Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 12/11/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
December 11, 2002
Minutes

Members Present:  Bill Heim, Lon Herman (Vice Chair),
Trudy Knox, Greg Sharkey, Members Absent: Eric Stewart
(Chair)
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Molly Butt, Dan Kielmeyer
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing In:  The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.

New Business:

Molly Butt, 4051/2 West Maple Street - Rear Yard Setback

Ms. Butt explained that she wanted to replace the windows
on the rear of the house with doors as a means of fire
escape for her children.  Dan Kielmeyer, contractor, said
they also want to add a 12x8 upper and 12x16 lower deck
with access stairs on each level.  The house is on a very
small lot and the back is the only place to add a deck.  
They have almost no storage room, and the stairs will
allow Ms. Butt to carry things to and from the attic
easily.  
    Ms. Butt said neighbors Bob Hartsock and Billie
Weaver, her mother are in favor of the plan.  On the other
side, the neighbors just moved out.  Mr. Dorman noted that
Carl Oliverio had concerns about what effect the deck
would have on property values but he didn’t come to the
meeting tonight to voice his concerns to the Board.
    Ms. Butt said the outside staircase is to carry
things up to the attic. The attic is not for living space
right now, since the roofline is too low.   She has 3
children and needs more room.  Stairs to the second floor
are on the side and stairs to the attic are on the deck.  
    Mr. Heim asked if she had concerns about the
building code and danger of fire, and Mr. Kielmeyer said
they haven’t been to the Building Code yet.  He added that
they are going with 30’ solid posts, which would have to
be installed with a large piece of equipment. The post
will go all the way to the top. Mr. Dorman will check with
the Building Code office.
    Ms. Knox asked if the basement door would be at
the side and Ms. Butt replied no. There is a door there
and it will remain.
    Mr. Herman asked if she was requesting a total of
three doors and why would she want to enter from the deck,
and Mr. Kielmeyer said in case of fire the kids could
leave out the back.  There will be 4 exterior doors on the
back of the house, and they will all match, French doors
and windows.  Ms. Knox noted that French doors will take
up a lot of space and Mr. Kielmeyer said they will be 3’
exterior doors with lattice, making them look like little
windows.  
    Mr. Sharkey asked on the first level, will it be
12’ extending out from the house and 16’ across and was
told by Mr. Kielmeyer, yes, they need 16’ because they
need one foot on east side of the window.  On the second
level, Mr. Sharkey asked if that would be 12’ x 8’ and was
told it will be 12’ across the width and 8’ out.  Mr.
Sharkey asked if they thought about what it will look
like, re materials, etc. Mr. Kielmeyer said it will be
stained but we have not selected colors.  It will be
treated wood and they want a nice looking railing too.  
    Mr. Sharkey noted the rear of the house is already
in the setback 6’ or 7’ and the variance would be for
another 12’. He is concerned about the massing effect
although there are no other homes back there.  Given your
desire to ask for quite a big variance, how would you feel
about building one level on your land with the doors out
and foregoing the second way into to the attic?  Ms. Butt
said there are two bedrooms and only one closet for 3
kids. There is no storage, and the house was originally a
chicken house.  Mr. Kielmeyer said it’s almost like it’s
necessary to make the house livable and safe.  He thinks
the appearance will enhance the house.  They wanted the
deck just wide enough to accommodate their objectives.  
    The reason for the double decks is that Ms. Butt
wants some kind of platform, and Mr. Kielmeyer thought
with the stairs on the side it has more useable space than
there would be with a big staircase going up the center.  
The post will be the main support post for the project.  
The steps would probably be at least 30’ from the former
Roger Jones property.  Steps are 3’ wide.  
    Mr. Herman is not comfortable with the added
access and is not sure punching a hole in the side is the
only way to do it. The second floor makes more sense in
terms of safety.   It’s a tough house and they don’t have
a lot to work with.   If you want 12’ take 6’ on the first
floor reduce second floor by half.   Mr. Kielmeyer said,
so you want a 6’ deck?  
    Ms. Knox felt that for a deck to be used for so
few months per year, would they be adding the top solid
like a roof, then it would offer some other place for
kids.
    Mr. Heim felt if they added only one deck they
could pick up more useable space on the lower level by not
having another floor
    Mr. Sharkey understands the problem of access and
he would probably approve it if he had a clear idea of how
it will look when it’s done.  He’d like to see more
specifications. Although it’s a two-story deck, Mr.
Sharkey thought it could look nice if done right.  He
wondered what would happen with the first floor, which
slopes away from the house and was told there will be a
platform so you won’t roll down the hill.  It is to be
grassed.  
    Mr. Kielmeyer said he could show more detailed
drawings.  It will have white painted door with lattice in
the middle and on 4 doors that match and probably white
deck.  Windows would not be there any more.  It will have
the same siding as the house.  Maybe someday Ms. Butt will
put on new siding.  The 6’ posts will be nice and sturdy,
carriage bolted, and screwed.  
    Mr. Heim said since there are property owners
behind them who will see this, it will have an effect on
other property owners.  It either changes the use of the
property behind or increases the value.  It affects value
whether it is vacant or not so we want to know it will not
depreciate value.  
    The drawings will include the railings.
    Mr. Kielmeyer asked to table the application and
he will bring revised plans in for the February 13 meeting.

MR. HEIM MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION.  MS. KNOX
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 14:  Minutes were postponed until the
next meeting.

Finding of Fact:  None

Next Meeting: Thursday, January 9 and February 13
Adjournment:  7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 11/14/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
November 14, 2002
Minutes

Members Present:  Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Greg Sharkey,
Eric Stewart (Chair)
Members Absent: Lon Herman (Vice Chair)
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Mindy Kshywonis, Jim Mack
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.

New Business:

Mindy & Bob Kshywonis, 232 N. Granger Street – Side Yard
Setback

Ms. Kshywonis stated that they wish to put a 8’x12’ garden
shed 4’ from the school wall where they have a cement walk
and gas line, in that little depression below that.  The
shed would be well screened and not visible from Granger
Street.
Mr. Sharkey asked whether they own the land and was told
yes.  The survey shows an easement, the applicant said,
but it is a very old easement for cattle and wagons.  
There is an old foundation there, and she said no trees
would have to be removed. Their driveway is in the
easement.  She said the shed has been started, but it’s on
skids with no concrete floor.  They have approval for the
building and need variances for north setback.  The shed
would be 4’ from property line vs. 12’ minimum required.  
Mr. Heim asked for more information about the easement and
wondered what would happen if a shed were built on someone
else’s property.  To the best of his knowledge, Mr. Dorman
feels that the applicants own that land.  If they were
interfering with someone’s ingress and egress, they would
have to move it, but that is not the case.  Mr. Sharkey
said such disputes are between property owners, not under
the purview of this Board. He does not have a problem with
granting the variance.  The structure can be moved, and
the owner knows of the easement so this board should not
have any concerns.  The easement was created many years
ago, and the school Board does not have a problem with
it.    Mr. Dorman added that the Village vacated some land
which the applicants picked up, and the shed will be at
least 40’ from rear property line.  

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-129 WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY, MOVEABLE SHED.  MS.
KNOX. SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey:  The Board approves the variance application
of Bob & Mindy Kshywonis for 232 North Granger Street.  
Applying 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 applicant would like to
locate this rather unobtrusive shed in a screened place on
their lot that is 4’ from the property line.  Given the
small size of the shed and its unimpressive height the
Board feels that special circumstances do exist to locate
it where it will be located.  Also, its proposed location
is where a concrete wall currently exists.  There is no
neighbor in the immediate area and that is another special
circumstance that warrants the granting of the variance.
    
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.  Granger
Street has several properties including many that this
Board has dealt with and we have where appropriate granted
side and rear yard setback variances, where we felt the
structure was not intrusive on other neighbors, and we
certainly think this small structure fits the bill there.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  In fact, the
special circumstances do result from actions of the
applicant.

D.  That the 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.  Refer to (B); there are many other properties
on Granger Street that have been granted this type of
variance for small structures such as sheds.

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 heard no special
evidence that this would be the case.  Notice was given,
and none of the neighbors have objected on the record.  

The structure is moveable and so we feel based on the
survey which indicates that Bob and Mindy own the property
where they intend to place this; and on the rather
uncertain status and origin of the easement it is
appropriate to grant the variance on that particular piece
of ground.

James & Denise Mack, 420 West Maple Street – Side Yard
Setback

    Mr. Mack plans to put a storage shed in the back
of the lot 8’ from back of the house along the property
line.  Sugarloaf is behind the yard.  The people next door
have given their permission.  It’s 2 1/2’ from west
property line.  The boundary line is 6’ from west side of
the house.  The shed will be a little closer to the
property line than the house is, maybe by 1’ or 2’.  It
will be set back maybe 1’ or 2’ from the house next
door.    
Ms. Knox said there is a big hill and trees and bushes, so
there is no other place for the shed, and Mr. Stewart
added that there is also a patio back there.  
    Mr. Mack will probably put in some small shrubs
facing the street.  There are some bushes there now, so it
would not be visible in the summer.
    Mr. Sharkey stated that it’s definitely a small
structure, and we like small structures, not too high.  He
is a little concerned, however, about the new neighbors’
concerns, but he understands the applicant’s wishes
because of the hill and topography, but he thinks some
landscaping should be done on the west side and maybe the
south also.
    Mr. Heim brought up a concern with having
lawnmower gasoline so close to the neighbors.
    The applicant said the paint on the shed is a
primer, which is close to the color of the house.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-141 AS SUBMITTED
WITH THE ADDITION OF SUITABLE LANDSCAPING ON A PORTION(S)
OF THE SOUTH AND ALL OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.  
MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey:  The Board approves the application for
variance for James and Denise Mack for 420 West Maple
Street.  Applying 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.  In fact, here we have the
unique topography of the property makes it necessary and
more importantly sensible to locate the shed where the
Macks are proposing to locate it.  It is a small structure
and the applicants have agreed to have it screened
appropriately from the neighbor to the west.

    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.  
N/A.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.   See response
to (A); in fact the special circumstances really result
from the unique topography of the property involved.

D.  That the 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.  In fact, the Board cannot think of any reason
how this would confer undue privilege on the applicant,
given the size of the structure and the topography of the
property.

E.  That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general
welfare of  persons residing or working within the
vicinity of the proposed variance.  This board has heard
no such evidence that neighbors or others would be
affected by this rather small and unimposing structure.

One final note is that the Board approves the variance
with the condition that the applicant submit some type of
landscaping plan to the Village Planner for final
approval, for the entire west side and for a portion(s) of
the south side.  Also, this is a moveable structure.

    Ms. Knox had a question about the survey, since a
local surveyor has spoken against using a mortgage survey
for property lines.  People are not to make decisions
based on a mortgage survey.  Mr. Dorman has had
discussions with him, and we have approved variances based
on mortgage survey, and he has had people build on the
property line.  They are less expensive.  Such surveys
might use a row of hedges where a real surveyor uses
boundary pins.  When a surveyor looks at a lot, he looks
at the entire block.  We ought to require a boundary
survey.  Mr. Heim noted that people should put sheds where
they will not need a variance.
    Mr. Dorman said there was discussion of having a
township survey done.  Mr. Sharkey thought we could write
something into the code saying if a boundary costs more
than $xxx, a mortgage survey would do.    
    Mr. Dorman will ask the Law Director about this
and also try to find out what other communities require.  
There are a lot of erroneous property lines in Granville,
and Mr. Heim thought it would be more expensive to the
rest of the community to get one wrong.

Closing Comments:  Ms. Knox asked whether it would be
possible to limit the number of new homes built in
Granville.  Mr. Dorman said that would be a Residential
Growth Ordinance and Hudson had one but it was held up.  
Village Council would ultimately decide on such a
decision.  
    
Ms. Knox also wondered about affordable senior housing,
which would solve a problem seniors have.  The Recchies
had a proposal but are moving too slowly.  Mr. Dorman said
it depends on where it is located.  Multi-unit structures
have limitations.

Minutes of August 27:  

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR.
HEIM SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. HEIM MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF
FACTS FOR THE KSHYWONIS AND MACK APPLICATIONS AS THE
OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE
CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S
MEMO OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002.  MS KNOX SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting:  WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11
Adjournment:  8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 8/27/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 27, 2002 Special Meeting
Minutes

Members Present, Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice
Chair), Eric Stewart (Chair)
Members Absent: Greg Sharkey
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Kitty Consolo
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.

New Business:

Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place – Setback Variance

Ms. Consolo wishes to enclose an existing deck that faces
woods and road with a 12’x16’ all-season wood addition
with windows, roof, and door.  Two skylights will be
added, and a deck will be next to the addition.   She
brought photographs of the current house and explained the
view from the neighbors.  All neighbors she spoke with are
in agreement with the project.  One neighbor, Jim Martin,
would be able to see the addition from his deck; others
would not see it through the woods.  Ms. Consolo owns the
lot to the north which would be most affected by the
addition.  The current A.C./heater can be accessed to
serve the addition.  She is not changing the footprint.  
The code requires a minimum 50’ setback, whereas the deck
would be extended 16’ to the east, and the north setback
would remain at 16’.
Mr. Heim asked about ownership of the lot next door, and
Ms. Consolo said she bought it from her father, although
the deed says it is in trust, which it was for awhile
until the matter was settled. She has been talking with
the Licking Land Trust about a possible donation of one of
her lots.  There are two other parcels, and all three are
in her name.
Ms. Knox walked the property and found it very secluded.
The shape of the lot is small and there is really no other
way to add to the house.  As long as the neighbor does not
object, then there should be no problem.
Mr. Stewart stated that BZBA likes to consider any future
owners of the lands and avoid setting precedents.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-106 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the application for a
rear setback 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. The footprint of the structure
is as it has always been in what is being suggested and
what is approved.  The applicant is merely enclosing the
existing deck.
    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.  
Not applicable, given the existing deck that is already on
the property.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  This is merely
an addition above an existing deck and porch and the
condition in terms of infringing upon the rear setback is
not caused by the applicant and there’s no other
reasonable way to create a deck.  
D.  That the 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 many irregularly shaped lots on Samson
Place.  I would venture to guess that there are at least 2
and maybe 3 just in looking at the property that may need
a rear yard setback.
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 appears to be
true.

Minutes of July 31:  
Page 1, next to last line, change “They” to He.
    Page 2, first word add, “project.  Mr. Reed
suggested that….”
    Page 3, 9th paragraph:  “Mr. Stewart asked if the
size is fixed, and Mr. Reed said it is not really fixed,
but….”

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JULY 31, 2002 AS
CORRECTED.  MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION (MR. HEIM, WHO WAS NOT A
MEMBER AT THE LAST MEETING).

Finding of Fact:  MR. HEIM MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF
FACTS FOR THE CONSOLO APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION
OF THE BZBA, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED
IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF AUGUST 23, 2002.  MS.
KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Next Meeting:  October 10
Adjournment:   7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 7/31/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 31, 2002
Amended Minutes

Members Present:  Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair),
Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart (Chair)
Members Absent:  Ashlin Caravana
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Tim Riffle, Dan Rogers, Ned Roberts,
Shirley Maxwell,  Sarah & Larry Scheiderer,  Jim R.
Cooper, Amy  Brunn,  Marge Hendy, Jodi Schmidt, Wendy &
Roger Flowers, Troy and Carla Reed
Citizens’ Comments:  None
Swearing In:  The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Side and Rear Yard
Setback Variances

    The application was tabled pending reports of an
agreement with the Schmidts on landscaping plans.  At the
last meeting of the BZBA, Bernadita Llanos agreed with
landscape plans on her side.  
Attorney Jim Cooper reported that there is an agreement
with the Schmidts, neighbors on the east side (former home
of Mr. and Mrs. Coombs).  Ms. Schmidt said the original
landscape plan went from the corner of their house to the
end of the Rogers’ garage, and they figured enough trees
and shrubs to fill that space.  Dan has paid the Schmidts
the money to complete the landscaping.  Six-foot
arborvitae will be used for the hedge, and 6-8’ pine trees
will be added.  They are not going to do anything right
away but will wait until spring and until the garage is
finished.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO REMOVE THE APPLICATION FROM THE
TABLE.  MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES BE
APPROVED.  MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Minor changes to the existing Finding of Fact
drafted after the May 9th meeting were agreed upon for use
as the Finding of Fact for this decision, and Mr. Dorman
will make those revisions.

Troy & Carla Reed, 123 Wildwood Drive - Side and Rear Yard
Setback Variances

    {Ms. Knox recused herself from this hearing.}

    At the last meeting, since Mr. Reed was not
present, the BZBA tabled the application, but allowed the
neighbors to comment on the application.  The proposal is
for a shed building with portico that would be used at
first as a playhouse for the applicants’ children.  A 10’
variance on south side and 6.5’ variance in the rear would
be required.    
    Troy Reed said something should be said about the
last meeting.  He did not think it was right for the BZBA
to take testimony when they were not present.  Mr. Reed
suggested that assumptions were made about the project.  
They feel that the BZBA heard all of these negative
comments and have already formed opinions on the proposal
based on that.  They listened to the tape of the meeting,
and it seemed people were making up their minds
prematurely.  A lot of the comments had nothing to do with
this plan.  They put the drain in three years ago to stop
water from going onto the neighbor’s property.  They did
not do anything improperly. The Hendys complain that this
plan will make the long-term erosion worse.  The Sauers
brought up an expired covenant and suggested I might use
the playhouse as an office.  Mr. Reed said a shed is a
permitted use, but in this case variances are needed.  In
the proposed location they would not have to cut down the
buckeye tree or Rose of Sharon.  The shed will be open
underneath so water will roll down the hill and have no
effect on erosion.  The drain tile along the fence is left
over from his project three years ago because he did not
know what to do with it. Nothing is planned with tile at
this time.  He could have put the shed in without
permission.  If he did not need a variance, he could have
put it in without consulting them.  They tried to be
considerate about where to put it so it would be
concealed.  He said Diane Trucker complained, but she has
a shed on her property.  The Reeds heard negative comments
on the tape from people who don’t even know them.  They
considered putting up a privacy fence, but didn’t really
want to do that.  They planed to screen it from the street
with plantings.  He spoke with Rick Watts and Troy Brunn
and they didn’t seem opposed to the plan.  At the meeting
Ms. Watts complained about losing her view, but her view
is close everywhere, and in about two years, the hemlock
tree will shield it anyway.  He concluded by saying this
is a nice neighborhood and this project will be nice
too.   
    Mr. Sharkey asked whether he has spoken with the
neighbors, specifically about the view before or after you
went away.  Mr. Reed told him he spoke to Troy Brunn and
Rick Watts after he returned.
    Mr. Stewart asked whether Mr. Reed anticipated
negative comments, and Mr. Reed said the neighbors don’t
like him.  He did not think it would be worth it to talk
to them.  Ms. Reed noted that they want their privacy and
to be able to sit outdoors.  So they put up screening and
the neighbors were offended by that.
    Mr. Stewart said, speaking about the view, some of
the neighbors thought that while this location is good for
the Reeds, it is not great for those neighbors.  Mr. Reed
noted that the person who made that comment has never been
in his house and looked out toward the yard.  Mrs. Reed
noted that they will indeed be able to see the shed.  
Screening from the neighbor’s property will be done.  It
is not sitting out in the open.  On the Brunn side, they
have big trees behind there, and the Scheiderers have
shrubbery too.  They did not put in the proposal that they
are going to put in bushes, but they are planning to do
so.  If they cut down the trees and locate it in a
location that meets the code, everyone will see the shed.  
They did not want to disrupt everything in the yard.  The
best location is where they decided to put it.  It
balanced the lot on the slope.  It’s a nice building.  
They will stain it the same color as the house trim.
    Sally Scheiderer said she came to the last meeting
because they were notified and they made comments.  Nobody
told them landscaping would be done.  Comments were not
made negatively; they were just voicing their opinions.  
She does not think the neighborhood can accommodate a
building of that size and fears it would set a precedent.  
Although they do have the right to put it in there, she
would not like to see it where it is drawn on the plan.
Mr. Reed said they were on vacation and there was a
miscommunication between him and Mr. Dorman as to whether
he needed to be there.  
Amy Brunn thought the previous meeting was not negative,
but things said tonight were negative.   The shed would be
on a slope, with the front 9 ½’ high and the back 3’ or so
higher.  Mrs. Reed said there are huge pine trees there to
screen it.  Mrs. Brunn said Mr. Brunn went to talk to Mr.
Reed, who said if the fire department has a problem, we
need to deal with it, but this is about the shed.  The
neighbors want to keep the area nice looking.
Sally Scheiderer said the drain was brought up because the
pipe has lain there 2-3 years but she has a problem with
their yard eroding away and it would be worse with a
drain.  There was nothing in the site plan about a
drainpipe.  But that is not a concern for this meeting.
Mr. Stewart is hearing that the objections are that it is
either too large or too high a structure to put within the
setback and that even if the Reeds screen it to the hilt
as they are suggesting tonight, it is still a problem, we
need to be clear about the objections.  Sally Scheiderer
added the concern about setting a precedent and about
location.
Mr. Stewart asked about other sheds in the area, and Amy
Brunn said the outside homes of Wildwood loop have woods
behind them and a shed would be less visible, but those on
the inside butt up against each other and a shed is much
more visible.
    Mr. Dorman said the Reeds are requesting a 10’
variance on the south versus the minimum of 14’ and a 6.5’
variance on the rear versus the 50’ minimum.  
Mr. Stewart said it’s a tough decision for the BZBA when
the neighbors are opposed because that is one of the
conditions we look at when considering variances.  The
applicant prefers to have it in that spot, with good
reasons, but the standard for variance is tough and if the
Reeds could move it so it would not need a variance that
would be simpler.  If there were something about the lot
precluding a different location, that would be different,
but we see no hardship.
    Mr. Reed thought that sometimes folks get what
they ask for, and nothing we can say can satisfy these
neighbors.  This was the most concealed place to put it.  
If we put it in an approved place, people would complain
even more. Amy Brunn thought a more discreet spot could be
found so when people drive up Wildwood, they won’t see
it.  Mr. Reed said if they put it where it would be
approved, they would not have to plant shrubbery and you
could not do anything about it.  
    Mr. Stewart said we are not putting blame on the
neighbors.  That is just one criterion we look at.   “I
hope you would not do that to the neighbors, but that is
your prerogative.  We weigh all comments.”  
    Mr. Herman said one of the criteria is whether or
not the applicant has created the need for the variances.  
In this case, there are other alternatives.  The issue
relative to other options makes it tough for us.
    Mr. Stewart asked if the size is fixed, and Mr.
Reed said not really, but he would like to have the front
porch.  
Given our discussion this evening:

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REED’S APPLICATION FOR
VARIANCES.   MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.

