Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 12/21/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING  APPEALS
December 21, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Jean Hoyt, Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  None
Swearing In:
New Business:

Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St., Side yard setback variance
(Ms. Hoyt said the applicant is her neighbor and asked whether she should recuse herself.  Because the application does not relate to Ms. Hoyt, she may remain on the panel.)
 There is an existing garage in poor shape 7'6" from the property line, and the applicant wants to replace it with a one-car garage with a bedroom and bath upstairs to gain space for her in-laws to live. The footprint would be enlarged by one foot.   She needs a variance from 10' to 6'6".  The 10' is the distance the garage was originally erected from the west property line.  The neighbors have been consulted and have no objections, but they did not want any more than a one-foot variance because they want a reasonable space between homes.  They are putting in a foundation where there was none before. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked what good would one foot do, and Ms. Rettig said it gives them 24 sq.ft upstairs, and in the garage it will give more room for the car; the width is 13', which is a very tight space.  It will allow them to make an entrance from the garage into the house. 
 Mr. Heim asked whether she considered placing the structure farther back on the lot and she replied that they thought about that but would like space for a fenced-in area for the kids.  The house is on a hill and would be more of a challenge and an expense.
 Mr. Ashbaugh noted that if she used the existing footprint, she would not need a variance. Mr. Heim asked whether the overhang would be greater than at present and was told, No, the new overhang will be the same as the original.  They want the addition to match the house.
Paul Jakob, neighbor, expressed the hope that in the change, the old house will be brought into aesthetic conformance with the new. He does not have an objection to the structure blocking his view.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10' TO 6'6".  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NEGATIVE VOTE (MR. HEIM).

Finding of Fact:

 Members considered the criteria for variance for two signs:

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.  True.  Special circumstances exist with the structure.  It's a 13' garage which is not by today's construction standards an acceptable width for a garage; thus a variance is necessary.
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.  False, there are similar circumstances. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the special circumstance is the small garage. The applicant did not cause that.
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.  False, there are other garages in the 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.  It would not adversely affect others.
 
MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NEGATIVE VOTE (MR. HEIM).

Keith Vetter, 457 North Granger Street
Mr. Vetter asked to table for one more meeting so he can have more time to consider the tree. 

Minutes of September 14:  MR. JUNG MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  7:30 p.m.
Next Meeting:  January 11, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 11/9/06

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
Minutes
November 9, 2006 7:00 p.m.

Members Present:  Jim Jung, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Jean Hoyt
Member's Absent: Amber Mitchell
Also Present: Chris Strayer and Assistant Law Director Jim Gorry

Mr. Strayer stated that the meeting would be a work session with Assistant Law Director Gorry to go over procedures and rules for the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  The committee would also be reviewing proposed zoning changes.

Mr. Gorry explained the rules and protocols that the committee should follow.  He stated that the committee should function as a court or like a court - quasi judicial.  Mr. Gorry stated that a Quasi Judicial Hearing is not a meeting under the Sunshine Law and that members of the general public are not permitted to testify, but only interested parties may make statements.  He stated that the hearings are open to the public but are not public hearings.  He stated that the interested party must state their interest and if they are not a neighbor or affected party the committee cannot consider their testimony.  Mr. Gorry stated that anyone who testifies must be sworn in and provide their name and address for the record.  He indicated when you can and cannot recuse yourself from the hearing and vote of an application.  Mr. Gorry encouraged the members to not recuse themselves unless it is absolutely necessary and if there is a statutory conflict of interest.  He stated that it is allowable even if you know the applicant and a recusal should only occur when one feels they are unable to render an unbiased decision.   He stated that a member would most likely always recuse themselves when a neighbor or family member is involved. 

Mr. Gorry stated that the committee may discuss any pending application with each other and/or the law department and staff.  He stated that the BZBA Board should be careful having a quorum outside of meetings because this could violate the public meetings law. 

Mr. Gorry indicated that Council has requested that the BZBA Board not have Executive Sessions.  Mr. Strayer explained when asked that this was a full decision by Council.  Some members of the BZBA committee questioned this request by Council. 

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the committee can choose to resume the meeting at another time if there is a matter they wish to contemplate further.  Mr. Gorry stated that this is permissible if members of the committee feel unsure or unclear about something.  He stated that they can request a continuance and the property owner has the chance to deny a continuance.  He indicated that the application could either be approved or denied at this point.  He stated that members of the committee should never feel forced to vote when they are unsure of something. 

Mr. Gorry explained that the committee can investigate the proposed property prior to the hearing.  He stated that they can consider personal knowledge of the property and bring this to the attention of other members during the hearing.

Mr. Gorry explained that the BZBA operates by delegated authority - only those powers delegated to the BZBA by the Charter.  He stated that they do have Charter authority to grant variances and appeals. 

Mr. Gorry went over general meeting conduct.  He stated that members of the BZBA Board are to function as judges and conduct themselves as judges always appearing with judicial propriety.  He stated that every applicant should feel as though they were fairly treated when they leave the hearing regardless of the decision.   He stated that no decision should ever be made before hearing all of the evidence.     

Mr. Heim asked what legalities are involved when an application is submitted by the architect or carpenter on behalf of the homeowner.  Mr. Gorry stated that legally - only the owner of the property or the property owner's attorney can speak to the application.  Mr. Gorry stated that in the past they have not disregarded applications submitted by the architects or carpenters, and it is the applicants fault if something faulty happens with the application.  Mr. Gorry stated that the committee can take into account the knowledge of the person before them. 

 


The BZBA Board went over the zoning Ordinance changes.  The following comments/suggestions are noted below:

Throughout the Ordinance - Change non-profit to NOT FOR PROFIT
(Mr. Heim stated that is consistent with the Ohio Revised Code)

Page 1 - Line 42 - "A resolution shall indicate the basis for the review and refer to THE pertinent legal provisions."

Page 2 - Line 20 - "accessory use FOR INSTANCE  shall not include the sale of alcoholic beverages of any kind."

Item (36) "Driveway" - should also include language about commercial driveways. 

Section 1139.06 - The Village Manager may also appeal any such decision to Council. 
Some members of the BZBA stated that they felt this was unfair, political, and micromanagement by Council.

Page 25 - Section 1145.03 - A new section ( c)
     "( c) Such permit shall expire if a condition use is discontinued for more than two years."

Page 29 - (a) The cumulative maximum size of the occupied are of a detached garage(s) shed(s), or other storage structure(s) in a residential zoning district shall be 500 square feet." 
Some member's of the BZBA questioned 500 square feet being enough.  Mr. Gorry stated that the legal counsel suggested 750 square feet, but Council changed this to 500 square feet.

The BZBA meeting adjourned at 7:57 pm.

Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 9/14/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 14, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair), Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)
Members Absent: 
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Brian Miller, Scott Klingensmith, Eleanor Cohen, Jeff McInturf
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight

New Business:

Keith Keegan, 342 East Elm S. - Fence Height Variance

 The applicant wishes to add a 72"fence and gate in front to completely encircle the hot tub which is already in place.  The GPC requested a fence to complete the existing wall ¾ around the property and keep both sections the same height of 72".  The code requests 42" in front but says nothing about the height of the fence circling the hot tub.  Just the driveway portion is new.  Mr. Ashbaugh wondered about liability problems later on, but that is not a concern for BZBA
    
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE  APPLICATION 06-110.   MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mitchell 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.   True, the property already has existing walls which are higher than the 42" minimum.  The new walls would complete the property while keeping the existing design of the walls.
 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. False, there are no other properties in the district which enjoy this type of variance.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the existing walls are taller than the 42" minimum; therefore, to match the existing design, the property owner must increase the size of the new walls.
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. False, there are no other properties in the district which enjoy this type of 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.  True, the granting of the variance will in no way adversely affect any persons residing or working in the vicinity.

 


Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Galway Drive - Density
+
{Mr. Heim recused himself from this application}
 Mr. Strayer explained that the variance is from 5,000 sq.ft to 9,142 sq.ft per acre.  The two-story building with 8,228 footprint  would exceed the maximum of 5,000, but if it were a one-story building, it would be under the maximum. 
 Jeff McInturf explained that this is a new company formed to develop this property for a medical practice for four doctors.  This will enable them to expand their practice in a new two-story building and will enable the Partners to bring in other businesses in time. It will also bring in needed tax dollars to the village.  This is a function  of the economic feasibility to have the criteria to make the numbers work.  They have tried to be sensitive in design and in character with other buildings in Granville.  This will be an L-shaped building with parking hidden in the rear of the building.
Mr. Ashbaugh asked about the setback, and Mr. Strayer said it is 90' and in the TCOD, which requires 100', but our Law Director said BZBA does not approve setbacks for the TCOD; that is up to the GPC.
Ms. Hoyt asked whether Mr. Strayer has received feedback from neighbors, and he has received one positive comment.  He added that the exterior is all brick.
Mr. Strayer noted that Village Council approved a document for the Cherry Valley corridor and in that plan it was made clear that medical offices would be the most accepted development for that area.

MR. JUNG MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 06-112 FOR DENSITY VARIANCE.  MS. HOYT SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Jung 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.   True, the nature of the acceptable developments and the size of the parcel hinders the developable land and forces an increase in density to achieve the goals of the development plan.
 B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the literal interpretation of this zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the long-term development plan for the area.
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.  False, there have been no other variances granted for density in this district.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance.  True, the granting of the variance will in no way adversely affect any persons residing or working in the vicinity of the area.

 

Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Galway Drive - Height

They also request to increase the height from two stories to two and a half stories.  It if was a flat roof, it would be two stories and within code, but GPC recommended a pitched roof.
Ms. Hoyt asked whether approving the height variance would set a precedent, and Mr. Strayer said No it would not.  Requests are on a case-by-case basis.

MS. HOYT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 06-113 FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Hoyt 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.   True, special circumstances are due to the fact that the GPC wanted a pitched roof
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.   True, the literal interpretation of this zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the long-term development plan for the area.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, in order to keep to the architectural standards planned for the area, it was necessary to itch the roof of the building.
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.  False, there are no other lands or structures in the zoning district which have allowed buildings of thie height.
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. 
True, the granting of the variance will in no way adversely affect any persons residing or working in the vicinity of the area.

Minutes of July 6:  Page 1, First paragraph:  change the 112' to 12'
Page 1: 5th line up:  "Mr. Strayer said the Suburban Residential Zoning was not set up for small lots; it is for bigger lots than this."
Page 3, 8th line up, change to "Mr. Strayer said that we could have a work session with the Village Law Director."
The Headings are wrong.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of July 13:  Page 2, change 7th line up, change "approve" to table.
MS. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  October 12 and November 9
Adjournment:  7:40 p.m.
  Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 7/13/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 13, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  Jim Jung
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Steve Mansfield, Rusty Thompson, Kristine and Keith Vetter
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight

Keith Vetter, 457 North Granger Street - Side Yard Setback

 Mr. Strayer said the variance would be from 12' to 6' since the applicant wants a garage at the end of the asphalt driveway, 6' from the neighbor's southern property line    
 Mr. Vetter wants a detached one-story two-car garage, and all materials will match the house.  He and the architect think this is the best place to put it, and putting it here precludes having to pave over more land.   About 15 houses in the area have garages within the setback, so this request is not exceptional, albeit they may be grandfathered..   They originally wanted a 12 pitch roof but changed it to 6 pitch.  The structure would block the neighbor's view, but this would occur regardless of whether the garage is built according to code. The neighbor was not privy to discussions about the structure. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked why the garage could not be pushed farther back and stay within code. 
 Ms. Hoyt asked whether there had been a garage there at one time and Mrs. Vetter did not think so.  The outline was for their back porch.  They have two small children and there are always a lot of items to carry from the car to the house, so the closer it is, the better.
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether the tree would have to be removed and was told Yes.  It already has three wires holding it together.  The neighbors say it's a matter of time before it goes down. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh noted that if they shoved it back, the tree would be ahead of the garage.  He asked whether the trees were on the applicant's, and Mr. Vetter said of the 3 trees, one is his.
 Mr. Heim asked what would the effect of the building on the root structure, and Mrs. Vetter said one leans onto the neighbor's property.  There is concern that even though the tree would not be very close to the garage, it might damage the roots.
 Steve Mansfield, neighbor, has lived there 15 years.  He was first informed of the request  to build on the property line on June 22 and he received the official notice the following day.  He looked at the code and in 1109.08 and saw that variances to the code may be granted only in cases of substantial hardship.  Since this is a double lot, there are many opportunities to build without variances.  There are no special circumstances.  Nothing prohibits them from putting it elsewhere.  Under your criteria there is no deprivation of rights.      Adverse effects:  (1) it would interfere with his enjoyment of his home; (2) that location would affect the resale value of his home because of a lack of privacy; (3) the location would limit access into his own garage when more room is needed for a truck to enter.  When screening is added in order to alleviate impact to the neighbors, (4) access would be even more narrow.  (5) The tree is on the property line and is a shared tree and he will not give permission to damage the tree.
Mr. Heim asked how far is the Mansfield house from the lot line and was told about 4 ¾ with overhang.
 Ms. Mitchell asked if they moved it so it would not require a variance, would the 6' preclude access to his driveway, and Mr. Mansfield said it would be better but not good.  It would be incremental.  A 6' space would still be within the dripline of the tree.
Ms. Hoyt said if they moved the garage 6', would that have a negative impact on the tree, and Mr. Mansfield said there are no generalized statements you can make, and he quoted distances from the National Arbor Day and OSU Extension.
 Mr. Mansfield has taken a photo showing the edge of the driveway, at side of the woods.  There is landscaping with railroad ties, and the photo shows there has been a  rise of the ground that pushed the ties up, so the location they want is on a place where the ground would heave, pushed up by the roots of the tree.  
 Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Vetter if it was for convenience sake he wanted the garage in this spot and was told Yes, and to enable a turnaround.
Mrs. Vetter noted that there may be some different options.  She was envisioning it as a way to improve their quality of life, since they have no garage now.  Mr. Mansfield spoke very cogently, but they do not really want the garage in the middle of the property.  The children enjoy the back yard and so do we.  We could either move it on the long axis or sideways.  One concern is if we move it too far, it would be difficult to exit the driveway.  They could probably move it a few feet but not as much as the dripline..    One difficulty is that there is a big piece of asphalt back there, but they could use the back corner of the property.   She is not sure she can address all of the other Mansfield concerns.  They need to discuss this more.  A future owner with a bigger car would have trouble turning around.
 Mr. Mansfleld does not want to impose his point of view, but he would propose an alternative :  Turn the garage 90°, behind the house. The obstacle would be the shed, but there are no trees there.  It's a reasonable distance to the back door, and a turnaround could be worked in.  Then they could remove some of the asphalt around the tree.
 Mr. Heim noted that in the last few years people want big garages and he asked how big this garage would be.  Mrs. Vetter said they need a two-car garage and  two doors and a 3' wall space.  She doesn't think she can shave off more.
 Mr. Heim asked if they would consider withdrawing this until you all have some discussion, and Mr. Strayer said it should be tabled. Mrs. Vetter said then no action could be taken before the next meeting.  She would bring in a new design.  She asked if they asked for 12' from the side line could they ask for relief from the 40' and Mr. Strayer needed clarification from the Law Director on this.   
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION.   MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Minutes of June 8:  Page 1, there is a typo in the Motion. 
The Headings are wrong.
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of July 6:  Page 1, change 112' to 12'. In first paragraph under Mays.
The headings are wrong.   MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments:    Members discussed language for changing the code in regard to notification of neighbors.  Mr. Strayer will provide new copy.
 The aerial maps should only be used to show where the subject property lies in the neighborhood.
Next Meetings:  August 10  and September 14 
Adjournment:  8:00
  Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan092012

BZBA 7/6/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 6, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair), Jim Jung 
Members Absent:  none
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Christopher Mays
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight
.

Christopher Mays, 404 West Broadway - Side Yard Setback

 {Mr. Jung recused himself from this application.}

 Mr. Strayer said the property already has a side yard setback with 10' and this is an additional 1-2 feet.  The applicant wishes to build a 2-car garage on the north side so the setback variance would be from 12' to 8'.
 Mr. Mays, contractor, said they are proposing a 2-car garage with upstairs for bedroom or game room. In order to gain maximum space for doors, they request the variance on the north side.
 Ms Hoyt asked about the dimensions for the garage.  She was told the back wall is 28' and 26' on the side. 
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether the existing garage would stay and was told Yes, it will be a workshop.  It will be 1 ½' from the garage on the north.
 Ms. Hoyt asked whether it was approximate or exact, and Mr. Strayer said it would be 8'11 ½" to lot line. 
 Brad Snyder, 121 N. Plum, has been there since last August, and they are the most affected owners.  Their driveway already goes right up to the property line and there is not much green space for buffer, and they want a massive object there.  They have a nice bay window that would be affected from view.  Property owners do have rights.  There are no other close neighbors.  There is Sugar Loaf, rental property, Stone Hall.  There would be more of a concern but these neighbors are not directly affected.  He is for the owner improving his home.  He is in a historical area and he knew that when he bought it.   Even if it is a couple of feet it will make a difference for this neighbor.  Anyone with a neighbor planning such a big structure should be notified, but we were not notified from the village but from the previous owner.  We don't want to be the bad guy but we want to express our concern. 
 Mr. Heim asked for the petition the visitors brought in and read.
.
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked whether we take the overhang into consideration, and Mr. Strayer said no, the cantilever is not part of the application.  For a livable area yes, but for an overhang or eave, no.    Mr. Ashbaugh said the application asks for 8' reduction and prior to that it was 10' reduction.
 Mr. Ashbaugh said the garage on the property line is the problem.  It is grandfathered.  Mr. Strayer said the Suburban Residential Zoning was not set up for small lots; it is for bigger lots than this. Mr. Heim stressed that this has yet to go before the GPC; they approve architecture and design; all we do is consider the variance and how close the building can be built to the property line. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh said the lot is so small.  He would like to see improvements to the property but this is too small for the big garage.  The house plans are very nice. 
 
MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-079 TO ALLOW FOR THE VARIANCE SETBACK   MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS DENIED.
MR. ASHBAUGH - YES
MS. HOYT - NO
MS. MITCHELL - NO
MR. HEIM - NO
 
Finding of Fact:  Mr. Ashbaugh applied the criteria provided 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.   True, since the lot sits on a corner, the property has two front yard setbacks and two side yard setbacks which hinder the developable area of the property.  
 B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.  True, there are other properties in the same zoning district that have similar setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False, the conditions 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.  True, there are other properties in the same zoning district that have similar 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. True, the variance will in no manner adversely affect persons in the area.

 Denial criteria:

 Mr. Heim in D.  Are there other similar setbacks.  Mr. Strayer said Probably, i.e., the house next door.   But they may have been grandfathered in prior to this application.
 Ms. Hoyt the biggest issue is B. The neighbor next door is impacted more than anyone else, not for health, safety, and general welfare, but it does impact enjoyment of his property.   
 Mr. Heim in A.  Two side yard sidebacks are 12' on the west and north. 
 Mr. Strayer A.  False, we don't know there are other side yard setbacks consistent with this property.  Others might be front yard setbacks.  
 Mr. Heim feels it's true that on the corner they have 2 side yard setbacks but they are not hindering development of this property.   A foot and a half doesn't prevent development
 Ms. Hoyt said, if they go 2' out in addition with the overhang it is 4' hanging over the shrubs, making it closer to the neighbor.  She wanted the exact dimensions, 27x26 is a huge garage.  Even if they reduce it 1 ½', it's still a huge garage.  I hope the GPC is careful about this because this is a valuable historical house.  Reduce it by 4'.  Mr. Heim said GPC has been known to ask us to reconsider a decision, so we might get a request back. 
 Mr. Strayer said C does apply.  For B or D, even though there are others, they have been grandfathered in.  In A.  It is a corner with 2 setbacks.

 Mr. Strayer will redo these and get them out to everyone.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT PENDING WHAT WE RECEIVE FROM MR. STRAYER.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Mr. Ashbaugh - no
Hoyt - yes
Mitchell - yes
Heim - yes

 Mr. Heim asked about the list of property owners, and Mr. Strayer said they use the map.  You can't assume these maps are accurate.   Mr. Strayer said he is rechecking with the water department.  Ms. Mitchell and others still like the neighboring owners' names included.
 Ms. Hoyt says take the name from auditor and look up the deeds at the recorder's office.  Don't trust the auditor. 
 Mr. Heim wonders whether the code should be changed to reflect accurate records.  Mr. Strayer can suggest it to GPC or V.C. for 1139 or 1137.  Or 1145.02, application procedure and No. 6.  "A list of owners within 200 taken from auditor or treasurer's mailing list."   Mr. Strayer said that we could have a work session with the village Law Director.  Mr. Strayer will write it up and be sure to show it to Ms. Hoyt. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked questions about the application form.  Shouldn't it have a date stamp? Yes. He asked about calculating the lot coverage.
Ms. Hoyt asked if the GPC has come to us despite the neighbor's concern?     We are telling the neighbor that his wishes are not important if this gets sent back to us. No, said Mr. Strayer. Other situations have not arisen similar to this.  
 We need to be sure that the applicant is the owner or should be identified as designee.
 Ms. Mitchell said an outside architect does his work and leaves and has no emotional attachment
 Mr. Heim said the application should include drawing showing property line as in1145.02B (2)  Address and legal description should be included in applications.   We should have an official survey. 

 Mr. Heim introduced the new City Manager.

Next Meetings: July 13 and August 10 
Adjournment:
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger (from tape)