JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Thursday September 27, 2012

JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Thursday September 27, 2012 Members present: Edward McDonnell Ted Deremer Leon Vitale Phillip Kirkbride Gary Zillich Daniel Creighton-Alternate 5:30 pm Appeal #2233 Kenneth Schuler, 7822 Stuhldreher NW, Massillon. OH, property owner, requests a variance for a 2 ft. 3 in. west side yard setback for accessory structure where 10 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 7822 Stuhldreher NW, Sect. 33NW Jackson Twp. Zoned R-2. Mr. McDonnell read the file application and reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and surrounding properties from the auditor s records and a site plan showing the proposed addition. Mr. McDonnell asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. McDonnell swore in Kenneth Schuler, 7822 Stuhldreher NW. Mr. Schuler stated that he purchased the house in 1969 and at that time the driveway was gravel. The house has two garages that are 6 ft. 6 inches high. He would like a carport so he can park his vehicle under it. He would like to put it where the driveways were put in 1972. The back yard is low and the neighbor to the east is lower so when it rains their yards flood. Three times since they purchased the house the basement and garages have flooded. He brought in back hoes but there is so much clay that he can t get below it to get the water out of the back yard. He asked for variances back in 1972 and 1973 but the lady next to him didn t agree. He tried to get the township to dig a ditch in the back to go all the way down to the creek below but they are stuck with what they have. If he tries to move over into to the back yard by 10 ft. with another cement patio, that water will drain onto his patio and he has no way to get rid of it. He set the carport right in the center of the slab which is 13 ft. wide and will move it over as far to the left as he can which will give him room to get in between the fence and carport to mow and keep it clean. Mr. Schuler stated that Mr. Keefer, when he lived there, had a wheelbarrow with a gas operated water pump to pump out the water. Mr. Schuler stated the he dug a well and put an electric pump in with an inch and one half line to take the water to the road but it didn t help. They didn t know they had a water problem when they bought the house. Mr. Kirkbride asked if Mr. Schuler is saying if the carport met the 10 ft. setback it would increase the water going to the patio. Mr. Schuler stated yes. The patios are the same level as the garages and the recreation rooms. When the house was built the patio, garage, and recreation room were built at the same level. His thresholds are about 2 to 3 inches thick on the doors to try to keep the water out of the house. 1

Mr. Schuler stated that house is three stories and when you go down the driveway you go under the recreation room. If you go in from the upper level you go into the living room. Mr. Zillich asked if the garage goes under the building because Mr. Schuler didn t give the board a picture of the building. Mr. Zillich stated he would like to have seen a picture of the building with the water draining down into the garage. Mr. Shuler stated yes and the water drains down into that area. Mr. Vitale asked which property drains onto his property. Mr. Schuler stated the one to the east. They have standing water in the back yard when it rains. Mr. Vitale asked if Mr. Schuler s property slopes right to left. Mr. Schuler stated yes. Mr. Zillich asked how much higher the pad for the carport would be as opposed to the entrance level to the garage. Mr. Schuler stated about 10 inches. He dug trenches in the yard going off the slab but it drains right back on the patios. If he puts another slab in more water would come in. The carport would be bolted to the existing slab and it would be a steel structure. Mr. Vitale asked if the property slopes to the east why cant he put the pad to the left. Mr. Schuler stated that he had a contractor come in 4 years ago and put a line in for the drainage to get some of it out of there. If he put the slab there then there would be no drainage. Mr. Shuler stated the back yard is almost flat. If there was a way to get rid of the water he would do so. Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Schuler if he considered attaching it to the house. Mr. Schuler stated there would not be enough room to turn around. Mr. Deremer asked what the 12 x 12 square is that is shown on the site plan. Mr. Schuler stated that it is a shed. Mr. Zillich asked if the carport was discussed with the neighbor. Mr. Schuler stated yes, the neighbor didn t have a problem with it. Mr. McDonnell asked why Mr. Schuler didn t want to move it to the east behind the garage. 2

Mr. Schuler stated that he would have to make the patio bigger to turn around. They drive on the patio to turn around now from the garage. He would have to add more cement to attach the carport. Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Schuler testimony that he doesn t want to add more cement because more water would run toward the house. Mr. Schuler stated the water would run on the patio but he would dig trenches in the yard to help with the water flow. Mr. Zillich asked Mr. Schuler if anyone provided him with a typographical map. Mr. Schuler stated no but he had a contractor come in and there is no drainage and it is clay. The clay is about 6 ft. deep according to some people. Mr. McDonnell swore in Marlene Schuler, 7822 Stuhldreher. Ms. Schuler stated when they purchased the house the previous owner sold all the top soil on the property so it sits really low. They didn t know about it when they bought it. She talked to the township and the township can t do anything about the water problem. No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. McDonnell closed the appeal to public input. Mr. Zillich stated he can see a practical difficulty with the water issue but he is bothered by the lack of photos and proof. If photos were provided photos showing the water problem and a typographical map he would be more inclined to vote in their favor. The problem he sees is the extent of the variance. It is a substantial variance. He would need to see more evidence. Mr. Vitale stated that he agrees with Mr. Zillich. Hearing the testimony and not having proof he needs to see more documentation of the water issues. Without hard proof it is hard for them to take a picture of the water issues. It s a large variance and he doesn t think he would be in favor of the variance. Mr. Kirkbride stated that he agrees with the other board members. Whether the carport is there or not they are still going to have the water problems. He agrees the extent of the variance is severe. Mr. Zillich stated they could table the request and the applicant could bring more evidence. Mr. Schuler stated two houses down someone put a slab in and put a carport on it. He gave his testimony under oath that they have water problems. Mr. McDonnell stated that they cannot talk about that. Mr. Deremer stated that there is testimony from the property owner that there is a one story drop from the front to the back of the house that is taking water flow from the concrete. He sees a practical difficulty with the steepness of the slope and the existing 3

garage is a 6 x 6 garage which is a small garage. He is putting the carport on the driveway that is open and extends along the driveway and allows them to use the driveway. They can t attach it to the house due to the turning radius and the slope of the property. He thinks there is a practical difficulty that allows the carport to be built as requested. Mr. McDonnell stated he agrees with Mr. Deremer. There is a 9 ft. drop within 100 ft. He believes the testimony about the clay because he has had the same problem with clay. He finds the explanation believable. He doesn t like the variance but he doesn t think the applicant has any other option. The water would be worse draining off of the concrete. In section 803.5 he thinks there are situations that are particular to the property. The variance is extreme but the practical difficulty does exist so he would be in favor of the request. Mr. Zillich asked Mr. McDonnell to explain what happens if the request is turned down. Mr. McDonnell stated if the appeal is denied Mr. Schuler cannot come back with the same appeal. If it was a lesser setback he would have more problems. Mr. Schuler stated he has given his oath and that is the way it is. If he shifts it over and puts a cement slab in he will have more water. Mr. Zillich stated he is looking for photos of the property. Mr. McDonnell stated the next meeting would be October 11 th if Mr. Schuler would like to ask for a continuance. Mr. Schuler stated okay he would like a continuance. Mr. McDonnell made a motion to continue appeal #2233 until October 11 th at 5:45 PM. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Zillich- yes, Mr. Kirkbride- yes, Mr. Vitale- yes, Mr. Deremer- yes, and Mr. McDonnell- yes. 5:45 pm Appeal #2234 McKinley Presidential LTD, property owner, 1201 S. Main St, North Canton, OH requests a conditional use permit for a group dwelling development and a variance for no buffering where buffering is required when abutting an R-R district per Art. IV Sect. 401.3 & 431.6K of the zoning resolution. Property location is parcel 1619734, 1619634 & a portion of 1619931 located on Traphagen approx. 338 ft. west of Wales, Sect. 29SE Jackson Twp. Zoned R-4. Mr. McDonnell 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 per the conditional use permit requirements, and two site plans dated September 5, 2012 by GBC Design, labeled sheets 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. Mr. McDonnell asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. McDonnell swore in William Lemmon, 1201 S. Main St, North Canton, Ohio. 4

Mr. Lemmon stated earlier in the year he purchased the Presidential apartments along with Mr. DeHoff. The apartments consist of 80 units that were constructed 40 years ago. They put substantial funds into the property. They purchased vacant land that was previously an office building that was destroyed by fire a few years ago. They would like to add two additional buildings with 12 units each. The first site plan in the file shows the overall site and the second plan shows the new proposed buildings. The outlined area in orange is the existing apartments and the yellow is the new proposed area. Mr. Lemmon stated that final purchase is contingent on the approval. Mr. McDonnell asked why a variance is need for the buffering. Mr. Lemmon stated that they are the adjacent owner to the north and west of the property. To the south is the cemetery that has trees and bushes but he doesn t see a need to buffer the cemetery. There are going to be garages built also between the property line and the apartments. The Township Trustees and Mr. Johnson, who has the dentist practice to the northeast, requested that they do not connect the driveway to the office complex. There is existing parking on the property for Mr. Johnson. Mr. Lemmon stated they do not want traffic going by the Child Care Center that is to the southeast. The existing apartments have five access points off of Traphagen so they will not be adding any new access drives. Mr. Lemmon stated that Mr. Oaks built the apartments about 40 years ago. Mr. Zillich asked if the property will be titled the same as the current property. Mr. Lemmon stated yes and no easement is necessary for egress or ingress. Mr. Vitale asked if all of the property, excluding the office and cemetery, will all be one package and the only neighbor is the office complex and cemetery. Mr. Lemmon stated yes. Mr. Vitale asked if there was a buffering requirement when it was built. Mr. Lemmon stated that he didn t know. Mr. Zillich stated Mr. Lemmon mentioned the trustees and asked what they approved. Mr. Lemmon stated he recently was approved for rezoning of the property from office to residential and they wanted to be assured there would be no connection between the office building and apartments. Mr. Lemmon stated there is an easement access for Mr. Johnson and the second office building. Mr. Lemmon explained the site plan and where the parking is located. Mr. McDonnell marked the site plan as exhibit #1. Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit and Mr. Lemmon answered per the written criteria in the file. 5

Mr. Lemmon stated that exhibit #2 showed the location of the trash receptacles. No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal. Mr. McDonnell swore in Chris Wine, 8321 Traphagan. Ms. Wine stated that she is against the buffering. She is worried about the flooding and the traffic issue. Five dogs have gotten killed and you can t make a left turn onto Wales because it is dangerous. Ms. Wine stated that she talked to the township and the county and they won t put up a traffic light because no one has got killed there. Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Ms. Wine s belief that adding 2 more units will substantially increase traffic. Ms. Wine stated yes. She is also concerned about the additional water. Mr. Deremer asked if there is any landscaping around the property. Ms. Wine stated she doesn t know. Mr. McDonnell swore in Stephanie Beltz, 8344 Traphagan. Ms. Beltz stated that she is concerned about the traffic on Wales. She is also concerned about the traffic on Eastlynn. Some people park on Eastlynn and she has to be careful when backing out of her driveway. Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Beltz if she thought the addition of 24 units would substantially increase traffic. Ms. Beltz stated yes. Mr. McDonnell asked if parking is permitted on Eastlynn. Ms. Beltz stated she does not know. Mr. McDonnell stated if there are not any no parking signs, then anyone can park on Eastlynn. No one else spoke in opposition to the appeal. Mr. McDonnell closed the appeal to public input. Mr. Zillich he thinks the highest and best use of the property is as requested. He doesn t see a problem with the request and it is being put in the hands of a very experienced developer. The argument about traffic isn t substantial. Regarding the request for the buffer, there is an existing parking area and he doesn t have a problem with the request. Mr. Vitale stated that he agreed with Mr. Zillich. The only other practical use would be an office building or a park which would create more traffic. No one would invest that 6

much money and then let it get run down. He thinks there wasn t a buffering requirement 40 years ago. The cemetery is buffered by its own means. He has no problem with the appeal. Mr. Deremer stated that they had testimony about the increased traffic but the existing facility has 80 units and they are adding 24 units so it is only a 25% increase. The amount of parking spaces is more than what the township requires. With the 25% he doesn t believe it would be an additional amount compared to what the office that was destroyed by fire brought in. There is a buffer on the east side with the garage and there is a grass area to the south so in essence there is a buffer area to separate the parcels. The 12 bay garages provide the buffer adjacent to the driveway and on the south side is the green space. He thinks the variance should be modified that there is no buffering on the property. The only buffer requirement is next to the R-R district. Mr. McDonnell stated he concurs with the other board members. If the applicant meets the conditions there is no reason to not grant the conditional use permit. He doesn t think an addition 24 units will create a traffic problem. Mr. Zillich made a motion to approve appeal #2234 as requested. Mr. Kirkbride seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes and Mr. McDonnell-yes. 6:00 pm Appeal #2235 Lawrence & Dykes Architects, 125 Valley View Ave. NW, Canton, OH agent for Akron Canton Airport Authority, property owner, 8400 Port Jackson NW, N. Canton, OH requests a variance to allow 5 ft. between buildings where 30 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 8400 Port Jackson, Sect. 2NE Jackson Twp. Zoned I-1. Mr. Vitale recused from appeal #2235 and Mr. Creighton participated in the hearing. Mr. McDonnell read the file application and reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and surrounding properties, four 8-1/2 x 11 sheets consisting of labeled C1.0, C1.1, E1.0 and E2.0, and an 11 x 17 of sheet C1.1 all drawn by Lawrence Architects. Mr. McDonnell asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. McDonnell swore in Brian Vanfosson, 8400 Port Jackson NW. Mr. Vanfosson stated they want to put a chemical storage building on the property. The Jackson Fire Department wants them to maintain the chemicals better so instead of having the drums inside the building they prefer them to be outside of the building. There is a no build zone for the airport so that is why they need the variance. Mr. McDonnell asked if there are underground utilities on the property. Mr. Vanfosson stated yes. The gas company does not want a chemical storage building next to their gas main. 7

Mr. Vanfosson showed where the gas line is located on the site plan. This was marked in green and labeled as exhibit #1. Mr. Vanfosson stated no structure can be built in the no build zone. Mr. McDonnell asked what happens to the chemicals when they are done with them. Mr. Vanfosson stated they go back to the customer. Mr. Deremer asked what the size of the building is. Mr. Vanfosson stated that the building is 8 x 26. Mr. Zillich asked if the fire department is happy with the 5 ft. setback. Mr. Vanfosson stated yes. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the fire department said there are no issues with the chemical storage building. Ms. Poindexter stated she received an email from the fire department stating there was no objection. The email was added to the file. Mr. McDonnell closed the appeal to public input. Mr. Zillich stated he had no problem with the appeal. Mr. McDonnell stated there is a practical difficulty with the no build zone. This is a safety factor by not having the chemicals in the building. He does not have a problem with the variance. Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve appeal #2235 as requested. Mr. Zillich seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Creighton-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes, and Mr. McDonnell-yes. 6:15 pm Appeal #2236 - Joe Miller, property owner, 8980 Canal Place NW, Massillon, Ohio requests a variance for a 17 ft. front yard setback for principal dwelling where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located 5532 Lillys Lane NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp. Zoned R-1. Mr. McDonnell recused from appeal #2236 and Mr. Creighton participated in the appeal. Mr. Deremer read the file application and reason for the appeal. The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and a site plan of the property showing the location of the proposed addition. 8

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Miller, 8980 Canal Place NW. Mr. Miller stated the garage door is 14 ft. 10 in. which isn t very wide for 2 cars. He wants to use the existing garage for the back wall and come forward. Mr. Miller stated he got exact measurements and because the street is curved he will have 21 ft. on the west side and 15 ft. on the east side. Mr. Deremer asked what the current setback is in the front. Mr. Miller stated 42 and 35 ft. Mr. Miller showed a picture of his home that he had on his I Pod. Mr. Miller stated he will go the right about 2 feet and come straight out from the front of the house. Mr. Deremer swore in Terri Miller, 8980 Canal Place. Ms. Miller stated from the corner of the garage to the boundary line is about 9 ft. The property gets wider toward the back of the property. Mr. Miller stated that both pins on the sides are exposed so they meet the required setbacks for the side yard. Ms. Miller stated that she understands the driveway can go up to the property line but the building needs to be 5 ft. from the property line. Currently they can t open their car door to get out if it s in the garage. Mr. Zillich asked if the new garage would have a 16 ft. garage door. Mr. Miller stated yes. Mr. Miller stated he isn t going over the front porch as shown on the drawing. Mr. Miller corrected the drawing showing the new garage would not cover the front porch. Mr. Deremer stated if they need 15 ft. it would have to be re-advertised because the request is for 17 ft. Mr. Miller stated that he wasn t sure of the setback when he applied for the variance. Mr. Deremer stated that the board could continue the appeal and the hearing would have to be advertised again with the correct setback. Mr. Miller stated that he would like to continue the hearing. Ms. Poindexter stated she could schedule it for the October 11th meeting and it could be advertised on Monday. 9

Mr. Deremer made a motion to continue appeal #2236 until October 11 th at 6:00 PM. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Creighton-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Ms. Poindexter stated the meeting minutes from July 26 th needed to be approved. Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the July 26, 2012 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes. Mr. Zillich seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes and Mr. McDonnell-yes. Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve the September 13, 2012 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes. Mr. Creighton seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Creighton-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes and Mr. McDonnell-yes. Mr. Deremer made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes. Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes and Mr. McDonnell-yes. Respectfully submitted, Joni Poindexter Zoning Inspector 10