covenants and restrictions that affect the property.  Under the proposed zoning we’ve got a declaration that restricts lighting, signage, landscaping, building materials, wireless communication towers, preserves the existing buffer along the residential areas and preserves the dense stand of trees.  It’s enforceable by the homeowners association.  It’s enforceable by Willmoll Development Company against Aultman and Aultman against Willmoll, and it’s enforceable by each of the residents that live in the Farms, Woods, or Meadows at Nobles Pond.  So, based upon that I believe that you’ve heard sufficient evidence to support the approval of both the 12 acres site to restricted B-3 as well as the 5 acre site from R-R and R-1A to B-1.  As I said I’d like to reserve time for comments and we are available for questions and then anything specifically that we need to go through in the second case I’d be happy to respond to also.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Before you sit down Mr. Winkhart I know I have some questions and maybe we’ll go ahead and take care of those while you’re up here at the podium and go through that and then we’ll move to the audience members that would like to make their comments.  I guess right out of the box here my first question is you keep stating that you’re going to use the property for B-1 use.  Why do you need the B-3 rezoning?

MR. WINKHART:  Very specifically our proposed user is the Aultman Health Foundation.  The Aultman Health Foundation is in the business of delivering medical services, at least today, the way we see them delivered at Aultman north and Aultman west.  The permitted use for that kind of facility only exists in a B-3 zone.  It’s a conditionally permitted use in many other zones but as I’ve said several times tonight Aultman Health Foundation currently has a site that is zoned B-3.  They currently have the ability and as a matter of rights to build a full service hospital.  Therefore, I believe it is a reasonable request for them to not take a step back and therefore to have the restricted B-3 ability on this site to build up to a hospital.  I think it’s a good indication of what they proposed to build based upon their willingness to grant the height restriction.  But, that’s the reason.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Well if it’s rezoned B-3 though you could build up to and including a hospital.  I mean that’s really what you would be able to do in the B-3 because you can do what you want to do really under a B-1 or B-2.

MR. WINKHART:  With a conditional use permit.  Only with a conditional use permit.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Right.  The only need for the B-3 really is for the hospital.  This is really what it comes down to.

MR. WINKHART:  Except a B-3 doesn’t require a conditional use permit.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Right.  It’s a permitted use.

MR. WINKHART:  Correct.

MR. BAUDER:  I have a question.  Could you do the same conditional use permit in an R-4?

MR. WINKHART:  Yes you could.

MR. BAUDER:  That’s what I thought.

MR. WINKHART:  They could build a hospital with a conditional use permit as it is zoned right now.  Did that answer your question?

MR. BAUDER:  Yes.

MR. WINKHART:  Again, the avoidance is the conditional use permit itself.  In B-3 it’s a permitted use without a conditional use permit.  In all the other zoning districts you have to obtain a conditional use permit.

MR. BAUDER:  Why is that a problem?

MR. WINKHART:  I don’t know that it’s necessarily a problem.  It’s certainly another step that would be necessary and it’s not a step that would be necessary for the property that they currently own.  So, what we’ve attempted to do obviously with the restrictions is create a situation where they have the permitted use as they have right now but have limited it to something that looks an awful lot like B-1.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Any other questions about the B-3?

MR. BENNER:  I have a question for Mr. Phillippi.  The zoning regulations basically allow the construction of cell towers on any commercially zoned property or industrial zoned property.  Do we know or do we have any reason to believe one way or the other that a deed restriction could prevent a public utility from constructing a cell tower on a B-3 or B-1 or I-1 property even though it is restricted?  Do we know that?

MR. PHILLIPPI:  Well I think the restricted covenants placed on a property would be legally binding in order to prevent such a use from being constructed there.  It would have nothing of course to do with township zoning because those facilities within a non residential area are specifically exempt from any township zoning regulations in the State of Ohio.  But, I think it would be legally binding if a private restriction was placed on the property similar to what Mr. Winkhart was saying with regards to the restrictive covenants that were placed on any, as a matter of course, on a residential property within a subdivision.  I think they would be legally enforceable.  I guess if I could just mention, I guess the one thing that disturbs me is the fact in relating the residential restrictive covenants for example with Nobles Pond that are placed on those properties and relating that to this request, the major difference I see is they weren’t involved with the zoning for that property.  They were entirely outside the zoning process.  In this case the zoning is obviously being predicated for the rezoning on these restrictive covenants which I simply don’t see as any difference between that and the contract zoning.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Yea I kind of had the belief that the covenants and restrictions, although the residents believe and it does provide them some security in what may happen down the road, really circumvents our ability as a township to control zoning and we have a Supreme Court case that’s pretty much on point that says we’re not in considering zoning changes, we’re not to consider whether there are deed restrictions involved in it.

MR. WINKHART:  Right and I don’t disagree with that.  I guess to Mr. Benner’s question with respect to cell towers specifically but I think it also merits the entire discussion.  Cell towers are permitted across the board in B-1, B-2, & B-3.  Your zoning can’t stop it and just like the residents in Nobles Pond aren’t allowed to raise chickens or have cattle on their lots, so to the owners of this property aren’t allowed to allow a cell tower to be built on their property.  So, I don’t disagree with Aletha that from a pure zoning standpoint the declaration of covenants and restrictions may not be considered as it relates to the application and that’s why we have gone to such lengths to demonstrate, to secure the fact that what we’ve said the use is going to be is in fact what the use is going to be.  So, I think we’re all saying the same thing here.  I certainly have not tried to indicate that we were proposing a contract zoning district per say.  However, I think this is the best thing and frankly better than a contract zoning situation because a township may or may not enforce a restriction that is very important to the residents of Nobles Pond.  We’ve tried to address those specific things that are important to the residents of Nobles Pond and give them the hammer so they don’t need to worry about whether their township is out doing a great job enforcing its zoning code.  They can take that upon themselves to ensure that that in fact is the case.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Any other questions or comments for Mr. Winkhart?

MR. BENNER:  Not at this time.  (The other board members shook their head no)

MS. MAGYAROS:  Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application?  Okay I see a hand in the front row here and one in the back.  When you approach please state your name and address for the record.

MR. GARY CONNOR:  Gary Connor, 7260 Charring Court Circle.  I’m the Vice President of the Board of Trustees of the Villages Association and I’m here tonight standing in for our President Bob Wimensberber who has to be out of town.  Following several weeks of being deluged all of our board members, and we are a duly elected board, being deluged with many phone calls and having the usual neighborhood comments, discussions and walking the dog and those sort of things, a number of members attended various meetings but the big meeting at the high school where most of the board members attended that meeting and after all of that we held a board meeting immediately following the meeting at the high school and we voted unanimously to support this proposal and these are the reason why we do so.

Number one we are in favor of the covenants and restriction.  We believe they are excellent.  Our board does have legal counsel and that legal counsel discussed those issues that you were talking about a moment ago and our board strongly believes as residents we are served by those covenants and restrictions.  The second reason we like it is the removal of 120 R-4 apartment sites which would be adjacent to our residences and would have the potential if not removed to create difficulties with a lot of people using our streets and what have you.  The third reason is that our association has an excellent relationship on going with our neighbors, with Aultman, with Altercare, and with Willmoll.  Over the past year we have reached agreements on the drainage maintenance that will guarantee the integrity of Nobles Pond.  It has been a grave concern ever since our creation.  We have tried many times to discuss with government, both township and county, for some sort of participation because of the fact that our pond is basically a storm water management basin that serves over 2,000 acres of Jackson Township.  As such we control a large section of the water shed in Jackson and yet we are unable to tap into any sort of governmental help for that in any way.  The on going prospects of maintaining this lake are large and expensive and these three partners have been willing to enter into what we believe is a very fair cost apportionment.  I think this is sort of a future reaching type of arrangement.  I’m not aware of anything like this is stark county and I’ve been the stark county drainage engineer for a long time and I think what these companies as our neighbors have put together with us is very admirable and really serves the community as a whole.  The forth reason as simply put is we believe in almost every way that this is a far superior plan to what we have today.  When we look at the traffic, when we look at the drainage, when we look at the possibilities under the standing plan that we saw at the beginning of this meeting we believe this is a big improvement.  There is no perfect plan.  There is no plan that serves all the residences of our allotment equally.  There are obviously some people in our allotment that are maybe a little to close to certain parts of the action but the sum total concerning everyone’s welfare, which is what we have to do as a board, we must heartily indorse this change.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the amendment?

(Audience member stood up and stated that he agrees with Mr. Connors comments)

MS. MARIAN MANNS:  I’m Marian Manns of 6576 Danforth NW, Canton and I’m a long time resident of Jackson and I would simply appeal to this board.  We have been waiting several years to see what is going to happen at this corner of Fulton and Wales. We all recognize it’s the center of our community and it’s going to be our downtown Jackson essentially for ever and ever and it is vitally important I think that the choices that are made about what happens on this corner are the right ones because once they are done they are there forever.  I think having the Aultman facility to go out onto Fulton Rd. would be a bad mistake at this point.  There is not the ability on Fulton Rd. to handle that.  It is very difficult to get out onto Fulton Rd. from Konen and Foxchase and any of those areas.  It is very difficult.  It is much to our advantage for all of us to have this facility where there will be a light on Wales Rd. and have the traffic go in and out there.  Also, I repeat the comment about the apartments.  I would prefer that from apartments there.  So, I agree with the comments that Gary Connor made.  I won’t belabor them, but I do think that it is very much to our advantage to have traffic coming out on Wales Rd.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you.  Anyone else that would like to speak in favor?

MR. WILLIAM DAY:  My name is William Day and I reside at 4821 Nobles Pond.  I was out of town so I couldn’t make the neighborhood meeting.  I know before the neighborhood meeting I got a mailer in my mail box that said sign against this.  I don’t think that makes much sense.  I came here to find out what’s going on and I’m very pleased with what I heard.  In simple terms I think the developer can do what he wants to do one way or the other.  I like the idea that we have some control over and beyond the zoning resolution in signage, buffers, materials, etc. and I’d rather have the control rather than just be kind of at will.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Anyone else that would like to speak in favor?

MR. ALAN FISHBERG:  My name is Alan Fishberg; my wife Eve.  We have lived in Nobles Pond for over 10 years and I feel that the area is probably one of the premiere areas in this whole area, county.  When I look at that area and I look at Washington Square I’m convinced that whatever Mr. DeHoff is involved in is going to be a first class operation.  If I have to choose between a beautiful shopping center that’s going to create jobs and create a tax base as opposed to apartments that are going to load up the schools with children and no tax base, and I don’t have any children in the schools at all, to me it is a no brainier.  One other comment I wanted to make is in meetings like this sometimes people who are in favor of it and people who are neutral at it tend not to show up at these meetings.  People who are against it tend to show up and sometimes can give a false impression that they are more of a majority than they really are.  I’ve talked to other residents in Nobles Pond and the ones I’ve talked to are in favor of this project so I’d like to go on record as saying my wife and I are both in favor of this.  Thank you very much.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Anyone else?  I see a hand in the back of the room.

MR. RON STARK:  My name is Ron Stark and I live at 6983 Fulton that is right across from the new nursing home that they built and I have one question for Mr. Winkhart.  If you get this proposal what’s going to happen to the 5 acres on Fulton Rd.?

MS. MAGYAROS:  Please approach the podium so we can make sure it’s recorded.

MR. WINKHART:  I assume the 5 acres you’re talking about is the proposed B-1.

MR. STARK:  Yes.

MR. WINKHART:  It would be the contemplation, that property is owned by Aultman Health Foundation and in discussions with them while they would have no plans, obviously the only use that it could be put to would be that that’s permitted under the B-1 zoning district which is suburban office and it’s subject to the declaration that I indicated no more than 2 story office type buildings.

MR. STARK:  So there’s no insurance that next year you could come back and change the zoning on that and put an 80 ft. hospital up.

MS. MAGYAROS:  They could always come back and ask for a B-3.

MR. STARK:  Right, so this hasn’t accomplished anything.  And the other gentleman who’s the drainage expert, you keep talking about the integrity of Nobles Pond and saving Nobles Pond but what about the Mudbrook creek that runs to Nobles Pond?  I’ve noticed that the 25 years that I’ve lived where I’m at that every summer the water gets higher and higher.  They have to do something about the drainage.  Blacktop, concrete and rooftops do not absorb water and they all run to the Mudbrook creek and it’s going to back up and go in our basements and landscaping and who’s going to pay for all the cleanup, Jackson Township?  They have to address this problem and I have heard nothing about that.  Just the integrity of Nobles Pond.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the amendment?  I’m not seeing any other hands so anyone that would like to speak in opposition?  Mr. Frieg you’ve had your hand up all night so come on up.

MR. JOHN FRIEG:  I’m not in opposition, but I didn’t put down for or against but I have a couple of questions.  My name is John Frieg, 7178 Shady Hollow Rd.  The only thing first I’d like to say is if the best use, if that’s what were considering, would be to place the new Market Place in what we have across the street as a ghetto now.  Force everybody to work together and take the fine thing that all of you have seen at the other place.  Who would want to even build it there across from a vacant strip that is there?  If the developers could get together and place that over across the street and move Aultman up on the corner thereby not having to rely on a single access out onto 241 or Wales but having possibly two or three exists or accesses.  The threat of 120 units that people have been saying, well can’t this land that’s left here still have several hundred units and if you’ll look these lots are the ones that are going to be greatly impacted by high density housing.  There is very little impact back here.  If you want to have impact from apartments then stick them back here.  Don’t stick them eventually right up along this buffer that’s 25 ft. wide.  Across the street move Aultman up there.  That’s the best use.  Then they keep saying do you want 120 units.  That’s a joke because you’re going to get more than 120 abutting all you friends and neighbors.  I came here neutral and I’m not trying to give you a false impression but there was a gentleman here that said it gives the board a false impression.  I don’t think these people are here to give a false impression.  I think most of them are here for information so I don’t like that remark.

The other thing is the drainage man and the gentleman that spoke against it.  I represented Steubenville for four years and they are being sued for millions and millions of dollars.  The zoning director and board of directors and zoning officers were sued and the reason is they permitted and issued permits to build a shopping center on a piece of land and no one calculated the 10 year storm, the 50 year storm, the 100 year storm, no one calculated the rain run off from the asphalt, the parking lot, the roofs, and actually it washed out everybody’s accesses.  Now we’re going to have some runoff but do we know the difference in numbers of the runoff of apartments verses the buildings and the large parking lot.  That’s going to have a lot more runoff than this.

The other question I have is once we allow this partnership, this unique partnership to work on the pond, does that in fact for instance the hospital, if they have to provide free medical services does that mean that it’s really not controlled by the residents who own it?  Will it then open it up for use by the public?  I don’t know if there’s an answer.  Once you join in with Willmoll and Aultman do we still have the right to own it and limit access to it?

Now the other thing, DeHoff and Willmoll are tremendous builders and business men.  Why do they have to keep bringing up, ‘do you really want 120 units?’  Why can’t it just be we can open this access up into single family high value houses like we have right here?  If they were our friends give them access right here and build houses just like you live in.  However, going back to this do these folks have any guarantee that they are not going to have exactly what Aultman is saying they are protecting us from?  Look it’s the lake there and all our friends and neighbors here.  So let’s just do this residential and do Aultman and then let’s fix up this with some kind of a deal with the developers and put that market over there.  That’s the best use of this property.  And in closing I want to say, and you brought it up and got rid of it, promises were made to the people who bought this land to have all of these restrictions.  They paid a ton of money.  Whether they paid ten dollars or ten million for the house, the seller, the developer, who made quite a bit of money I would image, made promises and they were admitted.  Things change.  A lot of things change.  There will be different faces here and there will be all kinds of changes but from the beginning of time promises made have been promises kept.  There is no such thing as changes happen with promises.  Therefore, I believe this board should do what a majority, 2/3 and 51 % of these property owners decide to do.  Not what the developers or even what the board wants to do.  Promises were made and if there have been anymore arguments or fights or deaths over property it’s only been over religion.  So hold someone to their promises.  Don’t acknowledge that promises change.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Mr. Frieg.  Anyone else in this section of the room that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?

MR. BENNETT FIERMAN:  My name is Bennett Fierman and I’m with Mercy Medical center.  I don’t know if you want my office address for that purpose.

MS. MAGYAROS:  That’s fine.

MR. FIERMAN:  1320 Mercy Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio.  I’m going to try to be uncharacteristically brief.  I’m a Vice President of Mercy Medical center and I am the primary executive involved in the development of the property across the street.  I’ve heard a lot tonight about partnerships, collaborations, working together protecting the interest of the adjoining property owners, and I have to tell you I would have loved to have been a lot more prepared tonight but tonight is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to see what the people are going to be developing and are planning on doing.  A week ago tonight I sat in a meeting with Mr. DeHoff when he spoke to Mercy for the first time about the concept of rezoning and then changing ownership of the properties which would then reposition Aultman.  I really want to limit my comments to the intersection and the impact that it may place and I’d like to draw your attention to something that at least seems apparent to me.  By way of history and the development of the Mercy property across the street Gary Connor and I designed that road.  It was the second version.  The first version we collectively determined in multiple meetings with Bob DeHoff and Marian Manns and a variety of other people including Steve Meeks, that Mercy’s first plans would have cost the school more money to use their easement for bus access through our property.  It would have cost the township more money to maintain multiple dedicated roads.  It was less desirable for the YMCA and in the spirit of collaboration at our own expense we actually replatted the property twice.  The second time resulting in the configuration that we have now.  We did that so that we would be helping in the spirit of collaboration the school system, the YMCA, and the township.  In deciding where the road should go and where that intersection should go we were in many meetings that I believe Bob DeHoff was in attendance, and Bob you have my absolute respect and I hope you know that without me saying it.  Bob is an exceptional business man and in those meetings it was made very clear that the advantage to that intersection was that it would be the main entrance to a Washington Square like shopping plaza directly across from our property and the traffic associated with the Washington Square plaza was necessary to have by directional access through that intersection.  In fact ODOT restricted that intersection to right in and right out only until we could do a traffic count after the fact to demonstrate that there is enough traffic for it to be by directional.  That intersection is also where the school benefits from where the bus traffic coming in and out and the whole concept behind it was that was going to be the premiere entrance to a premiere shopping plaza.  I’ve heard a lot about the interest of the home owners and obviously there are two sides to every story.  I’ve heard a lot about what appears to be a great number of meetings with the home owners trying to protect them and assure them that their values are maintained and their interests are guarded.  Quite frankly there has been none of those discussions with us to date about that and I think one of the problems that this presents is configuring the property the way this is it really detracts from the traffic patterns that I think Mercy would have benefited from and as much as we are absolutely a charitable organization and we do things in the spirit of partnership, if I knew that my competition who I do value and deem as very competent people were going to be across the street from my building at the intersection that I created with our hospitals money that intersection would have been someplace else.

We came forward with two dedicated roads originally and a different configuration and really tried to satisfy as many needs as possible in doing what we are doing.  We agreed to use the same architect for building construction as the YMCA and make it match what’s going on across the street at the community center.  Quite frankly, when I hear all the efforts that went into trying to protect the interest of the homeowners I think there was a morbid insensitivity to the interest of the property owners across the street.  One of the things that also occurred to me as I listened to people’s comments, particularly the presentation that we went through, it sounded to me as though if you don’t pass these requests for rezoning that the result will be catastrophic.  That there won’t be a beautiful Washington Square and Aultman will build a monolithic building and people will be poring out of the parking lot.  There will be accidents galore and quite frankly, because I respect Bob and his organization as much as I do and I respect Aultman and their organization as much as I do, I have to believe if you deny these requests tonight this will all get developed and it will be drop dead gorgeous.  It will be safe and will protect the needs and rights of everyone involved, but it will force them to go back to the board and do it differently and I would hope that it would protect the interest of Mercy’s property across the street because quite frankly in addition to donating property to the YMCA we have spent hundred’s and hundred’s of thousand’s of dollars improving the site and putting a dedicated road in and creating the intersection.  Quite frankly, this seems a bit opportunistic to me for Aultman to end up across the street of an intersection that we created.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Anyone else in this section that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment.
DR. JAMES BRUNIE:  My name is Dr. James Brunie and I live at 6831 Chillingsworth Circle in Nobles Pond.  I want to apologize to the commission for my nervousness.  I have to write down what I say because I’ve never spoken in front of a public forum before and also to the people behind me speaking with my back to you.  Within the past week, a page has been posted on the Jackson Township website that is a preliminary report of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee.  This committee is charged with developing and reporting to the Zoning Commission a comprehensive plan that will present long-range goals and objectives for all activities that effect growth and development in the Township and is to serve as a guide for public rulings on public and private development proposals.

Although the report at this stage is preliminary, it does reach a general consensus of opinion of a large and diverse group of township citizens who share a common goal of making Jackson Township a better place to live and work.

The report lists areas with which we can all be justifiably proud.  Our schools, parks, safety services and recreational facilities are just some of the areas mentioned.  On the other hand the report sites overwhelming concern regarding land use, the lack of managed growth, and the development of new commercial areas while older existing areas are under utilized and in some areas under maintained.  The committee lists as one of its top visions for the township, “smart growth” being used to preserve open space and respect existing neighborhoods.  Indeed, commercial growth into residential areas was a large concern.  I quote from the report, “The vision that received the second largest number of votes from the committee was to channel commercial development into the area east of Frank Rd. and prevent it from spreading further west.  They also wished to see commercial vacancies filled before new commercial development occurred.”

We have here tonight two proposals that are diametrically opposite of the visions expressed by this commissions own long range planning committee.  Nowhere in this report does anyone remotely suggest that expanding commercial development beyond what the zoning code currently allows in this area would be a good idea.  Indeed, the report recommends precisely the opposite.

A critical analysis of the reasons requesting zoning changes for both properties being considered tonight reveals no justifiable or defensible stand.  Neither the tunnel proposed under Fulton Rd., the expansion of the high school, the construction of the YMCA, nor a traffic control device installed on Wales Ave. exiting the high school, all sited as reasons for requesting the change from R-4 to B-3, none of these projects require or benefit from this zoning change.  A roadway exiting from the developer’s property onto Wales Ave. at this proposed intersection would not require a zoning change either.

Only one reason is offered justifying the proposal to rezone over five acres on Fulton Dr. from R-R/R-1A to B-1, sighting the change will provide for an appropriate buffer.  As it turns out all of the land north of this property including the beautiful yellow farm house that Mr. Winkhart mentioned on the other side of Fulton is zoned residential.  All of that land north of there; all the land to the east is zoned residential and all of the land to the south of this property is zoned residential.  Rather than serving as a buffer rezoning of this land will merely be an extension and intrusion of a commercial district into a surrounding residential area.

Nothing in the current zoning of these properties prevents Willmoll from developing a medical complex or even a hospital.  The B-3 zoned portion of this property is more than adequate in size and orientation to accommodate this project.  Perhaps this will require the developers to modify or even scale back their plans.  An expansion of the B-3 zoning space on this property with the resultant increased transient traffic, congestion, and noise runs counter to even the vision of this commission’s own long range planning committee.

In the final analysis, a skeptical person might conclude that the proposed zoning changes before this commission tonight are less about building orientations, safety, appropriateness, or buffers, and more about maximizing financial returns for developers.  Neither of these requests benefits Jackson Township or the majority of people who live here.  I would urge you to deny both.  Thank you.
MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Is there anyone else on this side of the room that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?  Please approach.

MR. BRUCE HEATH:  My name is Bruce Heath and I live at 5056 Cardington Green Circle.  Just real briefly I’m one of the poor unfortunate soles that are going to be a little to close to the action.  I purchased my home four years ago.  I did it for two selfish reasons; for the benefit of my family to have a good place to live and number two hopefully to see it appreciate in value.  I work with the forth largest independently owned real estate company in the United States, Smyth-Cramer, and I know what this will do to the value of my home.  It will cause it to plummet.  For selfish reason I’m here asking that does not happen because location is everything and if you put a prime home in the back of Nobles Pond, right on the pond with a business right next to it, it will decrease.  So with that I am speaking for selfish reasons for preservation of my investment.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the zoning amendment?

MR. DALE BLACKSON:  Would it be appropriate for me to give a copy of this to the commission members?

MS. MAGYAROS:  That would be fine.

MR. BLACKSON:  My name is Dale Blackson and I live at 5056 Paddington Down St., Canton, Ohio.  First of all I’d like to thank the commissioners for your participation on this committee.  Proper zoning practices play an important role in the successful growth of Jackson Township.  Proper zoning encourages effective development in the township.  Proper zoning also protects the existing investments in the township.  My plea to you is to disapprove zoning amendments 540-04 and 541-04 to protect my investment in my home at Nobles Pond as well as the homes of others at Nobles Pond.

The existing zoning of the property that is the subject of these proposed amendments is an excellent example of proper zoning.  In 1989 Jackson Township anticipated the non-residential growth that would take place on the corner of Wales and Fulton. In 1989 additional portions of the property on the southeast corner were changed from business zoning to residential zoning.  According to the Stark County Regional Planning Commission these 1989 changes were made to serve as a buffer to protect the Nobles Pond single-family subdivision from uses that could be detrimental to the existing residential uses.  These 1989 changes provided additional residential zoning to buffer the single-family area that became the Farms at Nobles Pond and The Woods at Nobles Pond.  These 1989 zoning changes immediately preceded the development and marketing of the single-family homes in Nobles Pond.

When I considered purchasing my family’s building lot in 1991, the builder’s representative showed me the zoning maps.  They carefully pointed out to me that there was additional residential zoning between the Farms at Nobles Pond and the business zone.  They described this area as being intended for residences such as high value condominiums.  They never talked about 120 apartments and I can’t believe that is a reasonable plan.  They assured me that the Jackson Township zoning was in place to protect my investment.  This zoning was a key factor in my decision to build our house at Nobles Pond.  I believe that many other Nobles Pond residents went through a similar decision process.  During multiple resident meetings over the years the developer’s representatives continued to show zoning maps.  They reassured us that the zoning provides buffers between our houses and the business zones.  Now nearly all of the single-family lots are sold.  The developer is now applying to change some of this buffer from residential to business.  In my opinion such a change is totally unfair to the homeowners in Nobles Pond.

The Jackson Township Zoning Resolution Book describes commercial business districts as quote, “activities which because of their nature, such as their tendency to encourage traffic congestion and parking problems, storage problems, or certain other inherent dangers, create special problems” unquote for nearby residences.  My concerns with the proposed zoning changes include the following specific problems which are increased commercial business views from otherwise beautiful residential lots, increased noise from closer businesses, increased odors from closer businesses and increased transient traffic from additional businesses.  Each of these problems reduces the opportunity to continue my enjoyment of my home and detracts from the value of my home.  My plea to the Zoning Commission is to not allow business zoning to move any closer to my house.  Please disapprove these requests.

I might add another comment.  Representatives from the homeowners association indicated their approval for this.  In my opinion they never, never, brought in input from the community and in fact I sent a letter to them opposing the zoning and asking for their viewpoint on it.  The only feedback that I got was to find out that my letter was delivered to the attorneys for the applicant.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you for your comments.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

MS. CAREN BLACKSON:  My name is Caren Blackson and I live at 5056 Paddington.  I oppose the zoning changes.  On Wednesday I provided a list to Joni with 39 names of people who also oppose the zoning changes.

MS. MAGYAROS:  I do have a copy of that and I will make that an exhibit.

MS. BLACKSON:  I would like to also provide, there were 39 names there and I have 6 additional names that were added in opposition for a total of 45.  You can see if you look at the addresses that people from all parts of the Nobles Pond development have signed in opposition to the zoning changes.  I would like the commissioners to realize that we did not go door to door soliciting signatures, but we simple placed a clip board on our porch and people had to come by if they wanted to sign.  I believe that indicates that people had to take the initiative to come to our house to sign so it shows more commitment on their part.  I’m sure that there are varied reasons why people oppose the changes.  Personally I was comfortable with the zoning that was in place and the assurances we were given when we purchased our property and it just doesn’t seem fair or reasonable to change that zoning now.

I would like to thank all of you and especially like to thank Joni because she’s helped me learn a lot about the process.

MS. MAGYAROS: She keeps us all in line.  Thank you.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the amendment?  (No one came forward) Okay at this time then Mr. Winkhart did you want to have any responses at all to the comments you’ve heard.

MR. WINKHART:  In the interest of time I too will be as brief as possible.  A couple things here and tonight are relatively consistent with the meetings that we’ve had with the homeowners.  Most of the things that the homeowners raised are very good points and issues that we have tried to initially anticipate and react to as best possible.  Mr. Blackson made the comment that this property was rezoned in 1989.  That didn’t happen by accident.  The property was rezoned in 1989 by Mr. DeHoff.  At that time, and I think it came through in Stark County Regional Planning’s comments, there was actually more commercial zoning at that time and some of that property specifically the northern part of what were talking about right now was in fact commercial, and regional planning, the planning professionals in our county, said that it would be appropriate for that northern property to return to commercial, the B-3 commercial. That’s what they unanimously voted on in the last couple of weeks.

Again, that is not something that we believe is in the best interest of Nobles Pond.  Dr. Brunie referred to Jackson Township’s Long Range Planning Committee.  I serve as a member of that committee and whole heartily embraced the primary report that has come out.  I don’t believe that there should be additional B-3 zoning in this area of our township.  But, I think the thing that’s important to remember, and I said this at the homeowner’s association meeting, we have a ton of commercial in Jackson Township.  The Belden Village area and the Strip are some of the most remarkable if you will, whether you like it or don’t like it, some of the most remarkable commercial developments that have occurred in our country and some of those tenants boost the best profits of any of their national counterparts.  It is an amazing area, but it’s not our area.  That area we share with the rest of the county and multiply counties around us.  I think that the nice thing about the Market Place at Nobles Pond like we found with the Market Place at Washington Square is that it becomes something that is inherently Jackson; something that is our type of neighborhood center.  The first thing I said to you tonight was that that project as well as Aultman hospitals project can go forward.  I don’t disagree with Mr. Fierman’s comments, ‘will go forward’.  Our goal has been to look at the site as a blank piece of paper and design it with prospective changes that occurred in our community to allow for not what could be done today, but what is a better project and we’ve tried to do that as responsibly as possible.  I’ve heard one resident say that he bought property hoping that it would appreciate.  He bought that property right up against an R-4 multi-family zoning district like everybody else in our neighborhood did.  That zoning has never changed since we all started buying lots there.  We’ve all known that that property was R-4.  We’ve all know the existing zoning, the commercial zoning, at the corner.  It was like that from the beginning and shame on any of us who were surprised to later find out that that zoning was the way it was when we signed our contract.  The point of that is we believe that the use that we’re proposing, the Aultman Health Foundation use at this location, is a better use.  It’s a different use and it’s a commercial use.  I’m not threatening apartment units; I’m just saying what the existing zoning is.  I believe and our land planners believe that it is a less burdensome use than a permitted apartment unit.  We have gone to great lengths to negotiate with Aultman Health Foundation to take them from a situation where they can build an 80 ft. hospital and scale that down to what is appropriate for this corner which is a wellness center very similar to what they have proposed and built in other parts of this community.  So, I think that the things that we have done demonstrate not a desire to maximize the commercial development, but on the contrary it’s been a desire to maximize the quality of the commercial development and for the reason that I talked about with respect to the changes, I mean there is no question that the tunnel under Fulton Rd. is or isn’t going to happen as a result of this rezoning, but it creates a pedestrian friendly walkway from the Nobles Pond site, the Aultman site, through that area to the north park.  It is very relevant.  It’s all connected.  The fact that Aultman sits by itself not connect to the commercial center and their existing site our land planners believe is not a good overall land use plan.

Just with respect to one comment that I should have mentioned, I know that drainage is a concern.  Mr. Stark, I believe his name is, has mentioned that the creek along side of his house seems to fill up and he’s probably worried about it right now flooding his mum garden, but the reality of that obviously there is 1,000 acres to the north that are drained by that creek.  The good news about this development is the proposed drainage from the largest part of this site drains to the west and doesn’t drain to the east into Nobles Pond.  So, that has been accounted for and obviously will be designed in favor of.

I’m not sure how to respond to Dr. Fierman’s comments with respect to protecting Mercy’s interest with respect to this.  As I indicated in my presentation I think that there are a lot of very good partners in Jackson Township working for the betterment of this community and we would like to think that we are one of those partners.  We believe that we’ve come up with a plan that truly benefits all of the residents of Jackson Township the way we have reoriented this site.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Mr. Winkhart.  I see one other hand in the audience.  Mr. Frieg did you want to say, briefly, very briefly.

MR. FRIEG:  In response to when they say that there’s not a threat to multi high density housing, if the people would have a choice of high scale condominiums, if that was the argument that was raised all night verses the development that is proposed it is very clear to me that the residents would choose the promised land that they were told; the high scale condominiums.  But in contrast the entire argument was constantly made with high volume apartments in large numbers.  So, in my humble opinion if that’s not a threat it’s certainly an innuendo and had they used the word high scale condominiums then I would agree with the comparison and I think that everybody would choose the high scale condominiums.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Mr. Frieg.

MR. BERGMAN:  Aletha I have a question.  Maybe Mr. Winkhart or potentially Mr. Connor, how many home sites are there in Nobles Pond?  I’m not familiar with the total number.

MR. WINKHART:  Three hundred and two.

MR. BERGMAN:  Three hundred and two.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Okay at this time I think we will go ahead and move into the commission’s comments portion of the proceedings and Mr. Bergman I’ll start with you if you’d like to share some of your comments.
MR. BERGMAN:  Oh, I always get the first shot here.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Cause you’re the new guy on the block.

MR. BERGMAN:  The new got the end of the shop here.  Mr. Winkhart you said that time has away of changing minds including land planners.  Also apparently visionaries about how the land should be used.  I don’t have an awful lot of comments because quite frankly I sit as an alternate on the visionary board and I’m pretty concerned over the fact of what Dr. Brunie said.  Same comments very similar that I have is that our concerns with that board have been restricting the use of commercial development and making sure that the green space, etc. becomes maintained, and really I am extremely concerned that if we allow the creeping commercial establishments regardless of what the residential use might be that we just allow one more, if you will, building block as we eliminate the green space in Jackson Township.  I also happen to agree and as you might know one of the major concerns of that visionary group is that we have tremendous amount of unoccupied commercial and business space in the township and also as Dr. Brunie said across the street, at the shopping site across the street.  So I’m concerned that if we allow anything to happen, if the market place is going to be built then build it.  We can’t stop it, but to continue expansion of elimination of green space is to me completely opposite of what everything I’ve heard in the visionary group right now.  Also, you mentioned about the step down zoning between what is Altercare.  Altercare has apparently been done by a conditional use permit and I see no reason why the board should continue to allow that creeping commercial use even though it was already established.  Quite frankly, a promise is a promise.  Changing minds don’t mean to increase profits for me to change that so I’m sorry somebody would have to prove that to me.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Thank you Mr. Bergman.  Mr. Bauder.

MR. BAUDER:  I also am on the visionary board.  I also am concerned about under utilized commercial areas.  Also, I don’t see why most of this that we have on the screen can’t be done with existing zoning.  I don’t see the necessity of changing it.  As far as the other portion on Fulton Rd., to wrongs don’t necessarily make a right.  Altercare got a zoning change because probably nobody complained or resisted it.  Maybe R-4 up there would be a satisfactory classification.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Mr. Benner.

MR. BENNER:  Well we’re three for three; I’m on the comprehensive plan as well.  I think with the comprehensive plan being developed for the township significant rezones need to be, if not abated or not completely stopped, delayed until the comprehensive plan has a chance to work.  A lot of people have worked very hard trying to get that plan into place.  A lot of residents have participated and a lot of effort has gone into that.  There are of course traffic issue some of which Mr. Winkhart addressed.  I have significant traffic concerns for this part of the township because we don’t have the four lane egress and entrance in a square all the way around the township.  Wales Rd. and Fulton are the two pieces that are still missing.  I also believe that there is a significant amount of existing unused commercial buildings in the township.  Additionally, there is a significant amount of commercially zoned and unused property available in the township.  As many of the people who are here tonight spoke the current residential investments are a concern.  A lot of these people bought properties and built homes over there with the idea that yes there would be a commercial piece on the corner, and I suspect that they were pretty much told that there would be high scale multi family developments to step that down.  I agree with Jim on the conditional use permit.  The only thing is the variance on the 45 ft. height.  If that’s all you need conditional use permits are available to get that with the existing zoning that is there.  The other thing is, and this may come up with the second piece of property, but rezones of one piece of property are not made to allow property owners to swap one piece of property for another.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Ms. Conaway.

MS. CONAWAY:  I actually feel that the plan looks like a really well thought out plan.  I’m sitting here thinking okay if I lived there along the edges of that development which would I rather have even if it’s high end condo’s or would I want an Ault care.  I just don’t think an Ault care would be that bad.  I think that it would be, if I had an Ault care behind me I think that I would have a lot less traffic, a lot less commotion and what goes with neighbors and neighborhoods.  But, if you can accomplish that without the rezone then if it’s not really necessary then I guess it’s not that important.  The other thing is as far as the commercial, I too feel that we have entirely too much businesses and commercial buildings in the township that are vacant or not kept up.  The one right across the street is becoming more and more unsightly to me with lots of vacancies there, but I guess that doesn’t really matter because they can build their market place whether that’s the case or not.  So, we have to keep that in mind as well so that really is irrelevant.  I go over to the one in North Canton and I think it’s really a nice asset to that area so I know whatever you do it will be nice.  I’m sure of that.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Well I kind of made comments all along throughout this evening, but I’ll reiterate some of those.  I’ll start with the fact that I still don’t see the need to rezone it B-3.  We can still accomplish what you want to do with the B-1 or a B-2 with a conditional use permit.  And I think by requesting a B-1 or B-2 and getting a conditional use permit that fits in better with the concept of step zoning because we’re not going from a B-3, then we would go from a B-1 or a B-2 and then an R-4, so I think that whole concept fits in better with what we’ve been trying to do as far as promoting step zoning.

I know Mr. Winkhart has spent a lot of time meeting with the citizens and I know we appreciate that on the zoning commission and I think the surrounding neighbors appreciate that.  It’s always bad if you come in here and it becomes an education session for the residents who have not ever had an opportunity to see what you are suggesting or promoting that you would like to build.  So I would like to thank the people involved, especially you Mr. Winkhart, for meeting with the citizens in doing that.  That is very helpful for us and I could tell that the people here tonight were well educated on what you had planned.

I know you spent a lot of time on the restrictive covenants, but I truly do not believe that we can consider that as a zoning commission in making our determination whether or not to rezone this to B-3.  I think the residents believe that will give them some guarantees and some comforts in the future but that’s not something that we are able to consider and we were down this road before with Akron General and we’re kind of all in the dark as to what’s going to happen next with that.  So, I think we’re best to stick with the zoning regulations and enforce those and not try to make side agreements that really the township ourselves we have no way of enforcing.

I also agree with my other commission member’s comments regarding the commercial in this area.  We already have a lot of unutilized buildings that we could use, but I still believe this plans going to go forward and I think this market place plan is a great plan and I think that what Aultman wants to do with that lot they can still do.  They just have to take a different route.

With that I would move that we vote on amendment #540-04.

MS. BAUDER:  Second.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Bergman.

MR. BERGMAN:  No.
MS. POINDEXTER: Mr. Bauder.

MR. BAUDER:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Benner.

MR. BENNER:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Conaway.

MS. CONAWAY:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Magyaros.

MS. MAGYAROS:  No.  Okay our decision tonight will go as a no recommendation to the trustees and they will conduct a hearing on June 28th at which time they will set the hearing for this case.

AMENDMENT #541-04 – Thomas Winkhart, 801 South Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Aultman Health Foundation, property owner, 2600 Sixth St. SW, Canton, Ohio 44710 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) & R-1 (Single Family Residential District) to B-1 (Suburban Office & Limited Business District) 5.2671 acres of an 11.50 acre tract located on the south side of Fulton, east of Wales Rd., Sect. 22NW Jackson Twp.

Ms. Magyaros read the file application signed by Thomas Winkhart and the Stark County Regional Planning recommendation for approval and the facts considered in their recommendation.

MS. MAGYAROS:  This matter went before the Stark County Regional Planning Commission on June 8th for a recommendation for reclassification of land from R-R Rural Residential and R-1A Single Family Residential to B-1 Suburban Office & Limited Business. The property is described as approximately 5.2671 acres located on the south side of Fulton Dr. east of Wales Ave. in the NW ¼ Section 22,, Jackson Township.

The matter went before the Regional Planning Commission and the Regional Planning Commission recommended approval for the following reasons:

1. Approximately 5.2671 acres of an existing 11.5 acre tract is proposed for rezoning to B-1 Suburban Office; the remaining acreage is zoned B-3 Commercial Business.  Until several years ago, when this tract and the 5-acre tract to the east were subdivided, they were both part of a large tract that extended from Wales to the Nobles Pond allotment boundary.
2. The southern half of said acreage was rezoned to R-2 Single Family Residential in 1989 to provide a buffer to protect the large single-family home to the east from the commercial zoning located to the west.  In 1999, when the township adopted a complete revision of their zoning resolution and map, the title of the R-2 Single Family Residential District was changed to R-1A Single Family Residential District, with similar regulations.  Density requirements in the R-1A district would allow for 2-4 homes per acre.
3. In 1962, approximately 171 acres at the intersection of Wales and Fulton were rezoned to Commercial.
4. While the township offices and garages have been located near the intersection of Wales and Fulton for many years, the remainder of the northwest corner has developed over the last fifteen years to include the park, library and safety building.  Jackson High School and the park are located on the south side of Fulton, along with a medical office and gas station.  The northeast corner of the intersection is retail and commercial.  Construction is underway on the west side of Wales for the Mercy Medical Health Park of Jackson where the YMCA will be located along with several office buildings.
5. The application for rezoning refers to a master plan for the Marketplace at Nobles Pond; however, a copy of the plan was not provided.  Any development of the approximately 57 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection, owned by Willmoll Development and Aultman Health Foundation, will have an impact on the intersection of Wales and Fulton.  Improvement plans for modification to the intersection are being reviewed by Ohio Department of Transportation.  Since changes are proposed to the abutting highways, the zoning administrator is required to give notice to ODOT prior to the issuance of a permit, in accordance with ORC 5511.01.
6. The uses permitted in the proposed B-1 district are less intensive than the uses permitted in the adjacent B-3 district and could provide a buffer to the existing residential uses to the east and north.  The skilled nursing facility, located on the adjacent 5-acre tract to the east, operates as a conditionally permitted use as a Congregate Living Facility and also provides some protection to the existing residential uses.
7. The application should be corrected to reflect the existing zoning district as R-1A Single Family Residential, not R-1.

Okay at this time Mr. Winkhart if you would like to approach and speak in favor of this amendment.

MR. WINKHART:  I deferred to the wisdom and expertise of the regional planning commission which voted unanimously to approve this.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Okay anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in favor of the amendment?  (No one came forward or raised their hand)  Okay hearing no one, is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition?

MR. DALE BLACKSON:  My name is Dale Blackson, 5056 Paddington Down St., Canton, Ohio.  I’d just like to state for the record that my previous presentation and the letter that I provided applies to this issue and the petition that Ms. Blackson presented also applies to this issue.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Any one else that would like to speak in opposition?

MS. MAGYAROS:  Please approach with your address and name.

MR. FRIEG:  John Frieg, 7178 Shady Hollow.  I would just like to restate the comments that the commission was saying that two wrongs don’t make a right.  Also, the last comments in reading this application and they showed how the zoning had changed over the last several years; well that proves that only people in favor of those zoning changes showed up because the changing allowed that land to commercial and things like that may not have happened if all the residents showed up.  And I would also say still respecting the long range planning of the regional group, I don’t know how many of them live in Nobles Pond but I think that the best use of the property should concern those that actually reside.  I don’t think there’s, there’s some impact on other businesses that are there so that they kind of flow into each other, but it’s a unique intersection in that that particular section of property goes back and it’s residential.  If you look at the other four actual intersections of course that one across the street, Foxboro, does unfortunately butt up against other residence and they too put a little buffer up.  But that place is in great disrepair in the back.  I just think there is no residential on any of the corners. There’s the safety building and there’s the school and the YMCA, and there’s the unoccupied shopping, so really out of those four intersections the real impact is on the residents of Nobles Pond.  Also, in closing consider the impact on Fulton Rd.  Thank you.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?  (No one came forward)  Okay I’ll turn to the commission members.  Mr. Bergman do you have any comments.

MR. BERGMAN:  No.

MS. MAGYAROS:  Mr. Bauder.

MR. BAUDER:  I really don’t see changing it to B-1 or changing for something we really don’t know what it is.

MS. MAGYAROS: Mr. Benner.

MR. BENNER:  The same comments I had about the existence of more than adequate commercial property in the township still applies to this one as well.

MS. CONAWAY:  I do think the long range planning that’s going on right now, and I agree that we need to sort of hold back on some of these zoning changes until we really have a lot of that in place, I really don’t see the need.  Again, there is a lot of empty spaces across the street and I think Fulton Rd. doesn’t need more ingress and egress right there at that point.  So that’s how I feel.

MS. MAGYAROS:  I would also just echo the same comments that I made on the previous amendment.  Do I have a motion to vote on amendment #541-04?

MS. CONAWAY:  I move we vote.

MR. BERGMAN:  Second.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Bergman.

MR. BERGMAN:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Bauder.

MR. BAUDER:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Benner.

MR. BENNER:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Conaway.

MS. CONAWAY:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Ms. Magyaros.

MS. MAGYAROS:  No.  Again, our vote will go as a recommendation to the trustees and they will set the date for the hearing at their meeting on June 28th.  I’d like to thank everyone that came out this evening.  It was a long evening and the hard work that was put into the project, we appreciate it.

Mr. Bergman made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary