Zoning & Building Standards Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SO I'LL BE KIND OF RUNNING THE MEETING HERE. WE'LL START WITH THE RULE CALL.

MR. ZOLLINGER?

HERE.

MR. INZETTA?

HERE.

MR. MCGINNIS?

HERE.

MR. LAMUEL? MS. CLEVENGER?

HERE. Okay, so a 4 out of 5 of the board members in presence. So we have a quorum just so, you know, for any motion, we make any action. We take 3 board members need to vote. Yes. For that motion to pass. So. With the 5th person, not here, we still need 3 votes. Obviously, we need a majority of that. Anyway. WILL YOU ALL NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS MINUTES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 24, 2026 MEETING, WHICH IS OUR LAST MEETING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.

SO MOVED.

IN A SECOND? SECOND. GO AHEAD AND CALL IT.

MS. CLEVENGER.

YES.

MR. MCGINNIS.

YES.

MR. ANZETTA.

YES.

MR. ZELLINGER.

Okay, now we'll get to the three variance requests that we have tonight. And if you have a copy of the agenda, we'll just go down in that order if that's okay with everyone. What we'll do is for each variance request, every person gets to... Get up and, if you can, you can stand at the podium. Start by telling us your name and your address and who you are. I'll let people speaking in favor of the variants go first. If there's anyone that has a problem with the variants, I'll let them get up and speak as well. You may interject with questions. I may or may not, depending on what's going on. I do that. I'm an attorney, kind of how we were trained. We're not trying to be antagonistic. That's how I've been trained to get information. So please don't get upset or get worried. That's just how I'm trying to find things out. And then we'll talk amongst ourselves. Then we'll make a motion one way or the other on the variance request. So with that, go ahead and announce the first variance request for the record.

Application ZVOA 26-8, Ian Smith, 1292 Laurel Avenue Southwest. A variance requesting a reduced rear and side yard setback as required by NCO 1133.08A for a shed to be placed 3 feet from the rear property line and 2 feet from the side property line.

OK, so what we'll do is whoever wants to speak in favor or for the variance, the applicant or whoever can get up and speak first and then just give me your name, your address for the record. Now, just so you know, also you and everybody who talks, this is all being recorded. So it's important to just talk clearly. You have to shout or anything. Try not to talk. We'll try not to talk over each other. If you're asked a question, avoid shaking of your head, nodding. Try to say yes or no or I don't know. It just makes it easier for the record to be established if we need to type this out for some reason. With that, go ahead, sir.

Thank you guys for your time tonight. My name is Ian Smith, 1292 Laurel Avenue, Southwest. My wife, Erica. Appreciate you guys taking time to be with us. I'll give a brief description and then hopefully... The southeast corner of our lot has a gravel pad on the left, which was left behind from the previous shed. It was there when we bought it, the house, the property. Underneath and alongside that has a dense root network from a decaying tree, which we had removed for safety reasons. The full system of those roots could not be extracted without destroying the pad and dangerously slinging gravel around by the stump grinder. So we tried to remove it, but the roots had gone underneath the pad and with the stump grinder there, it would have been a situation where we really would have been throwing the gravel all over the place to try to clean those roots up. So that's the reason the shed couldn't sit a full five feet from the property line. Meeting the standard setback would mean building directly over that root network, which would force the structure well above grade. Like if we wanted to get it level, we would have had to level off the pad on top of those roots. And it would have had to be built up pretty well, probably a good foot and a half to two feet, which would have led to an elevated structure and possibly an unstable foundation. I didn't really want to take that risk. It would also push the structure deep into the yard, cutting into the lawn space where our kids play. The structure is 12 by 14 feet. It's under 200 square feet. It sits entirely within the footprint of the pre-existing gravel bed. This isn't a request for a special privilege. It's inherited condition. I feel anybody facing the same situation would be asking for the same if they were trying to remove the old shed, which was deteriorated and replaced with a new one. I submitted written statements from two neighbors in support of the shed remaining where it is, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I think we received the email from John Myers, the attorney, who I think lives behind you.

He lives right next door.

Next door, and then there was an email from Mr. Leahy, I believe. Yeah, so we did receive those, and we've read through those, and we received the the pictures of the old shed and the new one and everything else that was submitted. And what you, I drove by it, I saw the picture of the new one also, I think you sent, but I also drove by your property and it looks really nice. Why was it, how was it allowed to be built without this? Usually people come to us before things are built. So what happened?

So I'll take responsibility for this. I had a, A builder from Amish country, you work the whole contract out. In the fine print, they don't clear the permits. They are, I think they're a registered builder in North Canada. They wouldn't have been up here building it to begin with. But I expected them to clear a permit and to look into that, and they didn't. So landowner responsibility falls on them.

Okay. That's fair enough. Anybody have any other questions?

I had the same question.

All right, anything else?

No, I don't think so. There was a picture there of the, yeah, there's some of the root structure that was left behind, and then there's also the tree, which was decaying. So here's the mulch pile on the right, the old shed, obviously. We removed as much as we could of the mulch pile, but it's just we got into so much gravel in the bottom that we just couldn't remove the roots once we got underneath the heap of that pile. So that's where we went from there.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, guys. Anybody else want to speak on behalf of or against this application? Does the city have any comments on this?

So your buyer's property line, I believe the building code has set back as well. They were registered. I did stop out, did project everybody, shut down their work, and I stopped out there. A stop work order was not put in place because they were registered. They didn't have the permit. They were very cooperative. That is procedure. So they did apply that day. I don't know if it was you that I talked with or the contractor, but they were very, very good to submit for the permit. And then once the permit was reviewed and sent back for changes, the structure was already in place.

Okay. And this is Mr. Weaver, right? Weaver Barns, yeah. Oh, Weaver Barns, okay. And that shed was within the five foot, too, right?

Yeah, it was very existing.

Yeah, I mean, I don't. personally don't have a problem with your variance. I think this is why we have variances. They have this mechanism to improve the property. You know, you're not really, you're not creating a more restrictive use and it definitely looks better than that. The old one. Right. Which was the goal. Yeah. And I kind of understand and appreciate the hardship of dealing with, you know, roots like that and everything. So anybody else has any comments or questions? If not, I will make a motion to approve this variance. Call the roll when you get a chance.

Ms. Clevenger? Yes. Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Anzetta?

Yes.

Mr. Zollinger?

Yes. Okay, the variance is granted, so thank you. Congratulations.

Thank you.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. JUST READ IT OFF. WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

APPLICATION ZBOA 26-10, 700 NORTH MAIN STREET. A VARIANCE REQUESTING RELIEF FROM NCO 1151.06 REQUIRING ONE BUILDING SIGNED FOR ENTRANCE TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL BUILDING SIGNS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WHO'S HERE TO, WHOEVER'S HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS REQUESTING APPROACH, AGAIN, YOU'RE NAMING YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

My name is Cindy Balucci. I'm with Archer Science Corporation. It's at 1917 Henry Avenue, Southwest. I'm here to request that the variance for three additional signs for this location on behalf of Plaza Source, which is the company that is going into the family dollar location. This property is situated at 700 North Main and on the corner of SEVENTH STREET NORTHEAST, SO IT'S GOT TWO ACCESS POINTS. THE FAMILY DOLLAR CURRENTLY HAD TWO SIGNS ON THE WEST ELEVATION AND TWO ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION. WE'D JUST LIKE TO KEEP THE SAME SIGNAGE. IT'S SHOWING UP THERE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

Yeah, the code only allows, what does it allow now? Just one sign? There's one per public entrance.

And there's two? The way it's set up, there's two public entrances because we have one from the south side and one from the west side. So technically they only need a variance for two of the signs because two of them will be granted for the wall signs. Okay.

All right. Any questions from the applicants? I don't think I have anything. I appreciate it. Just hang around in case we think of something else. Does anybody else want to speak on this one? Okay. Anything else from the city on this issue? I guess I understand. Do we know what the point of this rule is? Is it to prevent people from having like... a million signs out in front or have it look non-uniform? Is there any clutter?

Is that what we're worried about here? Effectively, this is a revision to the latest sign ordinance. The previous sign ordinance did allow more than one sign. This was the philosophy at the time with the Main Street zoning that came into effect. I believe this is our third application for a similar type of variance on that. So with that, you know, I will present this to administration to see if this might be at a point to where we should consider revising that ordinance, you know, where we're at on that.

Yeah, is this the Burger King? Is that what I'm thinking of? We did this for Burger King, the last meeting. They were going to redo the Burger King. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. Okay. Anybody have any questions, anything? If not, I'll make a motion to approve this variance, and I think it makes sense. The signage looks fine to me. It doesn't look bad, and it's a busy intersection. Seventh Street and Main Street's a busy intersection. You want to have exposure on both sides. If I'm a business, I would want that. I'll make a motion to approve this variance. Anybody have any thoughts? I'll second. Anybody else? Comments? Anything? If not, go ahead and call the roll for a vote.

Mr. McGinnis?

Yes.

Mr. Inzana?

Yes.

Mr. Zollinger?

Yes.

Ms. Povinger?

Yes. Okay, variance is granted. Thank you. Okay, our third and final item.

APPLICATION VBOA 26-11, BRUCE CONNERY, 212 DONNER AVENUE NORTHWEST. A VARIANCE REQUESTING A REDUCED REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AS REQUIRED BY NCO 1133.08A FOR A DETACHED GARAGE TO BE PLACED TWO FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT OR SOMEONE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU.

YES, GOOD EVENING. I'M BRUCE CONNERY, BUCKEYE SURVEILLANCE SERVICES. I'm here representing Aaron and Mike Gilpin. Their property is at 212 Donner. There's an existing garage on the property which is in very bad repair. It needs to be replaced. I have pictures, I have photographs I brought with me.

I didn't have it ready to... Yeah, that's fine. I drove by the property. I don't need to see it. I did also.

It's an odd-shaped lot, too.

Yeah, it's a very shallow... So the situation is it's a very shallow lot. And with the placement of the house and where the garage is now, as you can see, it's only eight inches from the back property line. If we were to replace that garage and conform to the setback lines... there wouldn't be enough room to get the car around the house to get it into the garage. So what we're proposing to do on the proposed slide is it would still violate the setbacks, but we'd put it two feet from the rear and two feet from the side, so at least we could have access to all four sides of the building without having to trespass on the neighbor's property. And it would still give room although less room, to get a car around the house and into the garage. So basically, if the lot was as deep as the rest of the lots on the block, that wouldn't be an issue. It would be sitting back farther.

Yeah, it's kind of on that curve of that part of Donner. Yeah. Okay. Okay. dimensions of this garage? Are they less? Is this garage smaller?

It's actually narrower. It's only 18 wide, but it's 20 deep. The existing garage is 20 wide and 18 deep, and 18 feet isn't really deep enough to park anything anymore. So the proposed garage is 18 wide, and there it is, and 20 feet deep. The existing garage is only 15 feet from the back of the house, so the The new one would be 11 feet from the back of the house. It's at one corner. It would still conform to the 10-foot setback from the house, but it's going to violate the two sides of the rear setback.

All right. It looks like it's going to be a fun one to build just to get everything back in there and pretty snug. Any questions or anything? We should speak against the place. Okay, yeah. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANYBODY IN FAVOR BEFORE I GO AHEAD, SIR? YOU GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. JUST PROVIDE US YOUR NAME. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE SOME PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY? NO. I'VE ALREADY SEEN IT. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS RALPH LARSON. And we live at 224 Donner, which is adjacent to the driveway. The reason I'm objecting is the property line for this property runs from the edge of the driveway to halfway between a garden that we have and their existing garage, which is maybe not even two foot from the garage to our property line. My objection is, my wife and I have lived in this house for 51 years. And in those 51 years, contractors have come and used our adjoining property as a place to put their building supplies. And what I don't want to have happen this time is THE LARGE TRUCKS THAT ARE GOING TO COME THROUGH, THEY'RE GOING TO GO UP AND OVER OUR PROPERTY. I SEE NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET AROUND THAT SIDE DOOR AND STEP EXCEPT TO DRIVE UP OVER OUR PROPERTY. AND I'M TALKING LARGE TRUCKS BECAUSE I'M TAKING FOR GRANTED THEY'RE GOING TO USE A CEMENT TRUCK TO LAY CEMENT FLOORING. BUILDING SUPPLIES ARE GOING TO COME IN. AND LIKE YOU SAY, I HAVE NO I can't see how they want to do it without coming over our property.

Okay.

All right. What was your name again, sir? Bruce. Bruce, yeah. So can you answer, can you speak to that concern? I mean, how are, I mean, are we going to, I mean, as an, I would not want people using my yard as a staging area, so how are we going to do this project?

I can't speak to what the contractors might do, but The owners are proposing a pre-engineered steel building, which is going to be less obtrusive than a frame building as far as it's going to look nicer in the frame. It's not going to take as much construction to install that, but they will be removing the crumbling, deteriorating old foundation in the garage and building a new as you said, new pad or construction for the new structure.

Yeah, I mean, I'd like to see, I like to see garages like this improved. I mean, I, because I think it probably, I'm sure it needs, it looks like it needs replaced, but I, you know, I don't, you know, whoever does the work is going to, I don't know how to communicate this, but whoever does the work is going to need to know that if they go on to his property, They're trespassing. Sure. I mean, they cause damage. He can sue them for it. In fact, he can technically sue them even if they don't cause damage. He probably wouldn't. It wouldn't make sense, but that's a trespass. Sir, I have a question for you. Is there a driveway going to your property line at all? Is there some sort of...

It almost runs parallel up to where it goes into the garage.

Yeah. Yeah.

Like I say, I have a picture here, and it probably explains it a lot better than that drawing. The picture here, the property line starts right here. And I know this for sure because we've had our property surveyed three times. And they found this stake here. The stake back here is questionable, but it's very near.

Yeah.

It's just about, you can't see it, but it's like a pole here, but that's the property line there.

Yeah, I can, looking at that and looking at that, I can kind of see. Yes. I mean, I don't like the idea of not giving them the opportunity to improve their property and make a nice-looking garage back there, especially one that's not as big as the one that's there now. But I hear you on your concerns. I mean, you know, I guess I would encourage...

I don't want to have... money out of our pocket. We are retired, and I don't want money coming out of our pocket to repair property that was damaged by somebody else for another purpose.

Yeah, I mean, it shouldn't. I mean, if they cause damage to your property, they're liable to you for that. Yes.

Which would also... I mean, I have to have a lawyer to do the fighting for me, and that's going to cost money also.

Usually the city might be able to help work that out. You guys watch over the project? No. Typically not in property line disputes. No, but you're making sure they're not doing anything.

Can't prior arrangements be made for them to agree to fix any damage that they do to your yard?

I would be acceptable that if it's in writing and to my approval and the work that's been done is to our, my wife and I's approval. I will be okay with that. But I want something in writing saying they will repair it to our liking.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I don't think we have the power to say that here. But I mean, whether they put it in writing or not, I mean, they're legally liable to you. I mean, the writing is a law that says you're not allowed to come on my property or cause damage to my property without my consent. It's just common. It's just a trespass law. Okay. What does the city, if you guys look at this, or do you have any comments on this request?

Well, I have the, Julie's going to put it up on the screen here, but we have the Stark County GIS. And it appears they have plenty of room to do the construction and not infringe on the neighbor. And we could, if you were inclined to, place a condition that all work and construction shall remain on site of the project. PROPERTY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE BOARD CHOOSES TO GO IN.

YEAH. WE'LL PUT A CONDITION. YOU UNDERSTAND WE'RE GOING TO, IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE'LL HAVE A CONDITION THAT EVERYTHING'S TO BE ON, ALL THE WORK IS TO BE DONE ON THIS PROPERTY AND NO ADJOINING PROPERTY.

OKAY. BUT WILL THE TRUCKS BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO THAT FAR ENOUGH BACK?

WELL.

BECAUSE THERE'S A STEP GOING INTO THE SIDE DOOR THAT MAKES TRUCKS COME OVER. And I know it's not going to be just like a regular pickup truck we drive. It's going to be large commercial trucks with tandem wheels in the back. And if they're going to lay a cement, they have to get back to that garage. And that's going to cause...

If we put this condition on the variance approval, they will have to stay on the property. If they come onto your property, they're going to be in violation of... they'll be trespassing and then they're not going to be complying with the variance that's granted. And their representatives here listening to us say this. So not only would he, I would presume, communicate it to them, but it's going to be in public record that that's what we're doing. So they're going to be notified that that's the limitation. They're going to have to figure out how to do this without going onto your property. And if they do, if there's no way to do it, they're going to have to work something out with you ahead of time. Okay. Yeah.

So, yeah. Chairman, if I may, to Mr. Connery's point here, the pre-engineered metal building is less construction intensive. Much of the work is done in a factory somewhere.

Yeah.

They deliver it. There won't be the typical construction equipment that's there for, say, wood frames. As far as the concrete trucks go, and perhaps, Mr. Conner, if you could pass on that it's requested that they use a line pump as opposed to tailgating the concrete.

I was going to suggest that there are pump trucks that are that far back.

Yeah, I've seen that. They're renovating a house next to me. They've got big lines. The trucks don't need to go all the way back.

My question was if it's pre-failed, really? they're still going to have to drive up over the yard to get that back to the place. I don't see any other way for a large truck carrying a garage that size, even if it's pre-found, without going over our property.

And I'm not sure which type of building is going there, but it sounds like Mr. Connery has some additional information.

The building will come in. sections.

It's not going to be pre-assembled. Okay. Well, I mean, they're just going to, you know... And I will... Yeah, I mean, if we approve it with this condition, they're going to have to figure something out or work with him ahead of time.

I did survey the property. I can mark the property line clearly so that the contractor can see where it is. Okay. You're correct. We've noticed... You know that the pin is actually in the gravel drive. Yes. So the gravel has migrated over onto this property about six or eight inches out of the street.

Okay.

But I have surveyed it, and I can mark it out clearly. Yeah, I mean, that would be a good idea. Okay.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. So I would make a motion to approve the variance with the condition that they not, that the fall work be done on the property located at 212 Donner Avenue Northwest and there be no encroachment, no equipment, no staging, no anything on any other property. So I'll make that motion. We have a motion and a second.

Mr. Anzetta? MR. MCGINNIS? MS. POPPINGER? YES. MR. ZOLLINGER?

YES. SO THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. SO I HOPEFULLY THIS PROJECT CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT ANY INCIDENTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THE RECORD. SO HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WILL WORK OUT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD? NOT ALL ENTERTAINMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I make a motion that we adjourn.

I second all those in favor.