Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
October 13, 2005 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Don Dean (Vice Chair).
Member's Absent: None.
Visitor's Present: Brian and Dana Kreig
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in those who planned to speak.
Brian and Dana Kreig, 226 East Maple St. #05-150
Side and Rear Yard Setback
Mr. Heim asked if Mr. and Mrs. Kreig have been working with the Planning Commission in regards to their proposed project. Mr. Kreig stated that they have had several work sessions with the Planning Commission, but they were unable to provide any formal comments until the application is officially submitted. Mr. Kreig stated that the Planning Commission did recommend to duplicate the arch on the east side to make it the same as the one on the west side of the home.
Mr. Ashbaugh inquired if the addition will provide an additional 2 ½ feet. Mr. Kreig stated yes if you take into consideration the bay window. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the drawings show it as though it would be more than 2 ½ feet. Mr. Kreig stated that he may be looking at the existing setback. Mrs. Kreig stated that the only additional space - that is varying is the upper bay window. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he saw no objections to the application. Mrs. Kreig stated that a neighbor on that side of the addition was going to attend the BZBA meeting to speak on their behalf, but she was unable to make it. Mr. Strayer added that he has received no comments from any neighbors. Mr. Heim asked if the existing structure will need to be torn down. Mrs. Kreig explained that they have been told by the contractor that the existing structure is not structurally sound enough to withstand the new above addition. Mr. Dean stated that his home has a similar setup as the Kreig's and he would suggest additional insulation due to cold air coming in from underneath the bay window. The committee agreed that there were no further questions or concerns in regards to Application #05-150.
Mr. Jung moved to accept application #05-150 as submitted. Second by Mr. Dean.
Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Jung (yes), Dean (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mr. Heim (yes). Motion carried (5-0).
Finding of Fact
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. There are no special circumstances or conditions. (False)
(b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. There are other properties that have received variances for side yard setbacks for less than this request. (True)
(c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. It does result from the actions of the applicant. (False)
(d) That the granting of the variances 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 that have received variances for side yard setbacks for less than this request. (True)
(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 variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of any persons in the area. (True)
Mr. Dean made a motion to accept the Finding of Facts for Application #05-150. Second by Mr. Jung.
Roll Call: Dean (yes), Jung (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried (5-0)
Review and Approval of Minutes
July 14, 2005
Ms. Mitchell moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.
Roll Call: Jung (abstain), Dean (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).
Motion carried (4 -1).
Ms. Mitchell inquired on the application submitted by Mr. Rogers in regards to a hot tub. She asked if the application was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Strayer explained that there may be a need for a fence since the hot sub will be in the ground.
Mr. Heim asked if Mr. Strayer was able to check on the storm sewer referred to in the July 14th minutes. Mr. Strayer stated that the drain pipe was found to not be collecting anything. Mr. Strayer stated that he can not see any of the drainage being allowed to go to the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Ashbaugh suggested that the wastewater treatment manager be made aware of this situation. Mr. Strayer stated that this would be done at the time of approval. Mr. Heim asked if the applicant will need to increase the size of their fence. It was stated that a fence is likely needed for an in-ground hot tub for insurance purposes, and the committee was unclear as to what the State regulations are in regards to having a fence for an in-ground hot tub.
Mr. Dean inquired as to why the July 14th minutes were tabled. Mr. Strayer explained that the last case was not included in the first version of the minutes.
September 22, 2005
Mr. Jung moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Ms. Mitchell.
Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Dean (yes), Jung (yes), Ashbaugh (abstain), Heim (yes).
Motion carried (4-1).
November 10, 2005
December 8, 2005
Mr. Dean moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Mitchell.
The BZBA meeting adjourned at 7:57 pm.
Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott