Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 10/22/98

AGENDA
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 22,1998
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MUNUTES
A)August 27, 1998
B)September 24, 1998
4) CITIZENS COMMENTS
5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
A)James & Jill LeVere, 216 North Granger Street
Suburban Residential District -B
Variance Application -Side yard setback
7) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday,November 19, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.,at the Village Offices.
B)Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,December 17, 1998,7:00 p.m.,atthe Village Offices.
8)ADJOURNMENT
0. r:.fgj -C.i(' :L. 2/1(1'.i/- 2 1- w #0· AE: n.L..A: fl.et,- I.#I.*2 6 ,4,·1.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS MEMORANDUM
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
KATHRYN WIMBERGER,VILLAGEPLANN0E* OCTOBER 15,1998
MEETING ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 22,1998
PUBLIC HEARING
A)216 North Granger:JamesJ i&ll LeVere Zoned: Suburban Residential District -B
Variance Application -Side yard setback for driveway extension
FACTS:
The applicants wish to extend their driveway toward the reare (ast)of their property at 216 North Granger Street. The request is for a one foot setback,which equals a 4 foot variance. Their Zoning Certificate for their addition to the rear of the house,and the demolition of the existing garage was approved on September 28, 1998. In order to continue the line of the existing driveway and allow for maneuvering of vehicles in and out of the garage,which will face north,this variance is requested.
RELEVANT SECTIONS:
1147 Variances
1163.01 Suburban Residential District -A: Purpose and Intent 1163.03 b( 2)() Suburban Residential District -A:ParkingA &ccessory Buildings
CONSIDERATIONS:
1: Variance Application -Side yard setback. The applicant would like to have a straight line ofasphalt driveway in order to promote safety and better accessibility to the new attached garage. The garage doors will be facing north and therefore requires vehicles to turn southward to enter into the garage and then again on the exit,some maneuvering will be necessary to exit out of the drive. The neighbors might be concerned about the closeness of the pavement due to the vtreeheisclaelsong the lot line as well as the potential for damage to the trees or their lot from possibly not driving on the pavement. With the variance,however,it would seemIttmhaigt ehnt obuegh pavement would be provided so as to prevent such scenarios. argued that the additional driveway is not necessary for adequate fmoarntheeuvmerainjogriitny othfethderivderiwveay. . The driveway would be approximately 16 feet in width
extenTshioenBsoinardtheof Zoning and Building Appeals has given variances for driveway past.
I have received one concern in regard to this application(s)at this time. Their more targeted at the addition,rather than the concern was the side yard setback. The pavement,and the variance application is for additions falls within code and has been approved.
DECISION:
Is this application consistent with the requirements of applicable ordinances? Do special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structures dinivsotrlivcetds?which are not applicable to other lands or structures in e same zoning
Would it be unreasodable to grant the variance due to the possible restrictions with the lot,such as shape,or the structure's location?
Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning ordinance deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance?
Would granting the variance, in no manner,adversely affect the health, safety, and gveanriearnacl ew?elfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed
WORK SESSION
Home Occupation Ordinance
I have included a couple other communities'home occupation ordinance,as well as ours. Hopefully we can discuss this and decide where we need to go with our ordinance,ifnecessary. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me.
2

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 10/22/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 22, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,
Members Absent: Eric Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors: James and Jill LeVere, Ilkka Aro
Minutes: August 27: Since Ms. Wimberger was absent at the
previous meeting, she had a few corrections to make at this time:
Page 1, Line 12 from bottom should say, Rhonda Southard, next-door
neighbor, asked about the distance from lot lines. She was also
concerned about yard weeds and overgrown foliage. Mr. Jones said
he would clean up that area."
Page 5, Begin the Abraham paragraph with "Mr. Abraham has
requested a zoning interpretation."Change 1145. 03 to 1147. 03 and
delete "of conditional uses."
Page 6, Line 8, change "property" to properly.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THESE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of September 24: Page 1, paragraph starting with Ms.
Caravana, fix typo in Line 2. Next paragraph,to "tw..o. paved
lanes of sufficient width to comfortably accommodate vehicles moving in opposite directions."
Page 4, Line 4, delete "especially if it were ever expanded." MR ESSMAN MOVED THAT THESE MINUTES BE APPROVE MINUTES AS
AMENDED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Public Hearing:
James and Jill LeVere, 216 North Granger Street
The applicants are requesting a 1' setback, which equals a 4' variance. Mr. LeVere stated that they would like to extend the drive down the property line to give access to a proposed threec-ar garage. The driveway would make a right angle and would be right on the property line. The sliver of land will be grassed with a burning bush. A dead dogwood tree will have to be removed. Two
ndeoeodrs towiclhlanfagcee ththee sfirteontplaannd toonerewveialll ftahcies tchhaena g-jeo.ke. They will 1/$6.4 changed the plans He said they of the house. so that his son can play more safely in the back carriage He may not have windows in the garage and likes the house style.
A neighbor, Ilkka Aro, said his mother lives next door and has no objection.
Ms. Caravana likes to minimize amount of pavement and thought
12' was excessive. She wanted to make approval contingent upon
project not exceeding 50 per cent of lot coverage.
Mr. Sharkey asked for accurate drawings of the doors facing
the rear and a rough measurement as to how far back the driveway
extends. Mr. LeVere said it was about 25' further. Mr. Sharkey
also would like to add as a condition that applicant round off the
driveway to recapture some of that greenspace on the side. Mr.
LeVere would do that to protect the garage.
Ms. Caravana thought we ought to specify approximately 6' of
greenspace on NE corner. Also, the changes in the plan, even
though they do not change the structure, may need to be revisited
by GPC. This is up to Ms. Wimberger.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS AMENDED
WITH CONDITIONS: (1) DRIVEWAY NOT TO EXCEED 25' FROM EAST END
OF ADDITION; (2) NO LESS THAN 6' WIDE PLANTED AREA ON NORTHEAST
CORNER OF ADDITION BETWEEN FIRST GARAGE BAY AND THE REAR
OF THE ADDITION; 3) NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BACK AREA BE
CURVED TO SOFTEN THE EFFECT; 4) MS. WIMBERGER NEEDS TO BE
SURE THE ENTIRE PROJECT FALLS WITHIN COVERAGE ALLOWANCES. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure( applicable to other lands s) involved and which are not or structures in the same zoning district. The special circumstance is that the front part of the
driveway already follows this alignment. The sloped lay of the
land affects the driveway, and this is a more logical plan for it to follow.
B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. It is not unusual for driveways in athllioswezdo.ning ordinance to be closer to the property line than
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The existing setback has been there for many years and was not done by the applicant. D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Granting approval would not give undue privilege. E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vpaerrsiaonncse.resTidheingcoonrdiwtioornksing owf ithin the vicinity of the proposed approval are made to preserve
greenspace and minimize the impact on the neighboring property.
Work Session: Home Occupations. Members discussed the samples provided from other towns. The main items of discussion were: Foot traffic, car traffic
Signage
Expansion of coverage
Accessory Buildings
Deliveries >
Prevention of nuisance or stress on services
Lighting
Ms. Wimberger will research this further. She will check IRA
tax codes. Ms. Caravana thought some of these things should be an
administrative judgment. Mr. Sharkey wants more general definitions.
The words "including but not limited to" could be used
where appropriate. Try saying 25 per cent usage including the
entire property.
Next Meetings: November 19, and December 17, 7: 00 p.m. (irregular)
Adjournment: 8: 45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 05/28/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May 28, 1998
Minutes
Present: Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana. Congratulations to Ashlin on the
birth of her son John last night. We wish you well!
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Sally Hannahs, Bryan Law, Eloise DeZwarte
Minutes: April 23: Page 2, Line 5, change to, "Since they would
like. to have 20' for two cars.... 1!
Page 2, end of central paragraph, "4' from front of house. "
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
April 30, special meeting: Page 2, 5th line up, "furnace to
fit within the 38' of length."
Add at end "Transcribed from tape."
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Sally Hannahs thanked the BZBA for what they
are doing for the community. She asked if there is any way people
could be made to clean up the mess that has accumulated in some
back yards. Mr. Reyazi sympathized and said only the County Health
Department can enforce these things because we do not have a property
maintenance code. Newark does have one and they are giving us
samples, but this is very difficult to enforce except for abandoned
cars. His recommendation would be to write a specific letter to the
Village Manager and Village Council.
Old Business:
David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street -Finding of Fact
Mr. Sharkey made several corrections to the draft he wrote
summarizing the Finding of Fact for the Schnaidt decision.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FINDING OF FACT AS
FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Schnaidts have made some changes to their application fit within to the code, and they are going ahead with their plans.
Public Hearing:
Sally Hannahs, 423 East College Street
Ms. Hannahs explained that she wants to replace the screenedin
porch on the side and add a deck on the rear, which would be 11
from the property line, requiring a variance. She already has GPC
approval pending BZBA approval. She wants to replace fence with a
new 6' wooden picket or gothic fence on south and west property
lines. The only way she could adhere to the code would be to
forego use of her back door.
Mr. Reyazi has suggested to the Board of Education, who owns
three lots next door, that when they build, they line up their
houses with the Hannahs house.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BE GRANTED.
MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Essman applied the variance request to the criteria:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are
peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The special circumstance is that the house is already on
the property line and the additional structure proposed will be
less intrusive than the existing house. The door to the house can
only be accessed from the proposed porch.
B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
provisions of this Ordinance. There are other properties where the
house is closer to the property line than the required 10'.The
proposed addition is set back from the existing line of the house.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant did not build
the house or put the door where it is.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance other lands to or structures in the same zoning district. We have
granted variances for similar situations in this zoning district. E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The board has determined that granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare.
Christine and Bryan Law, 346 East College Street
For the improvements the applicants wish to build, they will need a variance for lot coverage and setback. The applicants wish to replace the deck with a porch; install lattice fences to replace the old fence to tie in with the neighbor' s fence; build a brick pcaartpioorwt. ith sidewalk to Granger Street; and add new roof section to He needs a storage shed and is attempting to gain pri- vsaitcuya. tioTnh.e proposal will be more attractive than the current
Mr. Law did not realize he was required to include both the
unpaved driveway and the carport in the total lot coverage, and the
C6
proposed coverage is at 60 per cent. This is a corner lot and it
is difficult to have room to maneuver within the code. Mr. Law
said that the neighbor on the north has given his approval. He will
retain the tree and will be careful about disturbing roots. The
fence goes along the back property line 6' from one line and 11
from the other. Vegetation will eventually hide the fence. It
would be about 50' from Granger Street.
Mr. Sharkey is concerned about the 60 per cent coverage and
wants assurance that the construction will not exceed this amount.
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
ON LOT COVERAGE TO BE INCREASED TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 60
PER CENT AND ADHERE TO THE DIMENSIONS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
MR.
APPROVED.
ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
ON SETBACK ON WEST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The variance request was applied to the criteria:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are
peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The special circumstance is that the house is on a
corner lot and there is not a lot of room to maneuver without going
over 50 per cent coverage and getting into the setback. Some of
the coverage is permeable.
B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
provisions of this Ordinance. We have previously allowed people to
to have reduced coverage and go over over 50 per cent coverage in
order to accommodate a small lot without creating undue problems C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant did not build
the house and is attempting to improve it.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this other Ordinance to lands or structures in the same zoning district. We have granted variances for similar situations in this zoning district. E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The board has determined that granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare. Garden tools will
be safely enclosed in a storage building.
Adjournment: 8: 10 p. m.
Next Meeting: June 25, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 03/26/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
March 26, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Rick Gummer,
Bill and Nancy Nichols,
Rose Wingert, Ned Roberts, Richard Downs,
Julie and J. W. Hopson
Minutes: JANUARY 22: Page 2, following Paragraph (E), a"nd,
the board has determined that granting of the variance will not
affect health, safety, general welfare."
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Rose and Jack Wingert, 179 Victoria Drive
Mrs. Wingert explained that because of the deer eating their
mfloeswhefresncaend. trees, they wish to install a 90" polypropylene black The manufacturer recommends 90" to deter the deer,
pvesr.m (i1tt)edthein7t2h"epermitted in the code for back yards and (2) 42" front. Mrs. Wingert said they will attach it to
the trees, and in the summer it will not be visible. She said she has not seen this type fence in the village and showed a sample. Neighbor Rick Gummer was concerned about the appearance of the fence from the street, and the Wingerts will adjust the loca- tion to make it less visible. Mr. Gummer thinks the deer got there first and really need room to run.
Ms. Caravana was concerned about the height and suggested they move it closer to the pinetrees to make it less visible. Mrs. Wingert will talk to her husband about other possible locations and come back, but the problem is now, in the spring when the deer come browsing.
Mr. Summer suggested locating the fence inside of the hem- locks on the west on a mutually agreed-upon line.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM FENCE HEIGHTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) FENCE WILL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND (2) IT BE MOVED TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE LINE OF HEMLOCKS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS DONE TO MITIGATE EXTRA HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. APPROVEDM. R. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
this Mapr.plSicteawtioarnt: applied the criteria for variances (1147. 03) for
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which
L'
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are
not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The special circumstance is that the height is recommended
by the manufacturer as minimum barrier for deer.
B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
provisions of this Ordinance. If applicant is required to adhere
to the ordinance, the landscaping would be devastated by the
deer. A lower fence would be useless. Applicants have spent a
lot of time and money on their gardens and wish to protect them.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicants are not
responsible for the deer population. The lot is located on a
deer trail, nearby subdivisions have forced the deer into less populated areas.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on
the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance
to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.
Because of the special nature of the lot, the secluded area, the wooded and large-scale area available, granted. The fence would be in no undue privileges are visible. the wooded area and not very
E) That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the pro- posed variance. The fence is soft and has no sharp wires or electrical devices. The board has determined that granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare.
William and Nancy Nichols, 17 Samson Place
The applicants wish to construct a 336 sq. ft. two-bedroom single story addition on the back of the house located 45' from rear property vs. 50' required by the code. Several neighbors
have submitted letters of consent. It will bring it to the foot of the hill and should not present a drainage problem. They would like to have put it on the side, but they would have had to disturb a lot of trees and there would have been less room.
criteMrisa. : Caravana applied the application to the variance
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist taripcptl.icable to other lands or structures in the same zoning The special circumstance is the lay of the land and the presence of trees in a location that would be within code. It would be more detrimental to the neighbors in that area. B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly pernojovyiseidonbsy other properties in the same zoning district under the of this Ordinance. Other variances in the neighbor-
1
2
hood have been granted. Applicants prefer to preserve the natural
beauty of the lot.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicants are not
responsible for the lay of the land and did not plant the trees
they wish to protect.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on
the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The board is not aware of any undue privileges to be
involved in granting this request.
E) That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance. The board has determined that granting of the
variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED IN THE
APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
James and Julie Hopson, 318 East College Street
Mr. Hopson stated that they wish to build a wooden deck the brick patio, which over would not extend the footprint of the patio, and then they wish to build a shelter for shade and privacy. A variance is required because the house is closer than
10' to the western lot line.
will not be visible from ROW.
Mr.
The hemlocks will remain. The deck
Reyazi spoke to a neighbor, who had no objections.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The criteria were applied:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist tarpicptl.icable to other lands or structures in the same zoning There is an existing patio and the pergola will not encroach any further into the setback than it is now, and it will be screened by evergreens. Since it is an open structure, it will be less obtrusive than an enclosed room and will not disturb neighbors. Neighbors have shown support for the project. B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The Board has allowed other people otordirneabnucieldagllaorwagse. s and decks closer to the lot line than the
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Special circumstances
G 7
3
4
are not created by the owners, who bought the house with brick
patio and now wish to enjoy a privacy deck.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on
the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The board is not aware of any undue privileges to be
involved in granting this request.
E) That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance. A deck would enhance the appearance and it is
not really visible to the street. The board has determined that
granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general
welfare.
Ned Roberts, 348 East Maple Street
Mr. Roberts said that when the addition to his house was built, it did not have proper foundation and would he look better if replaced it with a narrower and 6' deeper family room. The
haobuasnedoinseda. lmost on the property line, but it is a ROW partially If/When the vacation of the ROW for South Granger Street occurs, this area will be part of Mr. Roberts' property. The old two-story addition is 608 sq. ft, 21' x10',whereas the new one would be 19' x16' and approximately 25' high. A variance is
required because it is only 1' 6 5/8" from the east property line. A neighbor has submitted his approval of the project.
Ms. Caravana stated this would not be a further encroachment and we have frequently allowed such variances. It is likely that
aabtansodmoenepd.oint Mr. Roberts will own some of the land when it is
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED, and applied the criteria: A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist tarpicptli.cable to other lands or structures in the same zoning There is an existing addition which has an even greater encroachment into the side yard than the proposed plan. B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The Board has allowed other people to rebuild decks and garages closer to the lot line than the ordinance allows. Applicant should be able to upgrade his house. C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Special circumstances
parreopneorttycarenadtemdakbeyitthe owner, who now wishes to improve the more attractive. D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The board is not aware of any undue privileges to be
involved in granting this request, and strict adherence to the
code would deprive him of what others have been granted.
E) That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance. The board has determined that granting of the
variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare of anyone.
On the other hand, the project would enhance the of the house and therefore the neighborhood. appearance
Finding of Fact:
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
APPLICATIONS FOR WINGERT, NICHOLS, HOPSON, AND ROBERTS AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 45 p. m.
Next Meeting: April 23, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

Thursday
Jun092016

06/25/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
June 25, 1998
Minutes
Present: Bob Essman, Lon Herman,,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana, Greg Sharkey
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: David Bussan, Jules and Rochelle Steinberg, Jim Harf,
Lindsey O' Leary, Bernard Lukco, Bob Kent
Minutes:
PRESENTED;
APPROVED.
May 28: MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY
Citizens Comments: None
Public Hearing:
Granville Exempted School District, 130 N. Granger Street
The applicant wishes to construct a 13-space parking lot for
employees of the school building. The application requires three
variances ; they are asking for (1) 9' wide _spaces, -rather than 10 '
in the ordinances; (2) 13 spaces rathetrh/an the 24 requiredy (3)
zero setback on Granger SEr6€ 67- ------
Mr. Reyazi stated that initially Scheme C was submitted, but
more information was requested, which resulted in a landscaping plan with new schemes. After much discussion, Scheme E was agreed- upon by applicant and neighbors. GPC approved the application with
conditions regarding landscaping and fencing, restoring the tree lawn, and eliminating the dumpster.
cussedT.he question of how many spaces would be required was dis- There will be five employees regularly and school board members and meetings from time to time. The idea was for it not to become a public parking lot. Regarding the use of the building, it
was determined that it was for educationally related purposes only resource centers/taff officesb/oard meetingso/ther meetings)a,nd tfioornaanl y other uses, the applicant would have to apply for a condi- use permit.
The issue of limiting the lot to official use only would be handled by a sign (Violators will be towed) and a pair of posts hidden in the landscape which would hold a chain after hours if necessary.
Ms. Steinberg said the neighbors are very concerned about the use of space to the east of the lot. They would like to see that space added to Lots 2 or 3 or maybe sell it to adjoining neighbors. The school board has not discussed this yet, but Mr. Harf stated the fiduciary responsibility of the board to maximize income and minimize cost, and maybe sometime in the future they could rent an office to a nonprofit tenant. This met with opposition from neighbors.
M
0
09 -
Mr. Harf requested removal of Condition 3, as setback issue
is not included in Scheme E}
CONDITION 1:
APPLIED FOR.
APPROVED.
CONDITION 2:
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE 13 SPACES
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE 9' WIDTH OF
EACH SPACE WITH ALL SPACES SHIFTED ACCORDINGLY TO THE WEST;
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the application:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are
peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The special circumstance is that this is the only school
building in the area, and relative to the amount of traffic
envisioned in stated uses, 13 spaces and 9' wide spaces seem
appropriate in the SRD.
B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
provisions of this Ordinance. This situation is unique in the SRD
and a literal interpretation probably would not fit.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant wants to make
a more appropriate use of the property.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or s.tructures in the same zoning district. This
granting will noranundue privilege. E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
persons residing or working within the vicinity variance. of the proposed Based on uses described, the number of spaces and width
are appropriate and should not affect health, safety, general
welfare.
MR. HERMAN EXPRESSED OUR SINCERE APPRECIATION TO REYZA REYAZI FOR HIS HARD WORK OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT FINDING OF FACT FOR THE SCHOOL AS FORMAL FINDING OF THE BOARD. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 10 p.m.
Next Meeting: July 23, 1998, 7: 00 p.m. (Betty may be absent.)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen