Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 11/11/04

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
Minutes
November 11, 2004 7:00 p.m.

Members Present:  Trudy Knox, Amber Mitchell, Tym Tyler, Bill Heim (Chair), Don Dean (Vice Chair).
Member's Absent: None.
Visitor's Present: Leslee O'Neill
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in those who planned to speak.

New Business:
Leslee O'Neill, 865 Newark-Granville Road #04-168__

The applicant, Leslee O'Neill, stated that she would like a variance to install a 72" fence in the front of her property.  The code currently allows for a 48" fence.  Ms. O'Neill stated that a 42" fence would not work for the property, because she felt the aesthetics would not be pleasing.  She later stated that she would not install a 42" fence if the variance is not granted.  She stated that she felt the proposed fence would add to the look of the village and enhance the looks of her property.  She provided to the committee examples of what the fence might look like.   Ms. O'Neill stated that the fence would be in the front of the property, and the side areas would be rail fence that adjoins another rail fence on one side - St. Edward's Church.  The committee asked who lived on the other side.  It was stated that the Sargeant's live on one side, and St. Edward's church is on the other.  Mr. Heim asked if the neighbors had been contacted and did Mr. Strayer hear anything back from them.  Mr. Strayer stated that he had conversations with two of the neighbors, and they didn't oppose the applicant's proposal, but they wanted to make sure that a precedence wasn't being set to install seclusion or privacy fences.  He stated that one neighbor remarked about deer not being able to get through.  Mr. Heim asked if the church had any plans to remove their rail fence.  Mr. Strayer stated no, not to his knowledge. 

It was stated that the applicant would need to get approval for a variance in height from the BZBA before going to the Planning Commission for further approval. 

Mr. Heim read aloud part of the code that discussed prohibited fences.  He stated that fences with spikes are not permitted, and asked if this fence would have spikes.  Ms. O'Neill indicated that she would install the fence with a flat top and no spikes. 

Mr. Dean reviewed Section 1176.04 of the code and stated that the committee uses these regulations when reviewing applications for fences.  He stated that the property looks nicer without the bushes.  He also asked Ms. O'Neill where she planned on installing the fence.  There was some discussion as to the exact placement of the fence.  Ms. O'Neill stated that the fence would line up with the existing gate that is already located on the property.  Ms. O'Neill stated that the existing gate was 80" in height. 

Ms. Knox stated that she feels the requested height is too high.  She went on to say that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  She asked what the height of the fence located at the Bryn Du Mansion was.  Mr. Strayer stated that this fence is located in a different architectural district and it is approximately eight feet high in some locations.  Ms. Knox stated that she had looked at the fence earlier that day and felt that it was closer to five feet high.

Mr. Heim questioned if the fence would be appropriate in appearance for other residences.  The committee discussed the scenario of other residents in the area requesting the same kind of variance. 

Mr. Tyler stated that he agreed with Ms. O'Neill about the aesthetics.  He stated that he did not think a 42" high fence would be appropriate for that particular property.  Mr. Tyler stated that he feels this is more about the motives for having the fence, rather than the height itself.  He stated that this is not going to be for privacy and it's about aesthetics. 

Mr. Heim stated that he agreed it was about aesthetics. 

Ms. Mitchell asked for a visual depiction of how high the fence would be.  Mr. Strayer stated that he was six foot tall, and the fence would be two inches taller than him. 

Mr. Tyler asked the committee if there was any compromise in height.  He asked Ms. O'Neill if the fence she wished to install was custom made.  Ms. O'Neill stated yes. 

Mr. Heim suggested that there be a motion to approve the application brought forth by Ms. O'Neill, followed by a vote from the committee.

Mr. Tyler made a motion to approve the application, and grant a 72" variance to install the fence.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. 

Mr. Dean stated that he felt the fence was too tall.  He stated that a 72" high fence compared to a 48" high fence wouldn't make much of a difference with the proposed placement of the fence in regards to aesthetics. 

Mr. Heim questioned the front yard setbacks (Section 1187.03) and asked if the fence would be in the right of way.  Mr. Strayer stated that this would not be a problem for the applicant in this case.

Ms. Knox stated that it would have helped her to get the correct information as to the need for the fence.  She stated that she was told that the main reason for wanting the fence was for dogs.  She stated that the applicant seems to now be saying the reason is due to aesthetics.  Ms. Mitchell stated that there is one sentence in the applicant's packet remarking about dogs.  Mr. Strayer stated that he may have become confused when speaking with the applicant, and misunderstood that she wanted the fence because of her dog.  Ms. Knox stated that she had believed the applicant wanted the fence primarily due to a conversation she had with a gentleman who was with the applicant that evening.  Ms. Knox went on to say that she feels the committee shouldn't give a variance for height for individual reasons.  She stated that the village has already set up standards to follow.  Ms. O'Neill asked Ms. Knox if it was true that the goal was the make the village look nice.  Ms. Knox stated that you could take fifty people, and get fifty difference opinions on what looks nice.  She stated as an example that she doesn't feel the fence on the Bryn Du property looks nice.  She stated she would prefer to see no fence there.  She stated that as far as aesthetics go, everyone has a different opinion.  She stated that she makes her decisions based on what is in the Ordinances. 

Mr. Heim called for a roll call vote for application #04-168. 
Mr. Dean (no), Ms. Mitchell (yes), Ms. Knox (no), Mr. Tyler (yes), Mr. Heim (no). 
(3, 2).  The motion for approval of application #04-168 was not approved. 

Mr. Tyler made a motion to "give a little" and suggested a 60" high fence.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. 

The applicant indicated that a 60" would suffice her needs.  Mr. Dean told Ms. O'Neill that the BZBA's decision could be appealed to Council, and any ruling could be overturned.  He stated that the committee has strict guidelines and criteria to follow when making their decisions. 

Roll call vote to approve a 60" high fence:
Mr. Dean (no), Ms. Knox (no), Ms. Mitchell (yes), Mr. Tyler (yes), Mr. Heim (no).
 (3, 2)  The motion to approve a 60" high fence was not approved. 

 Leslee O'Neill, 865 Newark-Granville Road, #04-
 Zoning:  SRD
 Fence
 RELEVANT SECTIONS:
1171.03 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Facts:

Variance Criteria
The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application 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 districts. Does not apply.
(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 one taller fence in the area - Overlay District, but none are located in the Suburban Residential District A. 
(c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It would result from actions of the applicant. 
(d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This would have granted the 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 tall fence would not affect the health and welfare. 

Ms. Knox moved for the approval of the Finding of Fact, seconded by Mr. Dean. 

Roll Call Vote:  Ms. Mitchell (no), Mr. Dean (yes), Mr. Tyler (no), Ms. Knox (yes), Mr. Heim (yes).  (3, 2)  The Finding of Fact for application #04-168_is approved.   

Ms. Mitchell indicated that she voted no because she felt criteria (a) did apply because the home was a peculiar and unique structure. 

Mr. Heim stated that this matter was a question of aesthetics.  He stated that he voted yes because the proposed fence wouldn't contribute to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 

Review and Approval of Minutes

October 21, 2004
Ms. Mitchell moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Ms. Knox.
Roll Call: Dean (yes), Mitchell (yes), Tyler (yes), Knox (yes), Heim (yes). (5, 0)
Motion carried.

Meeting Announcements

December 9, 2004 7:00 p.m.
January 13, 2005 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Knox stated that it would be helpful to her to have all applicants fill out the form in its entirety.  She stated that a previous application had come in with basically the name and phone number, and no "real" information.  Mr. Strayer acknowledged her request.

Mr. Heim asked to have a motion to adjourn.  Mr. Dean moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Knox. 

The BZBA meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.

Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 10/21/04

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
Minutes
October 21, 2004 7:00 p.m.

Members Present:  Trudy Knox, Amber Mitchell, Tym Tyler, Bill Heim (Chair), Don Dean (Vice Chair).
Member's Absent: None.
Visitor's Present: Tom McCullough, Jim Dumbald, Kyle McBride.
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in those who planned to speak.

Mr. Heim moved to amend the agenda and discuss Item B (Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway #04-157) under 'New Business' after Item C (Kyle McBride, 964 Burg St. $04-159). 

Old Business:
Steven Mullaney, 250 Carreg Cain Drive #04-113
Rear Yard Setbacks

Ms. Mitchell moved to accept the corrected dimensions submitted by Mr.  Mullaney for rear yard setbacks.  Second by Mr. Dean. 

Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Dean (yes), Tyler (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried. 
Ms. Knox abstained.

New Business:
Kyle McBride, 964 Burg St. #04-159
Rear Yard Setback

Mr. McBride stated that he plans to build a garage.  Mr. Tyler asked the committee if they were familiar with the area Mr. McBride was proposing to build on.  He stated that he had visited the location and felt that it would be good to move the driveway because the existing one is dangerous.  Mr. Tyler  stated that there is foliage between the two  properties and that he believed there was plenty of room between Mr. McBride's property and his neighbors.  Mr. Tyler stated that he asked Mr. McBride if he had informed his neighbors of his plans, and he stated that it might be a good idea for him to let them know.  Mr. Strayer stated that he has not received any feedback from the neighbors that were notified of Mr. McBride's application. 

Mr. Heim asked Mr. McBride why he decided to not use the lot between his house and Burg Street to place his garage.  He stated that there was a lot of property in this area.  Mr. McBride stated that the area he chose enables easier access to his house. 

Ms. Knox stated that she noticed Mr. McBride's application was not fully completed; She asked him if there was any reason why he didn't provide additional detail on the application.  Mr. Strayer stated that some parts on the application are often confusing for the applicant and he had worked with Mr. McBride when filling out the application.  He stated that he asked Mr. McBride to fill out the necessary areas pertinent to his request.  Ms. Knox stated that the application states that Mr. McBride will be placing a garage addition on the property, however the plans appear to be more than a garage.  She inquired on the specific uses of the garage and asked why there was a  need for plumbing.  Mr. McBride stated that he would be putting a shower in the garage, but he does not plan to use this as living quarters. 

Mr. Dean moved to accept application #04-159 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Mitchell. 

Roll Call: Knox (yes), Mitchell (yes), Tyler (yes), Dean (yes), Heim (no).  Motion carried.


Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway #04-157
Parking Variance

Mr. Heim recused himself from application #04-157, Gerald Martin 116 East Broadway. 

Mr. Strayer stated that the variance is needed because 32 parking spaces are required based on the usable square footage of the building.  He stated that due to the limited number of parking spaces available in downtown Granville, 32 spaces would not be feasible. 

Mr. Dean asked if it was Mr. Martin's intent to double the size of the existing restaurant.  Mr. Martin stated that it "wouldn't quite be doubled."

Tom McCullough, Lay Leader at Centenary United Methodist Church, asked if the committee had received a letter distributed by the church to Village Council.  The committee acknowledged receipt of the letter.  Mr. McCullough went on to say that one of the main concerns the church has is their parking lot.  He stated that with the church addition, there is increased usage of the lot.  Mr. McCullough stated that for many years there has been a "nice agreement" between the Village of Granville and the church for use of the parking lot.  He stated that public parking is permitted in the lot after church hours.  Mr. McCullough also noted a concern he saw with the safety of parking on the alley, or what is known as Linden Place.  He stated that it could be more dangerous to have parking on the opposite side of the church, especially for children crossing the alley to enter the church. 

Mr. Tyler asked whether or not the parking lot is used for times other than Sunday mornings.  Mr. McCullough stated that there are many after school programs and programs during the weekdays, and that the church parking lot is not just utilized on Sunday mornings. 

Mr. McCullough thanked the committee for hearing his and the church's concerns.

Jim Dumbald, Village Barber, stated that he was not at the meeting to dispute the request for a parking variance made by Mr. Martin.  He stated that the building Mr. Martin owns used to be owned by his family, and he is also a current business owner is downtown Granville.  He stated that he received a letter about this meeting, and wanted to attend to make his concerns about parking in downtown Granville a matter of record.  Mr. Dumbald stated that something needs to be done about parking in downtown Granville.  He stated that he feels the Village needs to purchase property in the immediate downtown area.  Mr. Dumbald stated that several opportunities to do this have been missed.  He stated that the area where Taylor Drug is now located should have been bought by the Village and used for parking.  He stated that there was also a lot behind the Village offices that could have been purchased and used for parking.  Mr. Dumbald stated that if it would come down to having a 4mil tax to support the idea of the Village purchasing areas for parking in the downtown, he would be in support of this. 

The committee thanked Mr. Dumbald for his comments.  Mr. Dean suggested that his concerns should be directed to Village Council. 

Mr. Tyler asked the committee if they were prepared to discuss the matter before them.  Mr. Strayer stated that the committee could also table the issue if they felt that they needed more time.  Mr. Tyler stated that he felt this was something that the committee could come to a consensus on tonight.  The committee members agreed. 

(The committee met in Executive Session to discuss matters associated with application #04-157)

Mr. Dean stated that the committee discussed Mr. Martin's application and they would like to suggest eliminating parking along the alley between the church and his building located at 116 East Broadway.  He stated that the committee would be willing to grant his variance as requested if this was done.  Mr. Martin indicated that this wouldn't be a problem and stated that he has no control over how the Village chooses to stripe the alley.  Mr. Tyler suggested that the area be re-striped as a loading/unloading zone. 

Mr. Dean stated that the concerns raised by Centenary United Methodists Church in regards to their parking lot should be taken to the Village Council. 

Ms. Mitchell moved to grant the parking variance for application #04-157 for eleven parking spaces.  Second by Mr. Tyler.

Roll Call: Tyler (yes), Mitchell (yes), Knox (yes), Dean (yes).  Motion carried.
Mr. Heim abstained.

Mr. Heim re-joined the meeting as Chair of the committee.

 

Finding of Fact Approval(s)
 Steven Mullaney, 250 Carreg Cain Dr., #04-113
 Zoning:  PUD
 Rear Setback
 RELEVANT SECTIONS:
1171.03 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Facts:
This setback is from contractor error.
Variance Criteria
The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application 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 districts. Yes, they do exist.
(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. Yes, it does apply because of the other building.
(c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Does not apply.
(d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Does not apply.
(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.  Does not apply.

There were no objections to the Finding of Facts for Application #04-113.  Motion carried.

 Kyle McBride, 964 Burg Street, #04-159
 Zoning:  SRD-A
 Rear Yard Setback
Variance Criteria
The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application 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 districts.  Does not apply.

(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.  Yes, there are other properties in the same zoning.

(c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Does not apply. 

(d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  There are other properties in the same zoning district that have less than fifty feet setbacks. 

(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 does not apply to the adjacent property.
 
There were no objections for the Finding of Facts for Application #04-159.  Motion carried.

 Gerald Martin, 116 East Broadway, #04-157
 Zoning:  VBD, AROD
 Parking Space Requirement
Zoning Code Analysis:
1183.03  NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.
The number of off?street parking spaces required shall be as set forth in the following schedule:

Variance Criteria
The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application 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 districts.  Does not apply.

(b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.  It would not be feasible for the applicant to provide 32 spaces in downtown area due to the nature of the downtown area; any business could not meet criteria established for building regulations.

(c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Lack of parking in downtown area is the cause, rather than constraints of parking.  It does apply. 

(d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  It does apply.  There are several other properties where parking spaces in the downtown area are counted.

(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 granting of this variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of any persons.  It does apply because there is not enough room for cars in the alley;  It is a matter of safety.

There were no objections for the Finding of Facts for Application #04-157.  Motion carried.

 

Review and Approval of Minutes

September 1, 2004
Ms. Knox moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Dean.
Roll Call: Knox (yes), Mitchell (yes), Tyler (yes), Dean (yes), Heim (yes).
Motion carried.

September 9, 2004
Ms. Knox moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Tyler.
Roll Call: Dean (yes), Mitchell (yes), Tyler (yes), Knox (yes), Heim (yes).
Motion carried.

Meeting Announcements

November 11, 2004
December 9, 2004

Ms. Knox suggested that Mr. Strayer write a letter to Mr. Dumbald to thank him for coming and informing him that he should visit a Council meeting to voice his concerns under Citizen's Comments.  Mr. Strayer stated that he agreed and would contact Mr. Dumbald. 

Mr. Heim called for a motion for adjournment.

Mr. Dean moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Knox. 

The BZBA meeting adjourned at 7:57 pm.

Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 9/9/04

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 9, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean,  Bill Heim (Chair), Amber Mitchell, Tym Tyler (Vice Chair)
Members Absent: Trudy Knox
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Sharon Phelps, Diane Paetz, Lillian Merrick, Jim Paton, Steve Mullaney
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Sharon Phelps, 120 W. Broadway - Change of Use

The applicant wishes to change the use from the Callard Co. to her own business. Her business is by appointment rather than drop-in, and there will be no UPS delivery trucks, as was the case with the previous tenant.   Mr. Strayer said in the future there might be a second professional office in the building, and Ms. Phelps said that person would occupy the second floor, and it would be a professional person.  Her hours would be 9-5 and by special appointment.   Mr. Strayer said the parking situation was satisfactorily decided for the previous tenant. 
The neighboring residents have been mostly positive.  One neighbor would like to see this revert back to a residence, but this neighbor is not bothered by a professional office.    Mr. Strayer said nonconforming uses are limited in what can be done or changes people want to make.  When it gets too big, it might revert back to its previous use.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Mr. Dean applied the application to the criteria for change of use:

The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not increase the burden on public facilities and service such as streets, utilities, schools, and refuse disposal imposed by the existing nonconforming use.  The use will not increase the burden; in fact, it will be less with the applicant's business than with the previous business..

The proposed nonconforming use will not be detrimental nor disturbing to existing uses in the district and will not entail a use which constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons in the surrounding use district.  This site has already been used as a business, and based on the number of clients, it should not cause any hardship on anyone.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE OF USE;  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Steven Mullaney, 210 Carreg Cain Drive - rear yard setback

Mr. Mullaney, representative from Southgate Corp., reported that a surveyor detected an error in the setback when a title search was done.  The house was built 6" over the rear setback line.  It is actually 39½' from the property line.   Some people wanted to casually change approved plans to serve their goals when these houses were built, and Southgate let them do so.   As a result, the house position was shifted a little bit.  The Village of Granville owns the property next door, at Bryn Du Mansion.

MR. DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. DEAN 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. There are no special circumstances that would create a special situation.
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 we took this literally, we would be depriving applicant of rights.  None of the other houses have this problem.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   Yes, they do.  Circumstances resulted from construction methods and an error in placing the building on the property
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.  N/A
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 posed variance.  There are no health or safety concerns involved.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR APPLICATION 04-112.  MR.DEAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Steven Mullaney, 250 Carreg Cain Drive, Rear setback

 Mr. Strayer said that as in the above application, this house was built 2' larger than the plans indicated and it is 5' inside the setback. This is the fault of the builder, who is long gone.  Technically, it is the fault of both parties because when modifications were made, people were supposed to come to BZBA, but neither this owner nor the owner in the above application did. The owners made the request of the engineer who built the house.  In those days the original house owner would get together with the contractor and make a few changes.  A majority of these houses are close to the front, and this house is bigger than adjoining houses.
 Mr. Mulaney, representative from Southgate Corp., said he did not know why this discrepancy was not discovered during the mortgage survey, but his company found it when they were checking other surveys.
 Mr. Heim noted in comparing the drawings there is an arithmetic error as a result of this discrepancy.  Mr. Mullaney guessed the plans were 5' off; and another error appears in the other page.  Mr. Heim did not think we should be acting upon guesses, and he wants it correct.   Mr. Tyler said there is not much difference between 2' and 5', but the drawings on file should be correct.  Ms. Mitchell wants to wait until the drawings are correct before we approve this.  Mr. Mullaney said they will resubmit correct drawings.

  MR. HEIM MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 04-113 PENDING  A NEW SURVEY AND ACCURATE DRAWINGS.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
Minutes of August 12, 2004:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Next Meetings:   October 14 (Betty will be absent) and November 11

Adjournment:   7:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 9/1/04

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING September 1, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean,  Bill Heim (Chair), Amber Mitchell, Tym Tyler (Vice Chair). Trudy Knox
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
 
The Chair said the purpose of the special meeting is to consider the continued application  at 446 West College Street because they made an error in their application.  It needs a 25' setback from the rear house and 20' for the deck.   We discussed other possibilities, but neighbors are complaining and we decided to reconsider the application.
Ms. Knox said if the neighbors still have an objection they can appeal to the Village Council or GPC.
They applied for 25' because they did not think the deck should be counted.  The neighbors are not happy because they don"t like the look of the massive addition from the front, but we are only concerned about the rear setback.

MS. KNOX MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED FOR A 20' SETBACK. MS. MITCHELL SECONDED.  MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

There is a request of the applicant that all construction traffic be in the rear of the property.

MR. DEAN 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.  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.  Some of the other properties in the area violate some setbacks.  .
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Most of the other lots are much deeper than this corner lot.
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.  This does not confer 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 posed variance.  The structure will not affect anything when it's done, but several people complained about construction in the street. The applicant said all construction traffic will be in the back and should not be a problem for the neighbors. 
MS. KNOX MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE FLETCHER APPLUICATION.  MR. SEAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Respectfully submitted,  Betty Allen (from tape)

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 8/12/04

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 12, 2004

Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean,  Bill Heim (Chair), Trudy Knox
Members Absent:  Amber Mitchell, Tym Tyler (Vice Chair)
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:   Mark Clapsaddle, Clarke and SaraJean Wilhelm, Edith Schories, Linda Banid, Lillian Merick, Marion Hollingsworth, Jack McClain, Tim Riffle, Joseph Disterle, Nick and Ruth Fletcher, Pat Davis, Marilyn Jung, John Thornborough, Doug Plunkett, Jan Derr, Barb Lucier
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The  Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Mark Clapsadle (Deiterle), 447 West College St. - Rear Yard Setback

The applicant wishes to build a 900 sq.ft. addition on the east.  The rear property line angles across the lot, and the addition will cut into the setback by 15', whereas the minimum is 40'. 
Mr. Clapsadle, architect, said the goals are (1) to meet the needs of the client and (2) enhance the architecture of the home.  Lot coverage is within restrictions; however, we do encroach 13.5' into the one corner of the yard.  The nature of the lot, being a square and on the corner, preclude the applicant from staying within code because the buildable area is eaten up by these requirements.  The proposed area is heavily wooded and much is hidden behind trees.  To build with code would require removal of several trees, magnolia, tall pines.  The house to the east sits close to its property line.   He is asking for a two-car garage with one 12'  door.  Mr. Clapsadle said there are ways to address the addition within the code, but that would be less architecturally pleasing. If we need to stay within the setback, it might need to be a three-story structure.

The group talked about lot coverage, and Mr. Strayer said the deck does not need to be included as coverage.  Lots do not count for lot coverage but do count for setbacks in this zoning area.  The existing driveway will remain. 
In answer to a question by Mr. Dean, Mr. Strayer said most of the houses on College Street were built well before the zoning code was made so a lot are in the setback. 
SaraJean Wilhelm said this project will double the covered area, and even if this were within parameters, this is a massive structure.  We live on a very narrow street, and there is always the problem of parking and traffic.  She does not know where construction trucks would park,  The project will affect the general welfare of the neighborhood.
Marion Hollingsworth said this is a well-established neighborhood, and it seems to him this is completely out of character with the area and he feels sympathetic for the people on College Street and the owner of the lot to the back, which would have the deck looming.  He is opposed to the application.
Pat Davis lives across the street and four years ago they wanted to build a new garage and came to BZBA and were not allowed to vary 1' from footprint.  Now the applicant wants to put a huge addition right across the street.  Parking is a problem. The Dieterles are wonderfut people, but plans should be modified to be more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Marilyn Jung is astounded to hear the architect say it's only a garage and not livable space.  We lived in that house comfortably and even added a rental room upstairs.  She does not understand why he must build such a massive structure for a two-car garage and passageway.  The house is charming the size it is.
Doug Plunkett, four houses east, has no objection.
Mr. Dieterle said there will be a family room, and the garage is parallel to the basement.  He does not want to disrupt the magnolia tree.  Regarding the parking issue, it's a big driveway.  Construction vehicles can park there; there will be construction vehicles no matter how big the addition is.  Construction should last 4-6 months.  He does not want to damage the neighborhood, and the complaints seem to center around the massiveness.  The variance he is asking for is 'unvisible' from the street.  To accomplish this without a variance, it would have to go up another story.  He loves the house and paid a lot of money for an architect and now that he is ready, people say he does not need more space, but it's his house and he should be able to improve it.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICATION; MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS CALLED BY ROLL CALL:  Ms. Knox, Yes; Mr. Dean, No; Mr. Heim, Yes. 

Since a motion to deny does not pass with 2 Yeses, the application is continued.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO CONTINUE; MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mark Clalpsadle (Fletcher), 86 Fairview Avenue - Height Variance

The applicant wishes a variance from the maximum height of 30' in keeping with a lot of the better homes in the neighborhood.  The ground plan is lower than other homes, so it will be compatible.
Mr. Heim asked whether the building will be raised and Mr. Clapsadle said they want it to look good and will raise it as little as they can.  They will be less than 2' above ground and 1' to floor joists to make the height 36'. 

MR. DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. DEAN 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. There are no special circumstances that would create a special situation.
B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.  It would deprive because others on the street exceed 30' high.  The one with the fence appears to be about 35' and the yellow house. Based on those houses, the criteria would meet the neighbors'  homes and the neighborhood.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   N/A
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 other homes violating the code.
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 posed variance.  There are no health or safety concerns involved.  This is a very large lot and the house in the middle would not look too large.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE FLETCHER APPLUICATION.  MR. SEAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jack Thornborough, 233 S. Mulberry Street - Side and Rear Setbacks

 Mr. Strayer said that because of a reexamination of the  survey, the applicant has changed plans to have the driveway exit onto Mulberry Street instead of Maple.  Other houses in the neighborhood violate the maximum setbacks.  The applicant provided a history of the house and described his plans for a massive renovation.  He wants to keep the garage as far north as he can so as not to cover up the bay window and improve the view from the window, from the apartments to his new garage.  :Putting the garage in the northwest corner would require a 3' side setback. 
 Mr. Heim asked the purpose of a breezeway and was told that the code requires connection of buildings when they are that close. 
 Lillian Merrick is pleased that the ugly home next door is to be remodeled, but she  distributed a letter saying 3' setback would not leave her enough room for maintenance or comfortable landscape procedures and wishes the BZBA to uphold the ordinance. 
 In support of Ms. Merrick, Edith Schories echoed Ms. Merrick's comments and said a variance would expose the neighbor to fumes, dust and noise.  Ms. Merrick's bay window will not give her much of a view with a new garage so close by.
 Jean Mason from across the street said she is thrilled the property will be fixed up, but they are concerned about the amount of space between Ms. Merrick's house and the new structure.  Has consideration been given to a single-car garage?  She had to do that in order not to encroach.
 Mr. Dean asked if the applicant had to choose between the rear setback and side setback which one would he choose, and Mr. Thornborough said rear and side are important for him to protect the bay window.  He said Ms. Merrick is already encroaching by being 5' from the lot line.
 Ms. Knox replied that there's a difference between what is grandfathered in and what's new.  Mr. Thornborough said he cannot put up a $200,000 house without a two-car garage.  It would then go back to being a two-house rental. Also, all the neighbors are close together. Mr. Heim reminded him that we have to address the code. 

MS. KNOX MOVED TO DISALLOW THE APPLICATION.  MR. DEAN SECONDED. AND A ROLL CALL VOTE RESPONDED:  MS. KNOX, YES; MR. DEAN, NO; MR. HEIM, YES. 

 Again, the application must be carried over until the next meeting when more members are present:

MR. DEAN MOVED TO CARRY OVER UNTIL NEXT MEETING.  MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

 The Law Director provided helpful advice to the members regarding the necessity to be consistent and realize there is no right answer to this application.  You need to search for alternatives if you can and look for practical difficulties.  In this case the applicant could probably move the garage over a couple of feet.   There is no practical difficulty to justify that 6' encroachment.   Mr. Heim noted that we should not continue mistakes of the past. 

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE  APPLICATION 04-048 AND FINDING OF FACT FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES  AS PRESENTED AS RELEVANT TO Nos. B,D, AND E ABOVE.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of May 13, 2004:  MR. DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Next Meetings:  September 9 and October 14

Adjournment:   8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen