North Canton City Council approves garage setback variance for Everhard Road property

The North Canton City Council voted unanimously to grant a variance that will let a homeowner build an accessory garage 20 feet from the corner side-yard line at 604 Everhard Road Southwest instead of the 40-foot setback required by the city code.

McKenzie Murphy, the applicant’s attorney, told the council she represents Andrew Pratt and said the variance was sought so the new garage would align with an existing driveway and the current garage. “The variance is being requested to add an additional garage as an accessory building within 20 ft instead of the 40 so that it is able to coincide with the existing driveway and be closer to the existing garage,” Murphy said.

Murphy also told the board there had been a code-section mix-up on the agenda and that she based the brief on the ordinance language she reviewed for the R70 single-family zoning that applies to the lot. She said locating the accessory structure in the rear yard would place it much farther from the home, would increase utility and construction costs and would make the structure less useful.

City staff reviewed the application and discussed a nearby, similar building at 336 Everhard Road. City staff member Mr. Vundy said staff did not object to the request: “Staff does not have any objection to the request here on this,” and explained that the earlier structure was permitted under circumstances that left it as a legal nonconforming use. He added that, because a permit and final inspection were completed for the other property, that building retains a legal status and would require a variance from the board to be rebuilt if it were destroyed.

Council members asked whether the garage could be moved slightly on the lot or whether a shorter driveway extension could avoid the need for a variance. Board members pressed on alternatives, with one member noting that a 150-foot lot width and a roughly 30-foot garage footprint would still leave yard visibility if the structure were shifted. Murphy replied that shifting the building or placing it in the rear yard would be impractical given the lot’s narrow shape and the additional costs for utilities.

After discussion, a motion to grant the variance was made and seconded. The clerk called the roll; the vote was recorded as Mr. McInness: yes; Mr. Lamuel: yes; Miss Clevener: yes; Mr. Stalker: yes; Mr. Zinger: yes. The board announced the variance approved 5-0.

The council took no further votes related to the application; the meeting adjourned after the action.