Residents press council over proposed 261 East Main mixed‑use building; developer says parking, historic design addressed

The Canton City Council on June 4 heard opposing public comment and staff detail on CUP2604‑002, a conditional‑use permit for a mixed‑use infill at 261 East Main Street that would add street‑level retail with three floors of residential above and underground parking.

Anthony Christopher, a nearby resident, told the council he opposed the project on grounds of traffic, compatibility and neighborhood character. “There is absolutely no room for this proposed building to be built,” Christopher said, adding that Main Street already becomes clogged at times and that the proposed structure would not match the historic look of downtown. He questioned why vacant lots farther down the block had not been used instead.

The applicant, James Case of 4 Places Development, said the project is intended to bring more people and activity to downtown Canton and noted the plan includes on‑site residential parking that will keep vehicles from clogging the street. “We have on‑site residential parking, so people are just going to pull right in,” Case said, and he told council the design team is working with the city’s historic board to ensure the building will blend with the downtown character.

City planning staff (Mister Allen) told council the site is zoned CBD (central business district) in a downtown urban center character area and that the property sits in Canton’s historic district; staff said a certificate of appropriateness will be required before building permits may be issued. Allen also described department comments on fire and sprinkler requirements and noted that the engineering department will identify existing utilities and require improvements prior to issuance of any land‑disturbance permits.

Council members asked for more specifics. One councilor confirmed there are 11 proposed parking spaces — one ADA space plus one per proposed residential unit — and pressed staff on whether sewer upgrades would be required; staff responded that required utility improvements will be identified and ordered as part of permitting. Another councilor asked the applicant to provide average square footage per unit and whether units would be offered for sale or rental; staff and the applicant said that information will be provided before a possible action meeting.

The council closed the public hearing and moved the item to the regular action agenda process; no final vote on the CUP was taken June 4.