BZBA 10/11/07

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

October 11, 2007

7:00pm

 

Members Present: Amber Mitchell, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner. Laura Andujar, Mrs. Ross, and Jean Crumrine.

 

Mr. Heim explained that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet it is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

 

New Business:

Speedway Superamerica LLC, Speedway Drive, #07-073

Planned Commercial District (PCD); Suburban Business District (SBD)  

Variance request was submitted by Laura Andujar for the property located on Speedway Drive (vacant lot) west of the Arby’s restaurant and owned by Speedway Superamerica, LLC. The request is for approval of the following variances:

1)      To reduce the requirement that roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 8/12 to a zero pitch requirement to allow for the construction of a flat roof. 

2)      To increase the number of signs permitted from one (1) to six (6) total. 

 

Mr. Heim swore in those witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing.

 

Discussion: Laura Andujar, 88 Arden Place, Hebron, stated that a flat roof was more appropriate to the building structure, than an 8/12 roof pitch. She explained that additional signage was requested due to multiple tenants in the building. Ms. Terry stated that she advised the applicant that a variance was needed before going to the Planning Commission with a formal request. She stated that the applicant had several work sessions with the Planning Commission, but there was not an endorsement of any kind at this point, nor had a formal application been submitted. Ms. Mitchell asked why and when an 8/12 type roof pitch specified in the Code would be desired. Ms. Terry stated that this restriction had been in the Code for a long time. She was unsure of the rationale. She stated that it was intended to preserve the historical character of Granville. Ms. Hoyt asked if the 8/12 pitch was desired for water run-off. Ms. Terry stated that this could be the case, but any pitch can still be effective for water runoff. She explained that newer retail structures generally do not have an 8/12 roof pitch. Ms. Hoyt asked if Arby’s was required to get a variance for their roof pitch. Ms. Terry stated that in the Planned Commercial District (PCD), some of the Suburban District Regulations apply and some did not. She questioned if former staff viewed these as recommendations, rather than requirements. Ms. Terry stated that upon further investigation of the Code, she found that the 8/12 pitch was a requirement. Mr. Gill asked if the proposed roof pitch was believed to be best for the proposed building style or because it can be less expensive to build. Ms. Andujar stated that they felt a flat roof was more appropriate for a retail space and a one story structure. She stated that a flat roof also allowed the property owner to place the HVAC units on the roof which is a cost savings.  Ms. Andujar stated that she had not designed a retail building with a pitched roof in the past. Mr. Heim stated that the Code referred to the aesthetics when specifying roof pitches. Mr. Heim stated that he was interested in a precedent being set regarding roof pitches. He stated that Bob Evan’s had a pitched roof, while Arby’s did not. Ms. Terry asked Ms. Andujar if she had considered a mansard roof style – similar to that of Bob Evans. Ms. Andujar stated that they had addressed these styles, but the Planning Commission preferred the current drawings. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he would like to speak in regards to Application #07-073. Ms. Terry stated that because this is considered to be a hearing, only interested parties that could have a direct impact if the application is approved or denied are allowed to speak. Mr. Thornborough stated that he believes the Board should hear anyone who wishes to speak. He went on to say that he believes property that he owns on River Road will be affected with the approval of the application. Ms. Terry suggested that the BZBA Board hear the testimony by Mr. Thornborough and then table the application pending a review by the Law Director, Mike Crites. Mr. Heim explained that the BZBA Board must follow a set of guidelines handed down to them and they act differently from Council’s legislative hearings where the public can speak. 

 

Mr. Thornborough submitted a letter to the Board and read it aloud. A copy of the letter is attached as part of these minutes. Mr. Thornborough stated that the variance requests do not meet what is currently in the Code or the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, which states that new development should have a feel of old Granville even if it is outside of the downtown area. Mr. Thornborough stated that he has constructed several commercial buildings and he built them to the 8/12 roof pitch specifications as stated in the Code. 

 

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the property Mr. Thornborough feels will be affected by Application 07-073 is located within the Village. Mr. Thornborough stated that the property is located in the Township and he lives in the Village. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the application is for property located in the Village. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that the Code does not differentiate between the number of businesses in a building and this is why the applicant is requesting six signs. She stated that some Codes address signage by the number of commercial tenants in one building.   Ms. Andujar stated that there are also two fronts to the building design where additional signage would be appropriate. Ms. Terry stated that the BZBA Board can determine if an 8/12 roof pitch or something else is appropriate. She stated that the current Code states that a building shall have a minimum roof pitch of 8/12 and if this is to be changed a variance is required. 

 

Mr. Heim asked if there was any more discussion or did anyone have a motion to Table application #07-073.

 

Mr. Gill made a motion to Table Application #07-073 pending review by the Law Director. Second by Ms. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-073 is Tabled.

 

Ms. Terry told the applicant, Laura Andujar, and Jack Thornborough, that she will let them know the Law Director’s decision regarding testimony and moving forward. 

 

Andy Ross of Granville Market, 484 South Main Street, #07-074

Suburban Business District (SBD)

Variance request was submitted by Laura Andujar for Granville Market located at 484 South Main Street for owner Andy Ross. The request is for approval of the following variances:

1)      To increase the maximum square footage for a single tenant from 4,000 square feet to 30,186 square feet. (The current structure is 29,636 square feet, the applicant is proposing an addition of 550 square feet to the front of the structure.)

2)      To reduce the required 8/12 roof pitch to a 3/12 roof pitch for the addition.

3)      To reduce the requirement that all other buildings shall be a minimum of two (1) stories to a one (1) story minimum. 

 

Mr. Heim swore in those witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing.

 

Discussion: Ms. Andujar stated that they are requesting additional square footage to improve the façade of the building and they see the additional square footage to be small compared to the current size of the building. Ms. Andujar explained that the existing roof pitch is 3/12 and they would like to keep this the same. She also explained that the two story requirement needs a variance since the building as is now is a one story structure. Mr. Heim stated that they currently have a flat roof, but it has never been “legitimized.” Ms. Terry stated that it is a non-conforming building as is and the proposed addition needs a variance. Mr. Heim asked if the addition would come out ten feet. Ms. Andujar stated yes. Ms. Mitchell reviewed the elevation plan and asked if there is a newly proposed roof for the two side doors. Mrs. Ross explained that there is a roof already in these locations. Ms. Terry stated that these are not part of the square footage of the building and the BZBA would be making a decision based upon all three roof pitches currently at a 3/12 pitch. Mr. Heim asked if anyone had any additional concerns or comments. None were stated.

 

Jack Thornborough, 33 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he has no complaints regarding this application because the Suburban Business District (SBD) regulations were imposed on them after the building had been constructed. He stated that he does not see this application as setting a precedent for the Code. 

 

Mr. Heim read aloud the Duncan Standards (Findings of Fact) and asked the BZBA Board to review them giving weight to each standard. 

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve Application #07-074 as submitted with the proposed variances.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  

 

Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that the motion should be amended to include an exhibit referencing the particular variances included.

 

Mr. Gill moved to amend Ms. Hoyt's motion to approve Application #07-074 to include the exhibit dated September 20, 2007 which entails a request for three variances.  Seconded by Mr. Heim.   

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend Application #07-074:  Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Motion to amend is approved.

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #07-074 as amended: Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-074 is approved as amended.

 

Finding of Fact

Ms. Mitchell read the following Findings of Fact:

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.

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 the Ordinance. YES.

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  YES.(A majority of the Board believed this to be true.)

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. YES (A majority of the Board believed this to be 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.  YES.

 

Mr. Gill moved the approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-074. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes),  Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #07-074 are approved. 

 

Approval of the Minutes

September 27, 2007

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Mr. Gill. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The minutes are approved as presented. 

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Heim (Chair) made a motion to Adjourn.

 

Next Meeting November 8, 2007

BZBA 9/27/07

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes September 27, 2007 7:00pm

Members Present: Amber Mitchell, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair). Member’s Absent: None. Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Law Director Mike Crites. Brad and Amanda Schneider, Jan Packard, Sharon Sinsabaugh, and John Noblick. Law Director Crites swore in new BZBA member, Jeff Gill, prior to the BZBA meeting.

Mr. Heim swore in any witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing. He explained that the meeting was not a public hearing, but was open to the public as a quasi-judicial proceeding.

New Business: Barbara Visintine, 418 West Broadway, #07-067 Village Residential District (VRD) Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

This request is for approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty percent (20%) to thirty two percent (32%) and to reduce the western side yard setback from twelve feet (12’) to two point three feet (2.3’) for an addition.

Discussion: The applicant Barbara Visintine was not present at the meeting, and was represented by Mr. John Noblick. Ms. Terry read aloud the property location and request by the applicant. Mr. Heim questioned if the applicant had any children remaining in the home. He questioned this information as the applicant stated that they need the addition due to a growing family. Mr. Noblick stated that he believed the applicant is combining two families. Mr. Heim asked if they planed to sell the property as it currently is listed with a realtor. Mr. Noblick stated that he was unsure, but believed the sale of the home depended upon whether or not they could add the addition. Mr. Heim stated that the total coverage requested would be over ½ of what it was right now. Mr. Noblick stated that the preliminary plans were larger, but the applicant opted to scale back and proposed a larger porch. Mr. Heim asked if the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Terry explained that it would go to the Planning Commission after being heard by the BZBA. Ms. Hoyt asked if the new addition would be attached to the primary structure. Mr. Noblick stated yes and went on to say that the applicant was willing to tear down the existing barn if lot coverage was an issue. Ms. Terry stated that a demolition permit would be required to remove the barn. Mr. Gill asked if the rear addition exceeded the height of the front of the home. Mr. Noblick stated no. Ms. Hoyt inquired as to the total proposed square footage. Mr. Noblick stated that they were requesting a variance because according to code, only do a 125 square foot addition could be added. Mr. Heim stated that the footprint of the addition looked to be approximately 760 sq. ft., 460 sq. ft. for the porch, and a 550 sq. ft. for the barn. Ms. Hoyt asked if the barn had been renovated. Mr. Noblick stated that the barn appeared to be in good shape; however, it cannot accommodate a vehicle. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the driveway was included as part of the square footage. Ms. Terry stated that since it is a gravel driveway and not a hard surface, it was not counted in the lot coverage. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the sidewalk would be counted since it was a hard surface. Ms. Terry agreed. Ms. Hoyt asked if there had been any comments by neighbors. Ms. Terry stated that she did have one neighbor come in to look at the plans, but that individual did not voice any concerns.

Mr. Brad Schneider, 121 N. Plum Street, stated that he had concerns over the application. He stated that the proposed addition does not fit in with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Schneider distributed a letter with his concerns which is enclosed as part of these minutes. He stated that the request is 60% over what was permitted in the current code.

Ms. Jan Packard, 123 N. Plum Street, stated that she too objected to the proposal. She stated that she was disappointed to hear that they would consider taking the barn down as this would change the view from her home. She enjoys the open space view. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Ms. Packard felt the proposed addition would devalue her property. She stated aesthetically it would. She stated that it would dwarf the two neighboring homes in terms of the lot coverage.

Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Noblick if a tree located to the north of the property would have to be removed to make room for the addition. Mr. Noblick stated yes.

Ms. Hoyt asked how the number of bedrooms. Mr. Noblick stated there are three bedrooms and that after the addition, it would be a five bedroom home.

Mr. Heim asked if there was any more discussion or did anyone have a motion to approve or disapprove the application.

Ms. Hoyt moved to disapprove application #07-067. Second by Mr. Gill.

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-067 is disapproved as submitted.

Finding of Fact Ms. Hoyt read the following Findings of Fact: 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. 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 the Ordinance. FALSE. c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. FALSE. 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. 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. FALSE.

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #07-067 are approved.

Joe and Sharon Sinsabaugh, 129 West Broadway, #07-068 Village Residential District (VRD) Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

Side yard setback variance – This request was for approval of a variance to reduce the required western side yard setback from ten feet (10’) to three feet eight inches (3’8”) for a four (4) foot extension of an existing garage.

Discussion: Ms. Terry read aloud the location of the property and request by the applicant. Mr. Noblick, who also represented the Sinsabaugh’s, stated that the previous garage was destroyed by fire and the homeowner would like to build the new garage with a four foot (4’) extension to the rear – or south side of the property. Mr. Heim asked if this would accommodate rear stairs. Mr. Noblick stated yes. Mr. Heim asked how far this structure would be from the rear property line. Ms. Terry stated eighty one feet and eight inches (81’8”). Mr. Heim noted the previous side yard setback was three feet eight inches from the neighbors on the west. Mr. Noblick explained that no changes were proposed for the west side. He stated that they needed a variance, but it is not compliant with the code as proposed. Ms. Sinsabaugh stated that she received comments in support of the building from neighbors - Doug and Connie Kramer. Ms. Terry stated that there have been no objections by any neighbors. Mr. Heim asked if there was a motion to approve or disapprove the application.

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve application #07-068. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-068 is approved as submitted.

Finding of Fact Ms. Mitchell read the following Findings of Fact: 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. TRUE, THE GARAGE BURNED AND THE APPLICANTS ARE ONLY REQUESTING A FOUR (4) FOOT EXTENSION TO THE SOUTH.

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 the Ordinance. TRUE, THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE SIMILAR SETBACKS. c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. TRUE, THE ORIGINAL GARAGE BURNED. 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. TRUE. THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST HAS MORE LOT COVERAGE AND CLOSE SETBACKS AS WELL. 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.

Ms. Mitchell moved the approve the Findings of Fact. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #07-067 are approved.

Approval of the Minutes June 14, 2007

Mr. Ashbaugh asked that the application number Mr. Vetter was referring to be referenced in the minutes. Mr. Heim made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Ms. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The minutes are approved as amended.

Motion to Adjourn Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn the BZBA meeting at 8:15 pm. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh.

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

The committee met after the BZBA meeting to go over Zoning Code changes with Law Director Crites and Ms. Terry.

____________ ________ Board of Zoning Appeals Chairperson, Bill Heim Date Approved

Next Meeting October 11, 2007 Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

BZBA 6/14/07

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

June 14, 2007 Minutes

Members Present: Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Jean Hoyt, Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)

Members Absent: none

Visitors Present: John Noblick

Others Present: Mollie Prasher, Clerk of Council

Swearing in:

New Business:

Dave and Andrea McCombs, 117 Chapin Place – Rear yard setback

        The code requires a 50’ setback in the rear, and currently it is 45’.  The owners are requesting it to be reduced to 31’ from the lot line.  As the owners are in China, Mr. Noblick (builder) presented the application, saying they have several adopted children and need more space.  He described the proposed decking in detail. On the north they will remodel under the existing two-story deck and add to the screen porch.  The south will have a new lower deck with egress, extending to 31’ from the lot line.  In the middle they will put on a 12’ addition for a dining area and fill in a 12’ notch for a bedroom.  The roof area of the screen porch will be bumped out 6’ for a walk-in egress.   All of these areas do not go out further than what is there now except for the master bedroom in the rear.

        He said the rear yard slopes away and is 4’ to 5’ below the house, and decks/ steps are necessary to access the house.  The rear of the property backs up to hilly, wooded Denison property

        Ms. Hoyt asked whether we have heard from neighbors, and the answer was No.  She then asked whether it will fit in with the neighborhood, and Mr. Noblick said other houses have big decks on the front as well as the back.  It’s a private area, and they want to enjoy the woods.  The neighbors can hardly see the house, which is on a cul de sac.

        Mr. Ashbaugh noted that there are not many properties that have a 50’ setback.

        Mr. Heim wondered whether the 45’ setback was granted a variance, and this may have been built before the code was enacted.  He also asked whether Mr. Noblick is building the fence he observed while in the area., He responded No.

        Mr. Noblick said the area on the left is a big living area with glass, and they did not want to knock that down.  They wanted to bump it out for more dining area.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-037 FOR A REAR VARIANCE AS REQUESTED. MS. HOYT SECONDED. MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. HEIM).

Finding of Fact:

         Ms. Mitchell 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. False, because the circumstances of this particular piece of land are similar to other properties nearby.

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, because of the layout of the land in that area. Other properties enjoy similar rights.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. False, they do 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. 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. True.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACTS. MS. HOYT SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of December 21, 2006: MR. JUNG MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

{Mr. Vetter chose to cancel the application at this time.}

Mr. Jung noted that we have to be careful to identify people who speak. It is very important that everyone sign the register.

        Ms. Hoyt noted that these meetings seem to be held on a very professional level.

Adjourned: 7:26 p.m.

Next Meetings: July 12 and August 9