JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Thursday, May 26, 2011 MINUTES Members present: Alternate Zoning Investigator: Absent Member: Ted Deremer Jim Giulitto-Absent for #2186 Gary Zillich Philip Kirkbride Leon Vitale Ron Revlock Edward McDonnell 6:30 pm #2186 - Michael Keller, property owner, 6198 Hann Ave. NW, Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614 requests a variance for a 3 ft. south side yard setback for accessory bldg. where 10 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5006 Revere NW, Sect. 20SW Jackson Twp. zoned R-R. Mr. Deremer read the file application and reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and surrounding properties, a letter dated 4/22/11 from the Stark County Health Department with an attached addition evaluation, a notarized statement from Mike and Becky Mikus in favor of the appeal, a site layout of the proposed addition of the garage, a sheet showing the Gambrel roof and two pages consisting of six photos of the property in question. Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in Mike Keller, 6198 Hann NW, Canal Fulton, Ohio. Mr. Keller stated that board has a copy of the variance request from the Health Department. He was shocked to find out that there was a leach well in the best place to put the building. The building was going to be turned somewhat. For aesthetic purposes he didn t want people looking directly into the building from the street. This is not the result that the board has in front of them but is the best that he could come up with. Mr. Keller stated that the drawing he submitted to the health department shows from the property line to the center of the leach well to be 50 ft. 6 inches. The reason for the picture of the barn roof is because he would like to have a gamble roof put on it. They come in 28 ft, 32 ft. and 36 ft. wide. He felt that 28 ft. for a 3 bay building didn t give him enough space for his woodworking shop because he isn t that far from retirement. It didn t give enough room for his equipment, vehicles and woodworking shop. Thirty two feet is about the smallest he could go. From 50 ft. 6 inches, if you take out the 5 ft. variance from the health department, it takes it down to 45 ft. 6 in. minus a 10 ft. apron is 35 ft. 6 in. So with a 32 ft. building it gives him a 3 ft. setback on the south side. Mr. Keller stated that the pictures show what the view is of the property. All this does is show that the property is a hill side. There is a hill to the southeast, northeast and northwest of the house. He is sitting on the low end and to put a building on the hill, when the property is 400 by 300, puts it quite a distance from the house. Mr. Keller stated that he was asked by Ms. Poindexter if there is any other place the building could be put on the property and he stated yes there are all kinds of places it could be put, but none that are really going to work. All the exits 1
from the house are on the south side of the property so it doesn t make sense to exit the south side of the house to go to the north end to do some work. Mr. Keller stated that the north end has the main swale for the drainage for the hillside. If he builds into the hill and swale he is asking for trouble and he is trying to avoid any flooding. If he builds on the north side of the house, as shown in photo #1, there are utility lines that sag. If he builds anything on the north end of the property he would have to either put in a new driveway from Revere, cross the front yard with a driveway, or go the back yard and put in a driveway. However, he can t really put a driveway in the back yard due to the septic system and lines going to the leach well. Mr. Keller stated that excavation would be costly for the hillside. There is a little area that comes down and flattens out and then starts down again. If he can continue that grade where it flattens out it will become almost too much grade for the building, which would minimized the need for a retaining wall or some sort of French drain to get the water away from the building. Mr. Keller stated directly behind the house is a relatively flat area but in talking with Paul McGrew, the owner of Another Chance Septic, Mr. McGrew said if the system ever had to be replaced the leach field would have to be in that spot. So looking down the road he wants to avoid putting something where he may have to put in another system. Mr. Keller stated that his wife has a heart condition and it is difficult for her to walk very far, especially on a hill side. He wanted to keep the building reasonably close to the house in case he was in the garage and she needed to contact him. Mr. Keller stated that the structure would be about 19 or 20 ft. away from the house with flat land so she would be able to walk to it. Mr. Keller stated that Mr. & Mrs. Mikus have no opposition to the appeal and wouldn t even mind if it was on the property line. Mr. Keller stated that 3 ft. is about the least he can go to get the job done. He doesn t think he could do it in 4 or 5 ft. but you do what you have to do. In keeping with the rural setting with the house is why he wants to go with a gamble roof. Mr. Zillich asked if he lives in the house. Mr. Keller stated that it is under renovation but is moving there. He bought the property in November, 2009. The property is about 300 x 400 ft. His neighbor s house is about 100 ft. from the property line. Mr. Zillich asked where the leach lines are located. Mr. Keller stated that he has a leach well with a discharge line going from the tank over to the leach well. That was one of the consideration as to why he could not put a driveway across the back of the property. Mr. Zillich stated that would be a feature of the land that it was in such a condition because of the fall and drainage issues that this is the most logical form to put that septic in was to have that leach well as opposed to the leach lines. 2
Mr. Keller stated he would guess so. John Pavel and Mr. McGrew both agree when and if this system fails that the location directly behind the house would be the best spot to put it if replaced. Mr. Zillich stated, if passed, the variance stays with the property. Mr. Kirkbride stated that although the neighbor may not have a problem with it, if he sells the property the new owner may object because the variance stays with the property. Mr. Keller stated if a future owner would investigate it they would see the variance is on his property. Mr. Vitale asked if the size of the building is because of the roof of the structure. Mr. Keller stated originally a 30 ft. building was going to be proposed but when he researched it on the web, 30 ft. wide is not a standard width for a gamble roof. They come is 28, 32 and 36 ft. With three bays 28 ft. outside to outside does not give him enough room to put in two 9 ft. wide garage doors with a 10 ft. wide area for a workshop. Mr. Vitale stated but the building is 42 by 40 ft. Mr. Keller stated that is only the back side. He is trying to avoid encroaching on the well. That 42 ft. width in the back, if brought to the front, creates a 10 ft. slab that is for a patio area. Mr. Keller stated that he got the variance from the health department to stay 5 ft. away from the leach well but he was told when digging for the posts, if he hits gravel he needs to stop. Mr. Keller stated that the building posts are separated a little more so they are not by the leach well. Mr. Vitale asked if the 42 ft. in the back is all structure. Mr. Keller stated yes, it would all be interior building and then it is cut down to 32 ft. Mr. Vitale asked if it was 40 ft. how much damage would it do to the structure. Mr. Keller stated that portion would not affect anything. Mr. Vitale stated he is talking about if it were at 5 ft. as opposed to 3 ft. Mr. Keller stated if he reduces the right side of the building by 2 ft. then he reduces the front of the building by 2 ft. so instead of being 32 ft. it will be 30 ft. Mr. Vitale stated Mr. Keller could make the pad 8 ft. instead of 10 ft. Mr. Keller stated that he could do that but he wanted to keep everything in perspective so it looks reasonably attractive from the front and he didn t know if an 8 ft. pad would give the proportion that he wanted for the front. He didn t want to cut it down to just a sidewalk. He wanted a patio. Mr. Keller stated that he thinks 10 ft. would look better. 3
Mr. Deremer asked about the roof. Mr. Keller stated that it will be a 32 ft. gamble roof and then a shed type roof going over the office area and overhang. Mr. Deremer stated that reason he is hearing comments about the 3 ft. setback is because it seems like an extreme variance. Mr. Keller stated that he understands but if the leach well wasn t there then there wouldn t be an issue and he could stay away from the 10 ft. setback. Mr. Deremer stated that is why Mr. Keller is hearing the suggestion of cutting it down by 2 ft. A 50 % variance is more comparable than what is being requested. Mr. Keller stated that he looked at a lesser variance by shifting the building to the side a little bit but he doesn t know if an 8 ft pad would be all that it seems to be at this point. Mr. Deremer stated that is an opportunity that the board offers. Sometimes the board is willing to grant a lesser variance. Mr. Zillich stated that the building could be built on the property somewhere else even with the conditions that exist. Mr. Keller stated yes. It could be on any of the hill tops but when he bought the property the real estate agent indicated that if he ever wanted to sell the northern portion he could do that but if he built in that location it would eliminate that option but he doesn t plan on selling. Any other location for the building would not be as functional as the proposed located. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Vitale stated that he is struggling with the 3 ft. when the building could be built at a 5 ft. setback. The setback is just for aesthetics for the sidewalk or patio area. There are other areas where it could be built without a variance so he is struggling with a 3 ft. setback. Mr. Zillich stated that he agrees with Mr. Vitale. A 70% variance is a considerable amount. Mr. Kirkbride stated that a 3 ft. setback may be agreeable to everyone today but maybe not to a new owner. It is a large lot and 3 ft. is excessive. Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with the other board members. He understands because of the drainage and septic but it seems like we are trying to squeeze too much building in one location. The board has to look at what is the true practical difficulty. Some parts of the land have a practical difficulty but some of the reasons are because of the size of the building, which isn t a practical difficulty. Mr. Vitale made a motion to approve the appeal as requested. Mr. Zillich seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-no, Mr. Zillich-no, Mr. Kirkbride-no, and Mr. Deremer-no. 4
6:45 pm #2183 William Clark, property owner, 6120 Pinecreek NW, N. Canton, OH requests a variance for a 25 ft. front yard setback for principal building where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6120 Pinecreek NW, N. Canton, OH zoned R-R, Sect. 3SE Jackson Twp. Mr. Deremer read the file application and reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and surrounding properties and a site plan of the proposed addition. Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in William Clark, 6120 Pinecreek NW, North Canton, Ohio. Mr. Clark stated that he needs more garage space. He can build onto the existing garage but with the lot being on an angle it shoots the garage more toward the neighbor s house. Aesthetically it would make sense to straighten it out and bring it down which causes it to require a variance. Mr. Clark stated that it is only a small portion of the building that protrudes into the setback. Mr. Clark stated that there is nowhere else on the property to put the building. Mr. Deremer asked what size the building would be. Mr. Clark stated that it is 20 by 30 ft. The bays face the current driveway. Mr. Clark stated that the existing garage is at an angle and if attached directly to the existing garage without the breezeway it would make it harder to access and take it closer to the side lot line. Being a pie shaped lot is what creates the problem. Mr. Deremer asked how many doors are on the existing garage. Mr. Clark stated that there are two doors on the existing garage and the addition would be a two car garage. The existing garage has one double and one single door. Mr. Giulitto asked if there is another garage connected to the main building. Mr. Clark stated that there is a garage under the house. It is used as a single car garage but it has a double door. Mr. Giulitto asked if there is anywhere else the garage could be built. Mr. Clark stated no. He tried to lease land from the airport but because of the zoning restrictions he still couldn t put a garage on it. Mr. Zillich asked if the 15 ft. variance is because the corner of the garage protrudes into the setback and if the building was reduced he could build the garage within the zoning but it wouldn t be as large or appealing as Mr. Clark would like. Mr. Clark stated that is correct. 5
Mr. Vitale asked if the 6 ft. covered connecter between the two buildings was removed and the new building put against the old garage, how close would it get him to the setback that is required. Mr. Clark stated if it was connected to the old garage they could do it without asking for a variance but he doesn t think it would be aesthetically appealing. Mr. Vitale stated that it seems like a 24 by 24 ft. garage is good size. Mr. Clark stated that he wanted more room because he wants to have display cases on the wall to put in memorabilia. He collects items and has nowhere to put them. Mr. Kirkbride asked if the house is currently at a 50 ft. setback which now 40 ft. is required. Mr. Clark stated yes. Mr. Deremer swore in John McCue, 8023 Clifton Court NW. Mr. McCue stated that he is the designer for the garage. If the house were built in a straight line it would look like a large garage with a small house attached to it. To weave brick into existing brick that is 30 years old in nearly impossible and have it look right. From physical access to the back of the property it is hilly and difficult to get around. By having the small breezeway between the two he can get to the back side of his property without going around the additional structure. Mr. McCue stated by aligning the home it falls in line with the other homes when coming down the street. The house sits back further as it is and they looked at a very small chunk of that as going into the setback area. It is not affecting the front line visibility as you look down the street. The property is large but there is nothing but setback because of the way the property is shaped. Mr. Zillich asked how many garage doors would go on the new addition. Mr. Clark stated that there would be 2 doors but he is not sure if it would be one double and one single or two singles. Mr. Zillich asked if the corner was designed differently, because it s only a small corner of the building that requires the variance, could it be stepped back to meet the setback requirement. Mr. Clark stated that he can still build the garage but it won t be as nice. Mr. Vitale stated that he understands he would like to have the breezeway between the two buildings but maybe they could offset the buildings and change the roofline a little bit and put a man door out the back of the building to get in and out of the back yard. Mr. McCue stated that Mr. Clark s wish, when they designed the building, was to do something different than just have an extension so they came up with the breezeway which adds to the aesthetics of the whole thing. Mr. Deremer swore in Robert Williams, 6102 Pinecreek NW. 6
Mr. Williams stated that he lives directly next to Mr. Clark. Mr. Williams stated what the board heard was a desire to build a brick storage shed. He doesn t think that is the purpose of the beautiful homes is Pinecreek. His justification for it is the fact that it cost money to store these items someplace else. But think of the cost to build the building as described. What he is going to spend is a lot of money for the purpose of storage. He suggests that it is cheaper for Mr. Clark and better for him to continue to rent space someplace else. Mr. Williams stated that it doesn t show if trees have to come down but he assumes they will, but don t know for a fact. He has lived next to Mr. Clark for about 30 years and doesn t want to create a situation between them but he feels very strongly that a 720 ft. storage facility, when he has five garages now for space and a large home, can serve its purpose now. He is against granting the variance. Mr. Deremer asked how far Mr. William s house sits from the road. Mr. Williams stated about 50 ft. Mr. Clark was asked if he would like to respond to the opposition presented Mr. Clark stated that it is not a storage shed. He can still build the garage but it won t be as nice as if he had the variance. If that s what Mr. William s would rather have that then that is what he will do. Mr. Deremer asked if the garage could still be built within the setback. Mr. Clark stated yes. He wouldn t be able to turn it and it will go toward Mr. William s property. Mr. Giulitto asked Ms. Poindexter, when looking at section 401.12 that talks about accessory buildings; it says accessory building shall not exceed the square foot area of the primary use structure. Ms. Poindexter stated that it is not an accessory building. It is attached to the house therefore it is considered part of the principal structure. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed the appeal to public input. Mr. Vitale stated that he has mixed emotions. This is an odd shaped lot and almost like a corner. There are other ways to build it on the property and it s not his decision to choose if Mr. Clark has too much garage space or not. So he is torn on how he is going to vote. Mr. Zillich stated that Mr. Clark stated that the building design can be modified and make it fit within the resolution so the reality is he is going to build the garage whether the neighbors agree or disagree. They are only talking about maybe 20 sq. ft. of building that they are asking for the variance. Mr. Zillich stated that he doesn t see a reason to not pass the issue and he would vote in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer stated that the lot is odd shaped with one end being 143 ft. and narrowing down to nothing but the side yard is almost 400 ft. so actually it is a very large lot. The applicant testified 7
that can build the structure without a variance and it seems like they are trying to put 10 pounds in a 5 pound can so he is not in favor of the variance. Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer. Once the applicant said that he can build it without the variance then it is the board s duty to go down that road. He agrees by tweaking the design a little bit the building could be built without the variance. Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the appeal as requested. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-no, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-no, Mr. Giulitto-no, and Mr. Deremerno. 7:00 pm #2184 - Cooper & Associates, 1359 Market Ave. North, Canton, Ohio 44714 and Employers Health Purchasing Corp., 4143 Fulton NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agents for Ohio Power Company, property owner, 700 Morrison Rd., Gahanna, Ohio 43230 requests a variance for a parking lot in a B-1 district as a principal use at a 10 ft. north parking setback when abutting residential with no buffering where a parking lot is not a permitted principal use in a B-1 district and a 20 ft. setback is required with buffering when abutting a residential district per Art. IV Sect. 411.3, 411.8, & 411.9 of the zoning resolution. Property located at Parcel #1702576 Whipple NW, Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp. zoned B-1. Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Bryan Ashman and the reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and a site plan dated 4/12/11 by Cooper & Associates, LLP. Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in Christopher Goff, 4143 Fulton NW. Mr. Goff stated that he is the CEO of Employers Health. Mr. Goff stated that the building was built five years ago. It is a 10,000 sq. ft. 2 story building. They occupy the top half of the building and the lower level of 1,500 sq. ft. is finished and rented out to an optometrist. The remaining 3,500 sq. ft. is vacant. Employers Health was founded 28 years ago by the Timken Company, Diebold and Hoover as well as six other Stark County Based Employees. They have clients in 23 states and offices in Jackson Township, Columbus and Cincinnati. They are a purchasing organization and contract with health plans, etc. About 30 times a year they have client meetings. Anytime they have a meeting that involves more than 20 participants they use an offsite facility for the meetings. Fifteen times a year the meetings will involve up to sixty people so what they are trying to do is finish the lower level for meeting space for their meetings to be held at their office instead of offsite. Mr. Goff stated that the meetings would be held during the day from around 8 AM to 5 PM. The parking will have enough spaces for forty one vehicles. The current parking is not enough to accommodate that many people. Mr. Zillich asked if the property will be leased. Mr. Goff stated yes. 8
Mr. Zillich asked if there is a shared driveway easement. Mr. Goff stated yes. They currently cross the easement to get to the property. There is a parking lot in the front and rear. Mr. Vitale asked if the shaded area shown on the site plan is grass. Mr. Goff stated yes. There would be no lighting because the parking lot would only be utilized during the day. Mr. Deremer asked if parking is an issue now. Mr. Goff stated no. Mr. Vitale asked if the lower level were finished, would there be enough parking to accommodate everyone. Mr. Goff stated yes if it was used for medical purposes. There are enough spaces for how the building was built if it were used for offices or medical purposes. Mr. Vitale asked how many spaces are currently on the property. Mr. Goff stated 42. Several of those are handicapped. Mr. Zillich asked how many spaces would be added. Mr. Goff stated 41 spaces would be added. Mr. Deremer swore in Bryan Ashman, 1359 Market Ave. North, Canton, Ohio. Mr. Ashman stated that there are three parts to the variance. The parking as a primary use because there is no physical structure on the Ohio Power property. There is a large substation to the north but no physical building that would use the parking. The second factor of the request is to allow the parking lot to come within 10 ft. of the zoning line. The zone line splits the Ohio Power property so it is not a property line. Ohio Power is granting the easement in leasing the property for the parking lot. As the parking lot goes further to the east it is in excess of 20 to 25 ft. from the property line. The third part of the variance is to not do the landscaping within the parking setback when abutting the zone line. Ohio Power has asked that the variance be requested for no landscaping along the north side of the parking lot. Mr. Ashman stated that there is a 25 ft. drive easement that is on Ohio Power s property. It appears based upon the auditor s image that perhaps some of the joint drive between Employers Health and the Fernandez property might go into the easement but it is just an easement of record that they represented on the plan. Because of that easement the parking spaces on the plan have been kept to the west of the easement. Mr. Vitale asked if the current driveway that goes to the Fernandez property is used in the easement area. It appears the approach at the street is in the easement line. Mr. Ashman stated yes it does. He believes a portion of the drive goes over into the Ohio Power property. At this time they have not performed their topographic survey work, which will 9
be done as part of the improvement plan, but it appears right now it does partially go into the Ohio Power property. Mr. Zillich asked if there are a meets and bounds so it could be staked or it is just a description. Mr. Ashman stated they he was provided with a plat of survey for the Ohio Power property and it is represented on the Ohio Power property plat that it is a 25 ft drive easement. Mr. Ashman stated that the zone line follows the rear property line of the properties that front on Fulton. Mr. Zillich stated that the only property affected by the 10 ft. setback is the Ohio Power property so the impact is on no one else. Mr. Ashman stated that is correct. Mr. Zillich asked why they do not want landscaping along the 10 ft setback. Mr. Ashman stated that he cannot address that question because he is not certain. Mr. Ashman stated that the power lines are very close within the drive easement. Mr. Deremer stated that exhibit #1, 2, 3 & 4 are photos presented by the applicant and #1 and 3 show the overhead power lines. Mr. Ashman stated that the center portion of the parking area shown on the plan in green is going to be an INFIL basin which is an infiltration basin. The parking lot will be sloped so the drainage from the parking lot will go into the center basin. The center basin will have dry wells installed so the water can infiltrate down into the sub soil. Mr. Zillich asked if there would be any addition water coming off the new parking lot that would affect any adjacent properties. Mr. Ashman stated no. It would be designed to trap all the water. Mr. Deremer swore in Matt Scheetz, 8060 Frank Rd. NW. Mr. Scheetz stated the reason for no landscaping is because Ohio Power wants to be able to have access to the substation for any emergencies. Mr. Zillich asked who would maintain the area per the lease. Mr. Scheetz stated that Employers Health will maintain the parking lot. No one else spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in Ed Fernandez, 4155 Fulton NW. 10
Mr. Fernandez stated that he has been in the real estate business for over 30 years. He has been behind Employers Health for a long time. Mr. Goff is a pure gentleman but a terrible neighbor. He has had 70% of their water from the front of their existing building travel down the right of way driveway into his property. Mr. Fernandez stated that he asked Scheetz when they built the property to put a square drainage system in the driveway with an opening of 30 ft. but he didn t agree. Mr. Fernandez stated that he put them in to try to get the water out. This is just a little complaint. Why would we take the Ohio Power land and set a precedence to put in a parking lot that is going to be used one or two times a month. For 17 years he has cut 4-1/2 acres of the Ohio Power land, including where they want to put the parking lot, just so it would look nice because they only brushed hogged it once or twice a year. Mr. Fernandez stated that if they have been using the county club for their meetings they could continue to do so. The Employers Health parking lot has never been more than 60% full. In back where the doctor is has no more than 5 cars. Now they want a parking lot next door. Mr. Fernandez stated that he knows there is a lot of clay on the property. He is for progress but they will only use it one or two times a month and they could continue to use the county club. He doesn t want to look at a parking lot. That is going to devalue his home. If it worth $40,000 now it will take it down to $15,000. He don t think that is right and don t think there should be spot zoning like that. Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Fernandez if it is his testimony that by putting the parking in is going to be detrimental to his property and the value will be significantly reduced in the future. Mr. Fernandez stated there is no question. Mr. Giulitto asked if it is Mr. Fernandez testimony that he is getting water from the original building and he is possibly going to get more water from the parking lot. Mr. Fernandez stated that he doesn t know how they will do it but right now yes, it is a disgrace what is taking place. Mr. Giulitto asked if this is a constant thing or only when it rains. Mr. Fernandez stated every time it rains. Mr. Fernandez stated he was told it doesn t matter if you have all the people in the world saying yes or no to something because the board has to go by the rules so he didn t bring his pictures. But, that s the way it should be. He just doesn t want a parking lot. Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Fernandez if he would rather see a building on the property. Mr. Fernandez stated yes sir that is progress. A beautiful building is better than an asphalt parking lot. Mr. Zillich asked if Mr. Fernandez had any road frontage. Mr. Fernandez stated no. 11
Mr. Zillich stated so the property is landlocked and the only way in and out is through the driveway easement. Mr. Fernandez stated yes. The easement is very narrow so it is hard for two cars to use it at the same time. Mr. Zillich asked what he value of Mr. Fernandez property is. Mr. Fernandez stated about $120,000. Mr. Zillich asked who maintains the easement going to his property. Mr. Fernandez stated that Mr. Goff takes care of the snow removal, etc. but if he didn t he would care. Mr. Deremer swore in Janet Cseak, 3925-37 th St. NW, which is in Plain Township. Ms. Cseak stated that she represents the residents of Abbeycrest and the home owner s association. They are concerned because they only have one exit onto Whipple and they are concerned for the quality of their neighborhood and a driveway going onto Whipple. Mr. Cseak stated that they have difficulty getting out of their street because of the traffic on Whipple and she can t see adding to it by increasing the traffic. Mr. Deremer swore in Robert Bolek 3939-37 th St. NW. Mr. Bolek stated that his only concern is that Ohio Power objects to the landscaping because they may have to get to the substation but they currently get to the their substation from Whipple so he don t know why they would be opposed to the landscaping. Mr. Deremer stated that the property and variance will not affect their property because it does not go out to Whipple Mr. Fernandez stated in order to get out of the lane they share, it takes time. If you have a bunch of cars coming out of the parking lot at one time it is a dangerous situation. No one else spoke in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Goff was asked if he would like to respond to the opposition presented Mr. Goff stated that he currently plows and salts the easement. Mr. Goff stated if the parking lot is granted the easement will be paved also. Mr. Goff stated to argue the fact that Mr. Fernandez s property would be devalued, to build a building that would include a parking lot would be the same. Mr. Goff stated that he will maintain the entire B-1 area including mowing and treating for weeds. If the property is leased to a physician there would be a lot more cars as opposed to using the property for meetings. Mr. Goff stated that the request has nothing to do with Whipple so it will not have any impact on the residents in Plain Township. 12
Mr. Ashman stated that the grading of the drive is established to get access to the front and rear parking lot of the existing structure so the grading that is there is going to stay. The proposed parking lot will have two means of access onto the driveway. The one at the north end will match up with the existing parking lot and the second drive will not match up with the front entrance but will come into the driveway that is shown at a different location. Overall the existing driveway and the slope of the existing driveway will be as it currently is. Mr. Deremer closed the appeal to public input. Mr. Zillich asked if this is an all or nothing request. Mr. Ashman stated that he would like to board to vote on each request individually. Mr. Zillich stated that the parking lot is really a continuation of the existing office building that is already there. It is within the same zoning and if the building were built with all the property at once it would have all been approved so he don t see any issue or reason not to pass the primary use. Mr. Vitale stated that section 411.8D needs to be taken in to consideration. It says in case of shared parking areas ingress or egress locations applicant will be required to provide a completed recorded agreement between the parties to ensure access will always be granted. He is sure that is Ohio Power and Employers Health will have the agreement and it has to be enforced so everybody can get in and out. Mr. Giulitto stated that there has been testimony that the applicant will take care of the water and it will look better than it does now so he has no problem with the request. Mr. Deremer stated that he has no problem with request for the parking lot. Fulton is a business zoned street and the property is split zoned. Mr. Vitale made a motion to approve the parking lot as a principal use in the B-1 district. Mr. Kirkbride seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes and Mr. Deremer yes. Mr. Kirkbride made a motion to approve the 10 ft. north parking setback. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes and Mr. Deremer yes. Mr. Zillich made a motion to approve no landscaping within the 10 ft. north parking setback. Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes and Mr. Deremer yes. 13
7:15 pm #2185 Brad & Carol Hund, property owner, 94 Cherry Dr. NW, N.Canton, OH request revision to previously approved conditional use permit #355 for storage of landscaping and construction vehicle equipment where required per Art. IV Sect. 411.3(4)(d) of the zoning resolution. Property located at 8475 Wales NW, Sect. 3NE Jackson Twp. zoned B-3. Mr. Deremer read the file application and reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, the site plan for appeal #2185 and the site plan from the original approved conditional use permit #355 per appeal #1953 approved on 1/13/05. Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in Brad Hund, 94 Cherry Dr. NW, North Canton, Ohio. Mr. Hund stated that he would like to add another building to the property. The second building will be built at a later date when business picks up. Mr. Deremer asked what the additional buildings would be used for. Mr. Hund stated storage of his vehicle and equipment storage. The buildings are 40 by 60 sq. ft. Mr. Giulitto reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit with Mr. Hund. Mr. Hund replied that all criteria will be complied with (written answers in file). Mr. Giulitto asked if anything has changed since the last conditional use permit was granted. Mr. Hund stated no. He just wants to add two more buildings. There was no one else in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed the appeal to public input. Mr. Vitale stated that he has no problem with the appeal. Mr. Zillich stated that he is only adding a couple of extra buildings so he doesn t see any issues. Mr. Giulitto stated that it s always been the board opinion if the criteria for the conditional use permit has been met that that board grants the permit so he has no problem with granting the appeal. Mr. Giulitto stated that he would like to make a motion to incorporate appeal #1953 into this appeal. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes and Mr. Deremer yes. Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2185 as requested. 14
Mr. Kirkbride seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Mr. Zillich made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 10, 2011. Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from March 24, 2011. Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Mr. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Zillich seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Respectfully submitted, Joni Poindexter Jackson Township Zoning Inspector 15