Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL HEARING
September 29, 2015
I am here tonight
on an appeal filed first on October 10, 2014, by myself and my wife, and
subsequently again by my wife and me and numerous other City residents, on
November 7, 2014 from a recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow
expansion of the Hoover District South Parking Lot.
Both appeals filed with the City
are part of the record now on file.
The City of North Canton has
allowed wholesale violations of its Zoning Code in the expansion of the Hoover
District South Parking Lot.
The origins of
the city’s participation in the gross mishandling of the required approvals for
the planned expansion began when after approving a zone change for the portion
of the parking lot from residential to business late in 2013, Maple Street
Commerce alerted the City that it wished to decline the zone change to business
previously approved by the City’s Planning Commission.
At this point, it
did not take a genius to realize that something was amiss and that it was not
going to be pretty. Despite unanimous
opposition from nearby residents, the expansion was approved by the City’s
Planning Commission.
The wholesale
violations of the City’s Zoning Code are almost too numerous to detail in the
time allotted here tonight. I will attempt to highlight the violations that are
part of the record now on file.
CHAPTER 1153 – OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
-
Requires satellite parking spaces intended
for employee spaces be located within 400 feet walking distance of the public
entrance. Before expansion even started the distance was already nearly 410
feet away. Expansion has increased that distance to a minimum of 560 feet.
-
Requires width of parking spaces to be 10
feet. When the YMCA expanded their parking lot a number of years ago, they were
required to comply with the 10 foot requirement.
The Hoover District was allowed 9 foot
parking spaces resulting in greater density of cars and more traffic to the lot.
-
Requires landscaping on the interior
parking lot – in the minutes of the May 7,
2014, Planning Commission meeting, member Tim Morrow raised this concern
stating “…your landscaping – a third-grader could have come up with a better
plan than that.” Mr. Morrow also stated that “…you’re trying to create an
office building complex and you have a factory parking lot. I think you’ve got
some serious problems.”
Total Noncompliance with this chapter of the City’s Zoning
Code!
CHAPTER 1155.11 – LANDSCAPING, SCREENING AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING
REGULATIONS
-
No compliance with this chapter of the
zoning code, especially regarding outdoor lighting.
Given that neighborhoods to the south and
southeast of the parking lot have lost not one but two protective buffer of
trees, one being the mature Pin Oaks on East Maple and the second being the
hundreds of trees immediately abutting our properties on the south side of the
parking lot, this requirement is critically important.
At the May 7, 2014, Planning Commission
meeting, Commission member Tim Morrow stated “…lighting, needs low level
lighting in that parking lot - right now you’ve got those old factory lights in
that parking lot, that’s totally unacceptable in my mind.”
With the loss of all the trees,
lighting from the building and the street needs to be addressed.
Total
Noncompliance with this chapter of the City’s Zoning Code!
CHAPTER 1145 – CONDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS
-
This section covers some of the
requirements in the code previously noted as well as requirements not
previously addressed in other chapters to include: minimizing impact on
adjacent property owners, ensuring project will not be detrimental on property
values in the immediate vicinity etc.
Total
Noncompliance with this chapter of the City’s Zoning Code!
CHAPTER 1133 – SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
REGULATION
-
States “Although a use may be indicated as a permitted
principal, conditional or accessory use in a particular residential district,
it shall not be approved on a parcel unless it can be located thereon in full
compliance with all the standards and other regulations of this Ordinance…”
LOCATING A LARGE COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT UTILIZED FOR
BUSINESS PURPOSES CONFLICTS WITH THE INTENT OF A DISTRICT ZONED (R-2F) RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY.
Total
Noncompliance with this chapter of the City’s Zoning Code!
CHAPTER 1177 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SIMILAR USES
-
States “The Planning Commission shall
review the proposed use…to determine whether or not the proposed use is
appropriate and in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance…and complies with the general criteria established for all
conditional uses and the specific requirements established for that particular
use, as set forth in Chapter 1145 of this Zoning Ordinance.
Total
Noncompliance with this chapter of the City’s Zoning Code!
I might add that
Judge Farmer has already affirmed one particular violation under this chapter
of the City’s Zoning Code in her recent ruling requiring this council body to
hear our appeal. Chapter 1177.10 requires Council action on Planning Commission
recommendations. This Council has failed to do so.
How is it that
Maples Street Commerce was able to start construction of the parking lot
without all the required approvals? And further, how is it that Maple Street
Commerce was able to start construction after an appeal was presented to the
City?
CHAPTER 1121 – TITLE, PURPOSE, AND APPLICATION
-
This chapter states in part that the
purpose of the Zoning Code is to “regulate and restrict the ways in which land
can be used in order to promote the public health, safety, convenience,
prosperity, or general welfare.”
Some of the listed purposes of the
City’s Zoning Code are to provide adequate open spaces for light and air, to
protect the character and value of residential areas, and manage congestion on
the streets by locating uses in such a manner that they will cause the least
interference with, and be damaged least by traffic movements.
Total
Noncompliance with this chapter of the City’s Zoning Code!
I am sorry to see
this City and this Council behave in the manner it has regarding the expansion
of this parking lot that has greatly intruded onto the peace and tranquility of
a North Canton neighborhood.
Common Pleas
Court Judge Farmer in her ruling had it right when she said the actions of
North Canton City Council were unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable.
I ask that City
Council reverse or modify the recommendations of the Planning Commission
without delay and enforce immediate compliance of all zoning requirements.
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne
Resident
City of North Canton
