Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 09/23/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 23,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman, Greg Sharkey ( Vice Chairman)
Members Absent:Lon Herman ( Chairman), Eric Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors: Stephen & Patricia Davis,Denise & James Mack
The Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Sharkey.
Minutes of August 26, 1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES
AS PROVIDED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Vice Chairman}
Citizens' Comments: none
New Business:
Stephen and Patricia Davis, 448 West College Street
The applicants wish to remove the 60-year-old garage and build a one-car cinder
block garage in the same location with the same footprint and roofline. The difference will
be an arch in the front door. The garage was built into the hillside and the pressure has
pushed the walls beyond repair. A variance is needed for east side setback requirements.
GPC members had no problems with the application.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR 448
WEST COLLEGE STREET FOR A ONE-CAR GARAGE IN THE SAME
LOCATION BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. 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(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the
same zoning district. The proposed structure will be a replacement of an existing
structure in the exact same location, the same size and footprint. The layout of the land
would prohibit another location.
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
BZBA Minutes, September 23, 1999
zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Other garages are built within
setback limitations.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The garage was built by another owner.
D. Granting 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.
Others have garages within the setbacks, so no undue privilege would be 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. We do not see how the health,safety, or general
welfare would be affected; in fact, the garage would improve the appearance of the
neighborhood.
Denise and James Mack,420 West Maple Street
The applicants are requesting a side-yard variance to build a two-car A-frame style
garage on the carport. It will not go into Sugar Loaf There is insufficient room for a
garage because of landscaping and lay ofthe land. Because of drainage restrictions,the
garage cannot be built closer to the house, and they will put in a horseshoe drain to lead
water to the road. Mr. Mack said that a big maple tree will be removed when the village
widens the road, and adding curbing would preclude parking on the street, as they have
been. Although a one-car garage would probably fit within code, the applicants want
space for two cars and tools. Two trees would act as buffer from the street.
Ms. Caravana thought that because the lot is spacious it would not impinge on the
neighboring property, which has a garage close to the property line if not actually on the
Mack lot. The hill in back limits placing garage further back.
Mr. Sharkey added that they do not want to chop up the yard any more than they
have to. He asked about the driveway material and Mr. Mack said it would be blacktop, little a wider than it is now,for easier snowplowing. He asked about landscaping and Mrs.
Mack thought she would put in flower beds and a herb garden. They may add a sidewalk
from back door to the back ofthe garage. There is a lot of shade from the trees.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK BE GRANTED AS REQUESTED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Essman applied the criteria for variance:
A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or
2
BZBA Minutes, September 23, 1999
structure(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the
same zoning district. The topography of the lot does not allow many options. The
drainage of this area creates a need to push the garage away to keep water from the
house. The existing landscape on the property will help the neighbors' property and
create visual screening from the street. It's a fairly spacious area so that 4' would not
create a cramp. It's only one story high.
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 applicant does not
currently have a garage,and most village residents enjoy a garage.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The applicant did not design the lot ofthe slope.
D. Granting 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.
We have frequently granted side yard setbacks to accommodate different situations.
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. This plan will allow property owners to park cars off
the street,which is a safety factor.
Finding of Fact: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 7:50 p.m.
PLEASE NOTE: Next Meetings are all at irregular times:
October 27, Wednesday
November 18, Thursday
December 16, Thursday
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1 3
1

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 10/27/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
OCTOBER 27,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart
Members Absent:Bob Essman
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors: James and Jill LeVere,Steven Katz &Constance Barsky,Ned Roberts,Barbara
Franks,Carmen Maclean
Minutes of September 23, 1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE
MINUTES AS PROVIDED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS
UNAN[ MOUSLY APPROVED.
All those who wishedto speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
Citizens' Comments: none
New Business:
JamesJ i&ll LeVere,216 North Granger Street d-riveway variance
The applicants wish to construct a driveway within 10' ofthe property line. Mr.
LeVere explained that adhering to previously approved decisions would create an
unforescon elevation problem,and by oreating an entrance to the garage from the rear
alloy they would have better turning radius and protect the neighbor's footers and
landscaping. They originally planned three bays but now have ended up with two bays and
added a window. He would like th keep the curb cut on Granger up to the kitchen
window to enable access for visitors, groceries, etc.,and landscape the remaining .
driveway. The neighbors think this access would be an improvement.
The alley has not been vacated between Granger and Sunrise and is Village
property,in grass. The neighbors maintain the alley. Ms. Wimberger added that ifthey
receive a variance, they will go to Village Council for approval for using the alley. Ms.
LeVere said that it's a narrow alley,and a camper was parked there this summer.
Mr. Sharkey was concerned about other residents using the alley this way,but
other neighbors have no problem with the LeVere's plans.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED WITH STIPULATION THAT BZBA IS MERELY
PERMITTING THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY EXTENDED
TO THE END OF THE'PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO ENDING IT 10'FROM
THE END;AND ISSUES RELATING TO MAINTENANCE AND USE OF
THE ALLEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO VILLAGE COUNCIL DECISION. MR.
STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
7/
ly
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:
BZBA Minutes, October 27, 1999
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 lay ofthe land would require an extensive amount of
excavation on the neighbor's driveway and kill a lot of trees if applicant adhered to the
code. This is the only other way to get to the back for the garage, and the driveway
would have to go all the way to the end of the property. .
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 criterion does not apply.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. Special conditions relate to the topography of the lot.
D. Granting 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.
It does not appear it would confer undue privileges.
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. We do not believe the health,safety,or general
welfare would be affected by this variance.
Daniel M.Rogers,210 East Maple Street
The applicant is seeking approval for setback variances on east side t(o 1 2- 'a)nd
rear ( to 3')for his garage.
Ms. Caravana recused herself from considering this project,as she is a close
neighbor. }
Ned Roberts provided history ofthe project,saying the original saltbox design was
changed in midstream resulting in a completely new plan being erected. Mr. Roberts said
Mr. Rogers felt the new design with the lower hip roof was more practical and would
reduce the massing. The second floor would now be utilized. They extended the garage
4' to add more room for vehicles.
Scott Harmon surveyed the lot,and they placed the slab in relation to the survey.
A neighbor thought the project was 1' from her property line.
Mr. Herman wanted clarification as to how this happened,and Mr. Roberts
explained that GPC did not like the massing so Mr. Rogers worked on the drawings. GPC
did not approve them,so they resubmitted Mr. Roberts'drawings. Since these changes
were substantial,GPC wanted BZBA to reconsider the variances.
2
BZBA Minutes,October 27, 1999
Barbara Franks admitted this was not the right way to go although they thought
they had artistic rights. The representative from the Village,Reza Reyazi,had visited
several times and said nothing about the change in plans. Upon questioning,Mr. Reyazi
did not recall the situation but wanted it surveyed. 4:>U-n4* 71*p*6ge.*.*,
i
Mr. Herman stated that it seems the applicant would like us to give some weight to
actions taken by a former Village official that did in some way support what has been
done,but the footprint is quite a bit larger now in order to use the upstairs. Ms Franks
said they had permission to build the garage 2' higher than it is now. The roofline matches
the house. She knows this was not done correctly and this has put a lot of people on the
spot. She wants the extra space for light and height-for-her-erafks-and as a rumpus room
for the kids. The garage will be beautiful,she stated,and will improve property values of
other homes on the block. The plans were on the drawing boardbefore she decided to
open Footloose.
Mr. Roberts said there are a lot ofprecedenotsr /changed plans and nothing was
done. Mr. Sharkey recognizes that things may hay6 occurred in the past that were a little
loose,but now BZBA must determine setbackvance»s. BZBA considers massing in
conjunction with setbacks. Generally BZBA d965 not allow such a large structur>
although as submitted,it was acceptable. Thdnew structure runs the entire width and
Aen- aiists higher. The original plan had a peak and descended quite a bit. PuoT
Mr. Herman added that the criteriajnclude special circumstances,p€sulting from
actions of applicant;undue privilege,etcA.,nd the applicant fails these tests.
4+-
Neighbor Steve Katz felt the structure Iis extremely massive as a two-story building
with hip roof He does not think BZBA would have approved it in its current state. It's
almost as big as the house. Constance Barsky was concerned about prior notification.
Carmen Maclean agrees that it's too big.
Ms Caravana reminded the group that the most important thing for theBoard to
consider is not to judge whether the applicant has done the right thing or the wrong thing.
We are not a punishing body,but we have to look at the garage and pretend it is not even
built and decide whether we could approve it. She does not think we should hold it
against Mr. Rogers because is is already built.
Mr. Herman is concerned about setting precedents This would undermine the
legitimacy ofthe work BZBA is doing,and he does not see any way around that.
Mr. Stewart stated that had this application been brought to us at first,he could
not have supported it. He is uncomfortable with other appfevedill-a-g¥e structureslyl' 1 Us- tee-crowded- and- imposespn- the-neighboTs.
V X. r-
6-W»irC41 r-C1.4£, .c,«uk.4U-3 e»--
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AS IT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. MR.
STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ( with
3
the previously noted recuse).
BZBA Minutes,October 27,1999
The applicant may appeal to Village Council if he chooses- PreTiuorprecedentda
e-not,applrhere:
Mr. Herman applied the criteria for variance:
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. We have received no evidence that there are special circumstances
which are peculiar in this case.
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 in fact this was approved,it
would have deprived others who have chosen to conform with provisions of the code.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. It is clear that im* special circumstances do result from actions of the
applicant. . a/77
D. Granting 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.
Ifthis was approved, it would confer privilege thatB-lfeaetivelrwas not applied to other
structures.
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.Not applicable
Finding of Fact: MR SHARKEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 10 p.m.
PLEASE NOTE: Next Meetings are all at irregular times:
November 18, Thursday
December 16,Thursday
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1
4

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 11/18/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
NOVEMBER 18,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric
Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors:Rodger Asmlis,Peter Cea, Sharon Arps,Julie Hopson,Eleanor Cohen,Brad &
Karen Pfau,Jeffrey S. Jalbert,Muffy Chyne,Laura Main
1
Minutes of October 27,1999:
Page 3,Paragraph 1: c"h.a.n.ge in plans,according to Ms. Franks."
Page 3, Paragraph 2,line 1:: give some weight to alleged actions..."
Same paragraph,go down 5 lines and deletef o"r her crafts."
Page 3,Paragraph 3, line 4: s"u.c.h.a large structure that close to the property
line,although as originally submitted,it was acceptable. The roofline ofthe new
structure.M...r. Herman added that the criteria for approval include special circumstances
not resulting from...."
Page 3, last paragraph: w "ith other large structures which have been approved
within the central area of the village.
Page 4, line 3, deleteP "revious precedents do not apply here."
Page 4,ParagraphA: w"h.i.c.h are peculiar to the land in this case."
Page 4,Paragraph C: I"t is clear that any special circumstances..."
Page 4,Paragraph D: Delete r"etroactively."
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
Citizens' Comments: none
New Business:
BradK &risti Pfau,1125 NewarkG-ranville Road d-etached garage
The applicants wish to construct a one-story,two-car 24'x30' garage where a
previous garage foundation exists. This is in the Open Space District,and side and rear
yard setbacks will require variances,as they are required to be 50' from the property lines
Mr. Pfau explained why the location in the plan is the only feasible one for them.
It will be set back farther than the previous one so that they may have more frontage. The
eastw/est location will be the same. There is a hill, so adhering to the code would place
the garage below the house. Thick foliage creates a natural buffer from the neighbors.
Another location would be more obvious to the street and less aesthetically pleasing.
There would be direct access offthe ROW without the addition of more concrete. They
plan to match exterior materials of the house,and they used the Monomoy garage as a
model. The previous garage was demolished,prior to their ownership,because it was
dilapidated. The trees next to the slab will remain,but the one behind the house will be
removed. The neighbors are pleased about the plans,for there would be more on-site
parking and the kids'toys will be put inside.
Mr. Sharkey stated that this is a largu property and placing the garage as shown
would make a lot of sense. It is not close to any other structures and doesn't encroach or
infringe and is not unduly large. The topography is fairly open.
Ms. Caravana thought the primary rationale for a garage being built as shown is
that there was a previous garage there. The neighbor's garage is also within 50' ofthe
line.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE PLACED AS CLOSE AS 4'
FROM THE EASEMENT ON THE WEST AND 4'FROM THE PROPERTY
LINE ON THE REAR. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Essman applied 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 topography and shape ofthe property precludes another
location. The lot is large and the proposed location is sensible and appropriate.
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 is not enough room to
build a garage according to the code except in the front yard. Other garages are located
within the setbacks..
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The former garage was demolished before the Pfaus purchased the
property. There would be special problems without a shared driveway.
D. Granting 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.
This is an Open Space District so not applicable here.
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. Actually,the plan would alleviate the problem of
parking,so this would enhance the health,safety, or general welfare ofthe immediate
area.
2
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
Sprint,Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway -Height variance
Peter Cea explained the necessity for a telecommunications antenna 6' high to be
attached to the steeple ofthe church, replacing the existing finial. This would require a 3'
height variance,since the surrounding hills preclude acceptable reception. The new white
flashing would match the existing white color. 4-be steep18s* hottwee»uldb-e-semove1dandf-
efabriea4-fei:t-hes-igna140p-enetrate. The microcell unit is for local,downtown
coverage 4( -5 square blocks)a,nd since it is low power,it has to be close to its
destination. Strict adherence to the code would not allow radiation power beyond the
very immediate area of the church. Mr. Cea said that if Sprint abandoned the site,they
would restore the steeple to its original condition.
Mr. Cea answered questions about wider coverage and explained in detail how a
telecommunications antenna works.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS
SUBMITTED FOR A 3' HIGH VARIANCE FOR THE ANTENNA ON TOP OF
THE STEEPLE. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart applied the criteria for variance:
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. Requirements for an antenna boil down to the location on the
church steeple as the only possible location in the downtown area. The appearance ofthe
plan allows the antenna to become an integral part of the church. Foliage on-site demands
an antenna tall enough to clear the trees now and in the future.
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. Since the company cannot
piggyback onto another antenna,we are allowing them the right to compete with other
companies with antennae in the area.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The hills were already here.
D. Granting 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.
This privilege has been extended to other companies
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. We see no way the health,safety, and general welfare
would be affected by approval.
3
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
James and Julie Hopson,123 South Pearl Street - side and rear setbacks
Ms. Hopson explained that they wish to build a two-car garage 2'5"from the
north lot line and 3.0'from west line where the old too-small garage is located. The door
would be on the west side,and there would be a 5'woodshed on the north. This would
allow them to use off-street parking. They wish it set back far enough for visitors' cars to
park in the driveway. Mr. Hopson has spoken to all the neighbors,and no one has a
problem with the plan. The second floor,accessible via interior stairway, is for storage,
and there will be no utilities.
Ms. Caravana thought the structure would be less imposink if the gable did not
face the street. She also suggested cutting the angle ofthe point ofthe roof,and Ms.
Hopson will discuss this with her husband. She also asked about the fence and its
ownership,which needs to be surveyed. There needs to be sufficient space behind the
garage for service,and she suggested 3' as a minimum. Ms. Hopson will speak to the
Darfuses about this.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED
TO ALLOW 2'.5"FROM NORTH BOUNDARY AND 3' FROM THE WEST
BOUNDARY FOR THE WALL. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for variance:
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. An existing structure presently encroaches on the north side and
somewhat on the west. The driveway exists,and granting variance would allow applicant
to use existing pavement without pouring more pavement.
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. Other garages in the area
encroach into the setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. Applicants purchased the small garage with the house.
D. Granting 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.
We do not see how it would confer undue 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 of the proposed variance. Approval would not affect the health,safety,and
general welfare.
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
Finding of Fact: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Concluding Comments: Mr. Sharkey asked whether others agreed that approval for the
Presbyterian Church addition stipulated leaving the big evergreen on the east side. If so,
the builders are required to replace that tree with one ofthe same size.on4he same Spot. - /
Others agreed,and Ms. Wimberger will notify thetridde,FE' S 1 /1.2- y*..
Adjournment: 8:46 p.m:
PLEASE NOTE: Next Meeting is at irregular time: December 16,Thursday
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 05/27/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May 27,1999
MINUTES
Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsey Mason,Intern
Visitors: Jim Cooper,Frank Murphy,Sharon Wells,Joe Hickman,Darryl Payne,Martha Matesich
Minutes of April 22,1999: Page 1: Add at end of second full paragraph: A percentage of her sales are
telephone orders.
Page 2, Add at end of Line 9, This is a difficult standard for the applicant to meet.
Page 4,add at end of first b( ): T h e"re will be less vehicular conflicts on East College Street as a
result of placing the driveway on Granger Street.
Change a( ): in"cr.e.as e.the burden on public facilities by increasing traffic and need for
parkingin.c.re.a.se in pedestrian traffic under the new proposal there would be more tenants occupying
the property than at the current time."
tdMR.rES#S7MA1N4MOV8E'DUTHA T T'HE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. MR. STEWART
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
Citizen's comments: None '
New Business:
Sharon Wills, 116 Bantry Street-Variancefor Lot Coverage
Ms. Wills wishes to have a house built in the Village Green,which does not specify maximum lot
coverage in its covenants. The PUD permits 20 per cent coverage. Her request,while within setback
lines,would be 21. 55 per cent coverage. If there is a discrepancy, the ordinance prevails. Jim Cooper,
legal counsel, said that in 1993 the GPC and the engineers approved specifications for the Village Green
but neglected to clarify total lot coverage. The restrictive covenants set forth in the plat call for a minimal
building area of 1800 sq.ft for two stories and 1400 sq.ft for one story of living area. Ms. Wills' building
plan, stated Mr. Cooper,appears reasonable and consistent.
Frank B. Murphy, developer of the Village Green said he went back and found all two-story
houses are within the 20 per cent,and the Wills house would be 1850 sq.ft. or 2300 with garage. He was
not aware of this 20 per cent until recently. There are four other homes over the coverage allowed,and
there are six lots left. Ms. Wimberger thought that there were seven houses over the maximum 20 per cent,ranging from 20.4 sq.ft to 31. 18.
Darryl Payne asked about setbacks and was told that all are within setbacks. He added that most lots are quite small and they like it that way.
Ms. Matesich stated she lives next door to Ms. Wills property and wondered if Ms. Wills could redesign her house to fit within the lot coverage. She feels the 1 12/ per cent over the 20 sq.ft. maximum is significant and will severely impact her space and view.
Mr. Stewart asked what options have been explored that would not require a variance, and Mr. Will said that when they bought the lot,they assumed they could put it as the setback decreed. They spent a lot of money on the plans and nobody said anything about the restriction. They were told it's too big even though within setbacks They could change things and move the house farther back. The house is
li
f 4
4
BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999
wheelchair-accessible The next-door neighbor stated that the actual house is the issue,rather than the
setbacks.
Although Mr. Sharkey takes neighbors' concerns seriously,in this case there are several other
homes exceeding the maximum lot coverage. The Wills could move the house farther back,and he feels it
appropriate to grant the variance. The next-door neighbor felt that just because there have been other
variances allowed,that is insufficient reason to do it again. Mr. Sharkey said they did not come before
this body for variances..
Ms. Caravana stated that she was opposed to the last variance the BZBA granted test it set a
precedent.These matters should be written in the covenant rather than granting variances all the time.
She thought Ms. Wills could shave a couple of feet off the garage. She does not see hardship or special
circumstances.
Darryl Payne feels it appropriate to grant the 1 1/2 per cent over the maximum20%than to build
a two-story because most of the houses are one story on this side ofBantry Street. It would be better to
have a one-story house fit in with the other homes. He doubts that anyone could detect aesthetically the 1
1/2 per cent overage.
Mr.Herman wondered whether the neighbor's concern would be remedied by not granting the
variance and did not think it would be There is precedent in this area and to deny the variance would
deprive her of rights enjoyed by others. , e , -
Mr. Stewart felt that since other houses exceed the coveragele.alls this credence to Ms.Wills
assertion that nobody knew about this and it would be unfair to impose that kit?d ofrestriction. That it's
one story makes it less imposing on the street.
Ms. Caravana stated that the other houses were built over the maximum through an oversight on
the part of the Village,and in this case a variance should be granted. But we should take this into
consideration when the other seven houses are built.
Ms. Wills said that three years ago they selected their lot and wanted to be sure it was in
accordance with the neighborhood and feels this plan will fit in well. The overage is not very much.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied 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. N/A .
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 received testimony in terms ofother lot coverages exceeding 20
per cent;there are seven in this area.
C)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
N/A
D)Granting 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. There are seven others who exceed
the maximum lot coverage.
2
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. It
would not affect health,safety or general welfare. It would be consistent with the other homes.
Joseph and Karen Hickman,326 North Granger Street - Variances
The applicants wish to construct an 8'x18' a(pproximately)front porch within the front and side
yard setbacks. It would extend 3'-4' closer to Granger Street. It would line up with other houses on the
street, and several houses in this area .have front porches within the front setback The variances are for
front and side setbacks and lot coverage. The house already exceeds the lot coverage at 23 per cent,and
the plan would increase it to 24.9 per cent.
Mr.Hickman stated that his family requests a front porch p"rimarily because everybody should
have a front porch."It's a relatively small house and there is no other place for a porch. The Hickmans
believe that a front porch would be a good aesthetic addition to the house. It would have a wooden floor
with a shed type roof and a railing with wood spindles. He thought the improvement would enhance the
neighborhood.
Mr. Sharkey adduced about the location compared to others,and Mr. Hickman said the fourth
house down is closer to the road than this would be. He would like a variance from the code in order to
make the porch large enough to put chairs and a swing on the porch.
A neighbor across the street thought " it would be terrific for Joe to have a front porch."
Ms. Wimberger stated that Mr. Hickman included the pavement in his calculations but it does
not need to be, so it's 23.6 per cent and with the ;proposed porch,it would be 24.9 per cent instead of 37
per cent. There have been variances for other houses in the area. Other houses exceed building lot
coverage of 20 per cent.
Ms. Caravana said the pool is temporary and included in the calculations but could be removed.
The porch is open so would be less imposing than aF-een*.41- a -·,4--*·4* 1-AZ*2S.€'
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. STEWART
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 structures( ) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The structure is an open porch and less imposing on the neighbors. The applicant has a temporary pool, which is included in the coverage but could be removed.
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. Other properties in the district have slight lot coverage overages. A literal interpretation would deprive him of the privilege of sitting on his front porch. CD That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. TDhe)BGoraarndtisnegesthneo pvarorbialenmcewwitihll tnhoist ccroitnefreiar. r )f C r- iE />j 1/ r,u,1>,Lr/ *\ Ordinance to other lands on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this privilege would be granted boyr sthtrisucvtaurriaenscien the same zoning district. The Board feels that no undue
r L1/-
3 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999
4 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999 F i
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
variance would not adversely affect and might even enhance the area.
Finding of Fact:Consensus of the group adopted the decisions of the Board for the two applications as
formal findings of the Board.
Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.
Next Meetings: June 24 and July 22
Adjournment: 8:50
Respectfully Submitted,
Betty Allen
4

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 03/24/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
March 25,1999
Minutes
Present: Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors: Mark Gearhart,Ed Cohn,Carolyn Kibler,Regina and Mark Ceneviva
Minutes for February 25,1999:
Page 2,add after No. 6: ,especially while addressing the BoarcLEs concerns it not be done
in such a way that the number of proposed parking spaces is reduced.
Page 3, add at end of last sentencean,d, will advise the Board if its assistance withthe
Evans Foundation is needed.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. STEWART
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of March 4,1999:
MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT MINUTES BE APPROVED AS PROVIDED. MR. STEWART
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Mark and Regina Ceneviva,977 NewarkG-ranville Road
The applicants wish to build a 24E/x30AE twos-tory garage toward the back of the
property beyond the tree because there is not enough room to add onto the existing garage. There
would be a 5/E setback from east property line,rather than the required 14AE. The existing garage
will be demolished and driveway extended to the garage. The applicant will replace the asphalt
with a cement driveway.
Mr. Sharkey asked what the building would be for,and the answer was they need room for
both cars and need storage space above,accessed by interior stairway,and one and a half stories
would not provide quite enough space for storage. There will be no plumbing. The next door
neighbor is agreeable to the project,and there have been no other objections.
The distance now from the property line is 8/ E,also within the minimum setback,and Mr.
Sharkey is not comfortable with such a large structure even closer to the property line. He would
1»prefer a ESktory garage. He asked whether Mr. Ceneviva could shift the east wall to maintain
the BLE distance and move west wall 3AE farther into the yard. The tree might have to be trimmed a
bit. Mr. Ceneviva willlook into this adjustment and into the distance ofthe neighboring barn from
the line.
Mrs. Ceneviva stated that they will want to add firewood storage and a grill and the 3AE
encroachment would crowd the yard,in addition to wanting a play space for the children close to
the house.
Mr. Sharkey added that the Board is careful about setting precedents; a lot of people have
been denied variances for even longer distances from property lines. Mr. Herman added that we are
trying to work out things that make sense. He wondered what the applicant has done to avoid
needing a variance. Mr. Sharkey said in order for the Board to grant variances,there must be no
other option 11+,/
A r -
The applicants requested a vote at this time with conditions.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT
BE MODIFIED IN A MANNER TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED NEW GARAGE IS
NO CLOSER FROM THE EASTWARD BOUNDARY THAN THE EXISTING GARAGE.
OTHER DIMENSIONS WOULD BE AS PROPOSED. MR. STEWART 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. Currently there exists a garage within the required setback minimum;therefore,there is a
precedent for situating the garage in the same way.
b)That a literal interpretation ofthe provisions ofthis Zoning Ordinance would deprive
the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
provisions ofthis Ordinance. Based on our review ofthe site as well as adjoining properties and
garages in the area,they too do not conform with the setback requirements or property lines so they
enjoy those rights already.
c)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The desire for a two-car garage is common in the community,and the ability to build one in the
j amount of land there is reasonable and does not result from actions ofthe applicant.
d)That the grant 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. Adjoining properties also fall within areas ofthe setback.
e)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect safety and the health, general welfare ofthe persons residing or working within the vicinity ofthe proposed variance. No adverse effects are foreseen.
2
1
3
Bank First National,222 East Broadway
Mike Gearhart explained the bank's plan for a drive- through behind the bank. The former
bank closed the drive4hrough and installed an ATM and took out an island. The Bank First
National wants to reinstall the drive- through to accommodate handicapped people,those who do
not want to leave children and pets in the car while they are banking,and to increase safety. There
would be two lanes and a combination drive- through with vacuum tubes and an ATM.
The applicant was asked about a traffic study and he replied they took a survey for a week
and learned that:
29%were people who would always go to the drive- through
49%would sometimes use a drive- through
32%would never use a drive- through
27%oftransactions were by people who walked through the front door
68%at some level would either use a drive- through or walk in
He added that having a drive-through would add parking spaces in front. The ATM would require
a 60" x54"structure and in back of it a 4'6"high device for the vacuum tubes.
Mr. Herman appreciated applicant's desire to provide us with information about projected
traffic,but the methodology is flawed and fears that thereDea lot more traffic back there.
Drivet-hroughs require formal traffic studies for conditional uses. Increased traffic on Prospect p 1*
impacts the fire department and pedestrian safety. A new owner ofthe corner station might also
want a drive- through,so this one would set a.dangerous-precedent. We need to ensure that no
undue burden is caused on people or services. The applicant has to anticipate additional traffic if
they want their bank to grow.
Mr. Gearhart said they want to provide more customer convenience and safety,and they
anticipate a 5%increase in business per year. A walku-p device is more vulnerable to crime than a drive- through. Neighbors have no objection to the plan.
Bernard Lukco offered that the former bank abandoned the drive- through because there
was no ATM and the service was not used much. There was no teller there and people just walked
into the bank. He added that a traffic study is necessary but a pedestrian study is also necessary. A lot of students and others just walk to the bank.
Mr. Sharkey's concern was with pedestrian safety.
Carolyn Kibler,manager of bank,said since the driveway is narrow,the bushes would have to be trimmed for better visibility. When they reverse the traffic patterns,people would exit where it would be safer. She would hate for her bank to be the first where someone gets hurt in that alley and so they feel responsible to make it safer.
Mr. Stewart would feel better with full knowledge ofwhat we are getting into,especially regarding the Fire Department s needs.
1
1
Mr. Herman wants to see exactly what is proposed,i.e.,bushes,islands,the aesthetics,
volume,and safety. Traffic engineers can help with the requirements.
Ed Cohn thinks a traffic study is fine. He is a little concerned we are talking about two
different directions to focus on with the traffic study. He does not think traffic would be
incrementwi very much.
UYj<o64*1
Mr. Sharkey also wants to see a clean,clear drawing and elevations. He agrees it would be
safer to have a drive- through but requests a traffic study.
Mr.Essman agrees with the pedestrian safety issue and feels it is possible that witha _7 4-*_,#
drive- through,it might cut down on traffic using the alley as a turn-around..
The applicants request the Board to table the application pending further study.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE
FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Work Session:
The Application Process
Zoning Inspector. Bernard Lukco from the Planning Commission,stated that he and
others from GPC have designed a method to clarify the process for applicants and to avoid
problems down the road. Without a Zoning Inspector,everyone assumes that applicants will
proceed according to plan. But since this is often not the case,they have recommended hiring a Zoning Inspector as a solution to the problems mounting with nonc-ompliance and construction or work without a permit.
Mr. Herman added that the person should be computer literate for spreadsheets and data bases and
some knowledge of zoning regulations. Mr. Stewart added that the person would report to Ms. Wimberger.
Mr. STEWART MOVED THAT THE GRANV[LLE PLANNING COMMISSION ( GPC)AND
THE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS ( BZBA)HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL DISPUTES REGARDING ZONING PERMIT COMPLIANCE.
GENERALLY,THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT THE HOMEOWNER AND/ OR
CONTRACTOR HAVE NOT ADHERED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PERMIT. WHILE
IN TYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE VILLAGE PLANNER,WHO ALSO ACTS AS THE ZONING INSPECTOR,WOULD HAVE MONITORED PROGRESS ON THESE PROJECTS, WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT ALLOWED FOR THS[ TYPE OF FUNCTION. THEREFORE THE BZBA REQUESTS THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL GIVE THE VILLAGE MANAGER AUTHORITY TO HIRE A PARTT-IME ZONING INSPECTOR TO ASSIST THE VILLAGE AND VILLAGE PLANNER TO ALLEVIATE FUTURE PERMIT PROBLEMS. MR.HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4
Fees. The subcommittee also took a look at current fees and broke them down into a
different format- 4hose for the GPC and those for BZBA. Mr. Herman said there needs to be a
relationship between fees and what they are supposed to do. The fees are for administrative costs.
Ms. Wimberger will try to get fee schedules from other towns.
Sample Packet to be given applicants would include:
a checklist of what is required
an information sheet explaining the checklist
samples of good applications
a permit application
zoning/ architectural permit with date and phone number
A 1
4-O,-A-J¥
7 /
U,
The subcommittee will next set to work on a commercial packet. Mr. Sharke 6„064 Mr.
Hermanibe liaison with GPC and the Village on these matter. t€00»CAdjournment:
9:05 p.m.
Next Meeting: April 22, 1999
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5