Mr. Sharkey applied the criteria for variance to the
application for side and rear yard setbacks:

This is the Reed application for variance to place a shed/
clubhouse structure in their side and rear yards.
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 Board finds that special
conditions or circumstances do not exist, which are
peculiar to the land or structure involved, in fact the
Board finds and the applicants acknowledge that they have
many different options as to where to place the
structure.  None of the other options even require a
variance.
    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 heard no testimony that the denial of these
variances would deprive the applicants of rights commonly
enjoyed by their neighbors.
C.  That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  Not applicable,
we find there are no special conditions or circumstances.
D.  That the 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. Not applicable, we have denied the variance.
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.  On balance, the great
weight of testimony from neighbors was that placing this
structure where the Reeds intended to put it was
problematic, primarily for two (2) reasons:  1) The size
and height of the structure, and 2) its visibility from
surrounding properties.  

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street – Side Yard Setback
Variance
    
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  
MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

At the last meeting Mr. Riffle was asked to scale down the
massing.  Tonight Mr. Riffle presented new drawings and
photographs with a lower roofline, and he is putting in
shed dormers.  Roger Flower, from next door, said he has
been aware of Mr. Riffle’s plans to do this for awhile and
is in support of both the old and new plans.  Neither the
old nor the new plans would impact the use of his property
in any way.  He is at the bottom of the hill and they sit
on their back screen porch looking toward the garden,
rather than to the north.   The two neighbors have worked
together on issues of their adjacent lots.
Mr. Stewart thinks the new plans make a big difference.  
Mr. Riffle said he would lose space he needs but is
willing to make the changes.  

MS KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS AMENDED.  MR.
HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria to the application for
the side yard setback 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.  Given the topography, the steep
pitch of his entire property, yes these circumstances and
conditions do exist which left him really only one flat
place to build.
    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.  
Not applicable.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No, probably
more from the actions of a glacier.
D.  That the 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.  That is the case; it would not 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.  The applicant has
addressed the proposal with neighbors and we have heard
testimony and have no sense that there will be any problem
in this area.
    
Minutes of May 23, June 13, and July 11, 2002:  On the
July 11 minutes, Visitors Present, change Judi Walter to
Judi Watts.  On page 2, start third paragraph with Mr.
Sharkey.  Page 2, last paragraph, delete second sentence
and continue “He encourages Dan to do everything possible
to make an agreement satisfactory to his neighbors.”

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 23RD, JUNE 13TH, AND
AMENDED VERSION OF JULY 11TH MINUTES.  MS. KNOX SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF
FACTS FOR THE REED, RIFFLE, AND ROGERS APPLICATIONS AS THE
OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BZBA, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT
WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED
ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
JULY 26, 2002.   MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
    
Next Meeting:  August 27, 2002.
Adjournment:   8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 7/11/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 11, 2002
Amended Minutes

Members Present, Ashlin Caravana, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman
(Vice Chair), Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart (Chair)
Members Absent: None
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Tim Riffle, Dan Rogers, Ned Roberts,
Scott Harmon, Shirley Maxwell, Ralph D. Baker, Bill Heim,
Sally & Larry Scheiderer, Mike Flood, Lesley Torello, Jim
R. Cooper, Bob Morris, Bernadita Llanos, C. K. Barsky, Amy
& Troy  Brunn, Cal Prine, Bruce Westall, Rich Watts, Judi
Watts, Barbara Lucier, Lee Davis, Sharon Sellitto, Marge
Hendy
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.

The Chair suggested that since we have 4 new applications
and one tabled one, we would like to move the latter up to
the front if nobody has any objections.  

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Side and Rear Yard
Setback Variances

    The Chair summarized that at the May meeting the
application was tabled, pending agreement by the neighbors
on a landscaping plan to lessen the impact of the
building, and he asked for a report.
Attorney Jim Cooper believes they have an agreement with
Bernadita Llanos and Dan Rogers.  Some of the details and
timing need to be worked out as to the fence and the trees
for the neighbor on the north.  {On the east side there
has been no further discussion.}  Mr. Cooper did not have
opportunity to be a part of the discussion, so he cannot
speak to what occurred, but was presented with a plan from
Ms. Coombs. The discussion broke down.  As he understands
it, the problem is with the expense and extent of it.  
There’s a willingness to do something.  
Mr. Stewart said that we have an agreement on one side but
not the other. The original price was $7500.  Mr. Sharkey
asked what was the last price offered, and Ms. Coombs said
$4400, as she was willing to take off some.  The Rogers
apparently never heard this, but they were told this at
the time.  Mr. Rogers said the last meeting it was $7500
and landscaping from Fackler’s.  He knew of no other
figure.  Ned Roberts agreed on this understanding, but Mr.
Stewart heard $4400 and that was for the east side.  
{There was a long pause while the principals convened
around the table for private conversation.}  
Attorney Cooper said the agreement with Ms. Llanos was to
construct a 6’ solid wood fence of treated lumber with a
minimum of 5 trees, 8’ to 10’ in height, probably
hemlocks.  Albyn’s will probably do the landscaping.  Mr.
Sharkey thought we were close to an agreement on the north
side but there is no agreement for purposes of this board
settling this evening.  
Mr. Stewart said that while we do the other 4
applications, the principals can work on this some more.  
Attorney Cooper does not want to give up and would like to
see what the cost would be with the revised plan for the
east side.  
Sharon Sellitto, who owns the property to the west, asked
if a fence would be going in between the properties, and
what kind of timeline is proposed.  If a fence continues,
it should be written into the agreement.  There’s no fence
there now.  In l997 when she agreed to this, Dan Rogers
said he would put up a fence.  Mr. Rogers said he was
planning to screen with fence sections.  
Constance Barsky said when the garage was first proposed,
the neighbors did not have concerns about it. “Everybody
agreed to it but what was built was not what was planned.  
Dan thwarted community values, and it is sad that people
have to hire lawyers to resolve this.”  She hoped in the
future this can be avoided and hoped the neighbors are not
being hurt.
    Mr. Sharkey wants to go on record with what Ms.
Coombs proposes now is a significant down grade and is
entirely reasonable; Dan created the problem and he’s got
to fix it. Even if it costs money. He does not have a
figure on cost but he thinks her proposal to screen the
garage is reasonable.  
    Ms. Knox said the agreement was a maximum of 5
trees and there is a minimum. Mr. Stewart believes they
were going to work on the final details.  There was
discussion about where the lot line was and how far the
eave overhung it.  
Bruce Westall spoke about the encroachment situation. He
agrees with Constance Barsky that it’s too bad we are to
the point we have to hire lawyers to figure out
disputes.  “This is not really an issue about Dan Rogers’
building a garage but it has become a neighborhood issue,
about relationships among each other.  He said Mr. Rogers
has not done a good job in this area.  You have done a
tremendous job on the building.  We have seen you work
hard and spend lots of money improving the property, but
from the beginning you took advantage of the system and
for whatever reason you fell through the cracks.  Equally
responsible was the Village because they did not direct
you soon enough to correct the situation.  One option is
tearing the whole thing down, and I don’t think that
should be done in a community that values its history.  
The Village has to find some way to keep better track of
projects under construction.  People violate zoning every
day.  Maybe Dan is the example of how that can go very
badly.  I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s your job
to mediate it in a way that we don’t have to take sides.”
    Ned Roberts said that from the very beginning he
did get permission for a two-story garage and the garage
would have been more acceptable, but the saltbox was
different.  Dan did think he had artistic license and did
not think it would be a problem.  Mr. Roberts tried to
help him, and said the project was not done with evil
intent.  They worked on drawings to cut the roof down to
the original saltbox style, but the Planning Commission
advised them not to cut it down.  Ms. Caravana stated that
what they proposed was something in-between.  Ned Roberts
saw no reason to tear it down and make it unusable.  The
Planning Commission said to stay with the design we have.  
The variance was 12” from the lot line.  He is 2.2’ from
Bernadita and 1’ from the Coombs, he is very close.  It’s
even hard to know where the line is.  The overhang could
be cut but it adds to the style.
Mr. Sharkey said we have to consider how it impacts
neighbors.  Ms. Caravana stated that the Planning
Commission didn’t consider the impact from Ms. Llanos and
Ms. Coombs; they consider what’s on paper.
Bernadita Llanos disputed the artistic license issue.  The
structure is massive and huge and for that reason it needs
to be screened.  Anyone that close would feel the view is
completely destroyed.  She can’t believe artistic license
is at issue—it’s a selfish thing.  They are not
considering the neighbors.
Mr. Sharkey agreed that size is the issue. If this were a
new application tonight, this Board would deny the
variances.  He encourages Dan to do everything possible to
make an agreement satisfactory to his neighbors.
{At this point, Mr. Stewart broke up the meeting so that
the principals could try to come to agreement.}
Scott Harmon, Surveyor, repeated his claim that Granville
has boundary problems. He again requested that Granville
change the zoning code   Setbacks are destroyed, and Mr.
Dorman can do nothing because the proper controls are not
legislated.  Until you take that position you will have
trouble.

New Business:

Michael & Lesley Torello, 1 Sheppard Place – Front Yard
and Driveway Setback Variances

    Ms. Torello is requesting variances for the front
yard and driveway setbacks to build a two-car garage on
the south side. There is no garage now.  The garage would
be 29’ from the front lot line and 30’ is the minimum.  
The shed will be attached, and materials will match the
existing house.  This would require a 1’ variation from
the front yard setback and 0.5’ variation from the
driveway setback to allow a safe turnaround for cars.  The
house is on a ravine and they are limited as to where the
garage can be sited.  
    Richard Downs, contractor, was present and
explained the exact location of the structure.  He said
the layout from paper to reality is not always achievable,
but relative to safety, it might be a good idea to widen
the drive from 10’ to 12’.  If anything can be done to
improve the turning range, he would be happy to hear it.  
They don’t want to lose the tree.
Cal Prine, neighbor, stated he and his wife have reviewed
the plans and have no objections.  
    
MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-073 AS
PRESENTED.  MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey stated that BZBA approves the Torellos’
request for a variance in accordance with 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. Special circumstances exist in
that this house is built on a hill, it’s fairly close to
the road, there is no immediate neighbor on the side
affected, and there is a very real public safety issue in
switching the location of the driveway.  It’s pretty much
the only place that they can make these changes given the
topography and the nature of the property’s 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
zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.  
We didn’t really address this issue and it probably would
not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the district.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  As mentioned in
response to Criterion A, this lot given the topography and
its unique location are what drive the necessity for
placing these changes where they are being placed.
D.  That the 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 no evidence, either direct or indirect
to think that this granting of the variance will confer on
the applicant any 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.  There is no neighbor
on the side directly affected, we heard no objection from
any of the other neighbors, in fact, Mr. Prine the one
neighbor who did speak up was supportive of the applicant
and in short there is no evidence that this will adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood.

Troy and Carla Reed, 123 Wildwood Drive – Side and Rear
Yard Setbacks

    {Ms. Knox recused herself from this hearing.}
    Mr. Dorman said in his memo that the lot is 14,810
square feet compared to the code minimum of 20,000.  Side
yard setbacks should be 14’, and the plan is for a 4’
setback on the south.  The minimum rear setback is 50’,
and this would be 43.5’, with the proposed location of the
shed building with portico.
Mr. Stewart said the applicants are not here tonight, but
since several neighbors are, we will hear their concerns.  
The application is for a 10’x12’x 9 ½’ high shed building
with 4’ portico to be used at first as a playhouse and
then as a tool shed. Variances would be needed on the
south side for 10’ and a 6.5’ variation on the rear.  Mr.
Reed feels it will be largely obstructed and shielded from
neighbors by trees. The neighbors disagree. He does not
want the structure in the middle of the yard.
    Troy Brunn said the neighbors here have concerns
since the proposed playhouse is such a large structure.  
There appear to be some drainage tiles ready for the north
and south drains.  Neighbors to the south are upset that
this will cause further soil erosion due to the natural
grade.  Apparently the Reeds never spoke to the neighbors
about this before they left for vacation.
    Sally Scheiderer has concerns about the size.    
The neighbors will all be able to see the structure, but
the Reeds will not see it well from their own home because
of vegetation shielding it from their second-story deck.  
All the neighbors’ yards open up and there is little
fencing, and the openness is nice.
    A letter from the Sauers questions the applicant’s
violating the Wildwood covenants, but Mr. Dorman said they
are no longer in effect and the applicable authority is
the Granville Zoning Code.  Bob and Sue Sauers are not in
favor of the application.
    An unidentified woman lives directly to the west,
and according to the letter, we are screened by evergreen
trees.  But from our patio to the future structure, that
is a line from me to you.  It will change the flow of the
neighborhood.  If he just wants a shed, he should put it
where we don’t have to look at it.  We don’t want to see
them set a precedent.
    Ms. Caravana thought it might have a negative
impact.
    Rick Watts would hope that consideration for
granting variances would be mutual agreement of everyone
impacted.  Mr. Stewart noted that we always want to hear
from neighbors and take their comments into
consideration.  
    A woman said Troy Reed didn’t say a word and she
did not know why he had the stakes in the ground.
    Amy Brunn started seeing things—he cut down a tree
already.  He has cut down limbs and she called Mr. Dorman
to see if a permit was granted.  He has flat ground on the
property, so why would he build on a slope?  The proposed
shed is 9 ½’ tall but from the rear where the slope is the
shed will be taller.  Water gushes down there in storms.  
He is obviously going to be putting in more drain tile.
    Marge Hendy said they have always gotten water.  
Since he put in the drain tile, it’s gotten worse.  He did
not inform us the first time, and I don’t think it’s in
the plan.
    Mr. Stewart asked if this were in the north end of
the property, would that fit more favorably.
    Mr. Brunn said if they put it on the north and
concealed it that would be great.  I wish I could talk to
him.  He does a nice job with his yard, but this needs
shielding.
    A woman said if it were on the north, people would
not see it.
    Ms. Scheiderer would rather not see it at all.  To
build a 13x12 thing that started out as a playhouse, that
is unnecessary.  She does not think a storage shed is that
crucial.    
    A man said granting a variance from the north side
would be more favorable but would still be negative in
setting a precedent.
    Mr. Dorman said the applicant has requested
tabling.  Citizens here tonight will be re-notified
officially. Mr. Herman said people came here and are on
record.  Mr. Dorman will tell Mr. Reed that we feel a lot
of concerns were legitimate.  As far as the drain tile,
Mr. Dorman said generally we would treat these things as
issues between neighbors, but it is incumbent on the
property owner not to create drainage problems.  

MS CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-086.  MR.
SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lee and Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street- Lot Coverage
Variance

Mike Flood, landscaping contractor, said that while
installing brick paver patios and a fence, they widened
the driveway without a permit.  The widening is for 18” to
the west and 4.5’ to the east. They need more room to park
a second car in the driveway. Lot coverage is 58% and
without the widened portion, lot coverage is 54%.  So the
home was already over the maximum coverage.  Mr. Bellman,
owner of the property to the east, is in favor of the
plans, and they are working out an easement situation.
Mr. Dorman said the lot is 0.8 acres.  The apron is
between the two driveways; originally there was a 4.5’
buffer.
    Mr. Sharkey thought this a pretty minimal increase
in lot coverage, and we are dealing with a very small
lot.  He does not see any real problem. Mr. Stewart
thought any time you can get a car off the street, you are
ahead, and Mr. Herman thought this was squarely in the
center of what we have granted in the past.
    Mr. Dorman said there is documentation that lot
coverage was not an issue when they came before BZBA for
the garage, but it probably was.  Ms. Caravana would have
concerns if the neighbor was not in agreement.  Neighbor’s
pavement goes 18” on the applicant’s property.  If it
tends to benefit both properties, she would be inclined to
be in favor of it, although she doesn’t like 45’ wide curb
cuts.  It’s an extremely small lot and this is the only
way to get more parking in.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-088 AS
PRESENTED. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Mr. Herman applied the application 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 land and structures that
have existed since the mid-nineteenth century and are very
small in size.  In terms of the lay of the land there are
limited opportunities to move cars off the street and put
them in a safe position.
    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 has presented an expansion of their
driveway, to extend it to allow two cars to be on the
driveway concurrently, which is a right that others in the
district do in fact enjoy.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  The lot is
unusually small in size and as such presents limited
opportunities for driveways and ways to get cars off the
street safely.
D.  That the 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. The amount of variance is consistent with other
variances that have been approved by this Board.
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.  By getting cars off
the street, this may present a safer environment for
persons living and working in that area.

    Mr. Flood said the applicant wanted the pavers mid-
stream so we never thought of the lot coverage.  Going
through this process, contractors learn about restrictions.

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street – Side Yard Setback
Variance

    Mr. Dorman said in his memo that the applicant
wants a garage addition and the existing garage is too
close to the property line. The south side setback would
be 2-3’ versus the code minimum of 12’.  Mr. Riffle has a
two-car garage now and wants more room for a workshop. He
will have electricity but no gas.  He said the eave
overhangs in the back. Both neighbors are in favor of the
plan, and the closest neighbor is 40-50’ away.
    Ms. Knox thinks the site lends itself to the
project and follows the land.  It’s unique and the lot
goes in so it’s wider in the front.
    Mr. Stewart said if the new structure were built
onto the north side instead of the east, would there be a
need for a variance?  Mr. Riffle said it would be
impossible without removing a tremendous amount of dirt.  
It’s sloping 8’, so he can only add on to the front and
there would be a greater variance problem in the back.
    Ms Caravana wishes that she had time to view the
site, especially considering its being attached to another
garage. It looks to have a good deal of trees.  But
dealing with massing, it is a two-story structure 2 ½-3’
from the property line in the back of the structure and 8-
10’ in the front.  She is concerned about having that high
a structure on the property line.  We have allowed one-
story garages, but she is thinking about the neighbor to
the south. Mr. Riffle has talked to them and they have no
problem   She wondered if he could pull it in a little
bit, but the applicant said he does not have a lot of
headroom inside and he wants to be able to get in and out
without whacking his head on the rafters.  She thought the
natural lay of the land may be able to accommodate the
project but wants to view it more closely.
    Mr. Sharkey thought the slope helps a lot, but he
still has problems with the size of the structure. He did
not get out to see it either.
    Ms. Knox viewed the property and doesn’t see how
he mows it.
    Mr. Riffle wants to get busy and finish the
project before his helper goes in for an operation. He
showed where the site would be and where the house next
door is. The trees are fairly mature and will screen a lot
of the garage.
    Ms. Caravana said the lay of the land requires the
garage to be put there. But we don’t want to set
precedents.  
    Mr. Stewart thought we could do a site inspection
and then vote.  THE SITE INSPECTION WILL BE TUESDAY, JULY
16, 6 P.M. AT THE RIFFLE HOME WITH MEETING CONTINUING AT
THE VILLAGE AT 6:30 P.M.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-089 UNTIL
TUESDAY AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  MS. KNOX SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[Back to Rogers’ Garage}

    Mr. Stewart said we are not concerned with details
so much as the fact that all parties agree.  What has been
worked out?
    Attorney Morris said there has been an agreement.  
The details include a timeframe for Dan to file an
application for a fence, given that it is 6’ high, he may
need variances.  The number of trees and location of trees
have been agreed upon.  Ms. Sellitto has agreed.  The
location of fence has been agreed on too.  Default time
frame has been included.
    Attorney Cooper said the agreement is between Dan,
Bernadita Llanos, and Ms. Sellitto.  The agreement reads
as follows:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN B. LLANOS, S. SELLITTO, AND DAN ROGERS,
DATED 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2002
    5 Canadian hemlock trees, 8-10’ in height, to be
planted by 10/30/02.  Dan and Barb to be responsible for
cost.
    Trees to be planted by landscaper, preferably
Albyns.
    Trees currently to north of Dan’s garage shall
remain
    Dan to install temporary wood fence by 8/15/02.   
Must submit applications to Architects, Zoning, Planning
and any and all other review boards by 8/15/02
    Fence to be 6’ in height, style as indicated on
attached sheet.  Fence to run from corner of Llanos
property to corner of garage.  Same fence style for
Sellitto property to west.  All fence to be at Dan’s cost
    In the event the above agreement is not completely
fulfilled by 6/1/03, Dan Rogers agrees to pay B. Llanos
the sum of $3,000.00.  Extension of time to be granted in
event Dan Rogers’ physical health prohibits completion.

{Signed by three principal parties.}

    Attorney Cooper said the third agreement is not
complete.  Jim Schmidt, new owner of the Coombs house, is
going to submit a proposal.  He will discuss it with Dan
and then we will respond.
    Mr. Stewart would like to bring this to a
conclusion as soon as possible.  We can discuss this after
our other application Tuesday evening. Mr. Schmidt thinks
he can have his work done by then.
    Attorney Morris said Dan can do nothing until this
issue is resolved.  There are other neighbors that are
being held hostage by someone who may or may not come to a
reasonable plan.  
    Dan Rogers asked to table.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-056.  MS. KNOX
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING
OF FACTS  FOR THE TORELLO AND DAVIS APPLICATIONS AS THE
OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 5, 2002.   MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of May 23 and June 11:  Postponed until the next
meeting
Next Meeting:  July 16 – SPECIAL HEARING, August 8,
regular meeting.
Adjournment:   9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen