Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes December 18, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

December 18, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Amber Mitchell (Chair), Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: Jean Hoyt and Jeff Gill.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Gillian Jones, Dick and Barbara Lechner. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

Old Business: 

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court,  Application #08-144

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the required southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to one (1’) foot for placement of a storage shed. 

Discussion:

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court, stated that her home is located on a wooded lot that is sloped. She indicated that she has a two car detached garage on the property and she needs additional storage space for bikes, outdoor gear, boxes, etc.  Ms. Jones stated that the storage shed is currently in place on the property and requires a variance.  She stated that the company brought the unit out on July 30th of this year and she is paying a month to month rental fee for it.  Ms. Jones stated that the only good place on her property to place the storage shed is along the southern property line.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if Ms. Jones believes that this is the only flat or level spot on her property.  Ms. Jones stated yes and that this is the only place that she can reasonably place a building because her lot slopes down considerably.  Ms. Jones guessed that there may be a twenty foot drop.  She also stated that there are some ponds in the back yard area as well.  Ms. Jones stated that her side yard has a large tree and the rental company said that there was no way to get the unit past the tree.  She went on to say that if the unit were to be placed on the side of her driveway it would block access to the garage.  Ms. Jones stated that on the north side of the property there is a turn around, but it is not wide enough to accommodate the building.  She also indicated that the turn around is right on the border of her property.  Ms. Terry stated that the structure is currently one foot from the property line versus the twelve foot Code requirement.  Mr. Montgomery asked about the reference in the submitted paperwork to garage ruins.  Ms. Jones stated that the garage was rebuilt perhaps twelve to fifteen years ago – before she purchased the property.  Ms. Jones stated that her basement gets runoff water from Sugarloaf Hill and the shed is necessary to keep items that she used to store in her basement.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked Ms. Terry about the Code versus the presented Covenants.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village does not have the ability to enforce the recorded Covenants and this is considered a civil matter between property owners.  She clarified that the restrictions in the Covenants are not a part of the Village’s regulations and the Board is to review the request for approval of a variance to reduce the required southern side yard setback for placement of a storage shed.  Mr. Montgomery asked if Ms. Jones is saying the front yard is the only area on her property that is not steep and not wet.  Ms. Jones stated yes and the placement of the shed is more of a topography issue rather than a wetness issue.  

Barbara Lechner, 132 Shephardson Court, stated she bought her property from Jack Thornborough and the Covenants were a part of the lot contract.  She stated that she intended to have her house set back further with a walk out basement and because she had to abide by the Covenants she had to move the location of her home.  Ms. Lechner stated that this was a big disadvantage.  She went on to say that some of the other neighbors have had to abide by the easements that the Village has set.  Ms. Lechner stated that she was present when Ms. Jones was placing the shed on the property and she explained to Ms. Jones that the shed wouldn’t meet the setbacks for the Village and the placement definitely would not meet the Covenant requirements.  Ms. Lechner stated that Ms. Jones chose to disregard these things.  Ms. Lechner questioned if Ms. Jones does get the needed variance – does this allow her to put another shed up?  Ms. Mitchell asked if Ms. Lechner’s concerns were with the building itself or is her concern that Ms. Jones is being granted undue privilege that she, Ms. Lechner, was denied.  Ms. Lechner stated all of the above.  Ms. Lechner stated that she has been trying to sell her house for a year and she doesn’t think the location of the shed adds to her property value.  Ms. Lechner questioned why the shed can’t be located in the back yard.  Ms. Terry clarified that the purpose of this Board is to review the variance according to the lot line and they cannot enforce the Covenants.  Ms. Lechner questioned why if she has to abide by the Covenant and Code - why doesn’t Ms. Jones?  Ms. Lechner stated that Ms. Jones could put the structure on the north or south side of her driveway.  Mr. Montgomery asked Ms. Jones if she is aware of the neighbors she stated got variances granted.  Ms. Jones stated she believed Fred on the corner received a variance for his shed.  Ms. Lechner stated no – he did not receive a variance and they (Fred Porcheddu) are unable to split their property.  Ms. Lechner stated that there may have been some variances granted for some sheds on Maple Street.  Ms. Jones stated that she would like it clarified that she didn’t have “blatant disregard” regarding the structure being placed where it is.  Ms. Lechner stated that Ms. Jones did know about the restrictions and still placed the structure where it currently is located.  Mr. Montgomery asked the size of the shed.  Ms. Terry stated 10ft. x 12ft.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if a smaller shed would fit Ms. Jones needs.  Ms. Jones stated that even if it were smaller there is still no place on the property to place the shed.  Ms. Jones stated that the current placement doesn’t block the view of Sugarloaf Hill and she does not believe Ms. Lechner can view the shed from inside her home.  Ms. Lechner stated that the shed encroaches on her house.  Ms. Jones stated that there is a brush line between the two properties.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there is any place between the house and the garage or behind the house that the shed could be placed.  Ms. Jones stated no.  She stated that there is a 10 foot cement block retaining wall to the right of the garage and there is a three foot walkway leading to a wooden deck which fills the rest of the area in the back yard.  Ms. Jones stated that there is also a fence on one side of the deck.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if the unit could be placed outside of the retaining wall.  Ms. Jones stated no due to the topography.  She went on to say that she hopes that what she is paying in rent is going towards the purchase price of the building.  She stated that it is a nice, sturdy building.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Ms. Jones has investigated if the company only does whole buildings – or can they build one to suit on site.  Ms. Jones stated she did ask them this question and this is not something they do.  She stated that she has known this company for five years or so and they do not build on site.  Ms. Jones stated that the company has a fleet of buildings for rent or purchase.  Ms. Mitchell questioned why this matter is just now before the BZBA if it has been up since July 30th of this year.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village did send multiple notices, and the applicant responded at a later time.  She stated that this matter was also tabled at the November BZBA meeting.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if all temporary structures must meet setback requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes because it is a structure.  Ms. Jones clarified that she is not interested in placing any additional buildings on the property.  She stated that she understands that there are laws and some people are granted variances because there are special circumstances.  Ms. Jones stated that she would encourage the BZBA Board to take a look at her property because they will see that there is no other place to put the storage unit.  Mr. Montgomery asked Ms. Lechner if she objects to the shed because it obstructs the look of her property.  Ms. Lechner stated that she knew when she built her house that she had to adhere to these rules.  She stated that there are rules in place that need to be abided to.  Ms. Lechner stated that she thinks the storage shed detracts from the look of her home and it’s just the principle of it.  She went on to say that the truck that delivered the shed was enormous and requires a lot of room to move around.  Ms. Jones asked that it be noted for the record that the property to the north was granted a variance for height.  It was noted that this property is owned by James Housteau.  Ms. Jones stated that it is not uncommon for variances to be granted in her neighborhood.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-144: 

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 he same zoning districts.  Mr. Montgomery stated that this statement is true.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the topography is peculiar to the land.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated false because all of the properties in this area have sloped conditions or whatnot.  Ms. Mitchell stated that she agrees with Mr. Ashbaugh.     

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. Mr. Ashbaugh and Mr. Montgomery agreed that this statement was false.  Ms. Mitchell stated true because we know variances have been granted for other properties in the area.      

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was false.  Mr. Montgomery stated that it would be an undue privilege to place the building in this location when there are other areas on the property that the building could be placed.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated false.  Ms. Mitchell stated 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.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the granting of the variance affects Ms. Lechner’s view and therefore her general welfare.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated false.  Ms. Mitchell stated that she would answer true, because no one’s health, safety or welfare is affected.  She stated that she realizes that the structure is not wanted by the neighbors, but their general welfare is not affected.    

Ms. Jones stated that she can hear which way this is going.  She reiterated that any other place where she would locate the shed will obscure the front of her house.  Ms. Jones stated that topographically, she is more unique than her neighbors around her because she is set much further back.  She stated that all of the other neighbors have commented that they have no problem with the proposed location.  Ms. Jones stated that not granting the variance means that she is losing a privilege that other people in her neighborhood enjoy.  She stated that she has a neighbor who was granted a variance so they can enjoy a house they want and she sees no difference in her request.  Ms. Jones questioned criteria three (3) and why the Board answered ‘false.’  Ms. Terry stated that she believes the Board is saying that even though there are some topography issues - there are other areas where the shed can be located.  Ms. Jones stated that the topography is due to Sugarloaf Hill and this is out of her control.  She stated that she didn’t cause the circumstances or choose for her back yard to be hilly.  Ms. Jones stated that not granting the variance means that she will lose the privilege of having a shed.  Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that Ms. Jones could have the shed hand built in the back yard.  Ms. Lechner stated it is possible to have the structure built in the rear of the property.  Ms. Jones stated that she cannot afford to have that done.  

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve Application #08-144 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (no) Montgomery (no), Mitchell (no).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-144 had NO ACTION TAKEN. 

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to deny Application #08-144 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.   Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes) Montgomery (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-144 is DENIED. 

Ms. Terry indicated that there is a ten-day appeal period and any interested parties can appeal.  She stated that any appeal would go to Village Council for consideration.  Ms. Terry indicated that if Council were to uphold the BZBA decision, and someone wanted to challenge that ruling, then it could be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-144                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be inconsistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their disapproval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-144.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-144 are Approved. 

Approval of the Minutes

November 13, 2008

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve the minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The minutes are approved as presented. 

Motion to Excuse Absent BZBA Board Member

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to excuse Ms. Hoyt from the December 18, 2008 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.     

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to excuse Mr. Gill from the December 18, 2008 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.    

Approval of 2009 Meeting Dates: 

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to approve the 2009 BZBA meeting dates as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.     

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.  

Next Meeting:

January 8, 2009

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes November 13, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

November 13, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors: Gillian Jones and Phillip Templeton.

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

New Business: 

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court,  Application #08-144

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the required southern side yard setback for placement of a storage shed.  

Discussion:

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court, was present at the hearing.  Ms. Terry explained that there was a neighbor who wrote to the Village explaining that she was not able to attend the meeting, and requested that it be rescheduled for a time that they could offer testimony because they feel they would be directly impacted by the granting of this particular variance applied for by the applicant.  Ms. Jones stated that she typically has classes on Thursday evenings, and she made arrangements to be at this evening’s meeting.  She stated that she is also available on December 18, 2008.  Ms. Terry stated that this is not a set BZBA meeting, but they could schedule a special meeting if the other member’s of the BZBA are available.  The meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 18, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.  

Mr. Gill moved to table Application #08-144 until the tentatively scheduled December 18, 2008 special meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-144 is tabled.

Phillip A. Templeton, 405 ½ West Maple Street,  Application #08-146

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for approval of the following variances:

1)      To reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to 7,667 square feet;

2)      To reduce the minimum lot frontage from 75 feet to 0 feet;

3)      To reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 13.5 feet; and

4)      To reduce the eastern side yard setback from 12 feet to 10.4 feet. 

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry and Phillip A. Templeton. 

Discussion:

Phillip A. Templeton, 405 ½ West Maple Street, stated that he would like to purchase thirty feet of land from a neighbor to ultimately build a workshop.  Mr. Templeton explained that because of the age of his property - nothing is in conformance.  He went on to say that he also inquired on purchasing the vacated road beside him, but this hasn’t been worked out.  Mr. Templeton stated that the granting of this variance will clean up the side lot lines, as well as ingress and egress from his property.  He stated that he is asking the BZBA board to give him some conformity with his lot.  Mr. Templeton stated that the next step in this process will be to apply for a lot split and then a building permit to build the workshop.  Ms. Terry stated that this is a situation with a grandfathered non-conforming lot and once Mr. Templeton makes the proposed changes it loses its grandfathered status.  She went on to say that he can meet the setback requirements as it is now, but by adding this sliver of land it releases the grandfather status.  Mr. Montgomery clarified that Mr. Templeton is not trying to change the location of any structures and if he weren’t adding anything on the property it could stay as it currently is.  Ms. Terry stated yes and by adding on - the whole lot has to meet the Code requirements.  Mr. Montgomery asked what sort of changes will occur on the lot.  Mr. Templeton stated he would be purchasing the back thirty feet of the property towards the bike path.  Ms. Terry stated that essentially, Mr. Templeton would be taking a small lot and making it “more conforming” than it currently is.  Ms. Mitchell asked what would happen if the Board were to vote no.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would not be able to split the lot and it would remain as it currently is.  Mr. Templeton stated that he plans to build a 12’x24’ structure on the property.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he read in a narrative that there is no access onto the property except for the easements that have been provided.  He asked if the granting of this variance will fix the access issue.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked about the property that belongs to the people up front.  He asked what they are doing with the rest of the property.  Mr. Templeton stated nothing and they owned it as a buffer from a bike path.  Mr. Templeton stated that he had the option to buy the whole lot, but he chose not to.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there was a tremendous price difference.  Mr. Templeton stated yes and the appraisal came in very high.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the lot could be built on.  Ms. Terry stated that if there was an access easement it possibly could be built on as long as it met all of the Code requirements at that time.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the property is even large enough to build a structure.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that this lot split decreases the value of the seller’s property and this is to Mr. Templeton’s benefit.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that if the BZBA allows someone to sell a portion of their lot and then they come and say the lot has no value and is useless – this could create a problem.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that split is not before the BZBA today.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there is any issue of Mr. Oliverio’s lot becoming smaller.  Ms. Terry stated no that there is not a building on the land and there are no setback requirements because no structure exists there.  Mr. Templeton also clarified that he is having a survey done.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-146: 

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 he same zoning districts.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.   

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.      

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-146 contingent upon the lot split and combination as presented in attached Exhibit “A”.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-146 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-146                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application contingent upon the lot split and combination as presented in attachment Exhibit “A.”  

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-146.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-146 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

October 9, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. 

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.  

Next Meeting:

Changed from December 11, 2008 to December 18, 2008

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes October 9, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

October 9, 2008

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites, Rhonda Aller, and Richard Nevil.

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

New Business: 

Richard Nevil, 404 North Granger Street,  Application #08-125

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback on the north side of the property from ten feet (10’) to eight feet (8’), for construction of a second story dormer addition.  

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Richard Nevil, and Rhonda Aller. 

Discussion:

Richard Nevil, 324 East Maple Street, stated that the project includes expanding a second floor closet into a much needed bathroom.  He went on to say that he would like to add two feet on the exterior of the home.  Mr. Nevil stated that he believes that architecturally they can create a better look and he would use the same materials.  He stated that there is currently T111 plywood and they would be using wood to replace it.  Ms. Mitchell asked Ms. Terry if she has heard from any of the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.  She went on to say that the proposal is for a second story dormer addition and there is no impact on the foundation.  Mr. Gill asked if Mr. Nevil has spoken to the neighbor on the side of the proposed addition.  Ms. Aller stated that the neighbor on that side lives in Florida and the house is for sale.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the protrusion would only come out 24 inches or would it be more.  Mr. Nevil stated that it will only protrude out two feet.  Ms. Hoyt asked what year the house was built.  Ms. Aller stated that she believed the house was built somewhere around 1884.  Mr. Montgomery asked if this would be located on the left side of the home as you are facing it.  Mr. Nevil stated yes.   

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-125:

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 he same zoning districts.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated that just because they approve this particular application doesn’t mean they have to approve all requests for similar variances that are in the same zoning district.  Law Director Crites agreed that the BZBA should look at each application separately.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the home already exists in the setback and any change would require a variance.

b)      That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of the Ordinance.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.    

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-125 as submitted.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-125 is approved as submitted. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-125                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147 Variances and Chapter 1165 (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-125.  Second by Mr. Montgomery. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-112 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

September 11, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. 

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

November 13, 2008

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes September 11, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 11, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites, Kevin Reiner, Bill and Carrie York, Debbie Troutman, Garret Moore, and Nancy Recchie. 

Oath of Office: Rob Montgomery was administered the Oath and Office and appointed as a member of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.

Election of a new Vice Chair:

Mr. Gill made a motion to appoint Fred Ashbaugh as Vice Chair. 

Mr. Ashbaugh accepted the nomination.  

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Fred Ashbaugh is appointed Vice Chair to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

New Business: 

Jeff Darbee and Nancy Recchie, 1125 Newark-Granville Road,  Application #08-112

Open Space District (OSD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback on the west side of the property from fifty feet (50’) to fifteen feet 10 inches (15’10”) and the required rear yard setback on the north side of the property from fifty feet (50’) to twenty-one feet (21’), for a 3-season room addition. 

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Nancy Recchie, and Bill York 

Discussion:

Nancy Recchie stated that they purchased the home with plans to use it as a summer home and they hope to use it more this coming Fall and next Spring.  She explained that the building pre-dates the zoning and setback requirements and they did obtain a lot split when they acquired the property.  Ms. Recchie stated that the property is zoning Open Space District.  

Bill York, 100 Pren Tal Way, stated that they are the relevant neighbors who will be impacted by this application.  He stated that the addition will not move towards the direction of the Goldblatt’s or the Pfau’s home and it will only come closer to his property.  Mr. York stated that there were trees removed so there are no trees between the proposed porch and his property, except some trees that are located on his lot. Mr. York suggested that the applicant find a different direction to expand the porch.  He also stated that the proposed addition will double the size of the porch.  Ms. Recchie stated that it will not double in size.  Mr. York stated that something smaller could possibly be done.  Mr. York explained that the property is a sloping piece of land and the structure will appear to get taller and taller because it is further off the ground.  He went on to say that it is not a high priority area since it will be located in the back of their lot.  He also stated that he currently has a view of torn screens and ladders located in the rear of the property.   Mr. York stated that they request that the applicant change the plans and not come so close towards their property or consider painting the structure a dark brown or green with some landscaping.  Ms. Recchie stated that they do plan on doing some landscaping for shielding.  Mr. Gill asked Mr. York if his primary concern is sound or visual affects.  Mr. York answered that with Ms. Recchie and Mr. Darbee he is not worried about sound, but he also wants to consider that they may not always be the people who own the property.  Mr. York stated that they want to be good neighbors and their first choice if the structure is expanded is to have the addition across the back width rather than the length.  Ms. Recchie stated that they would like to continue the one story roof line and she stated that it is much more costly if they change the roof line – plus they would lose windows in their living room and kitchen that offer natural light throughout the home.  Ms. Recchie explained that they did have a tree fall on the property this past summer and they are in the midst of having this cleaned up.  She agreed that the loss of the tree increases exposure and their home is more visible.  Ms. Recchie added that they are certainly willing to plant evergreens, but it may take a few years for them to grow.  She added that they have no plans to sell the property.  Mr. Gill asked if a darker color and landscape screening would help.  Mr. York stated yes.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there is a reason the applicant is requesting to have the structure in the back, rather than on the side.  Ms. Recchie stated that the lighting for the interior of the home would be affected and she would prefer to not change the gable roof.  Mr. Gill stated that it sounds as though there is a developing compromise.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the newly proposed porch is the size of the existing home.  Ms. Recchie stated no that the porch is 16’x32’.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the BZBA can approve with condition that additional landscaping be put in.  Ms. Terry stated yes.   Mr. Gill asked what the ramifications would be if in one year there are no evergreens installed.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that their office would take action because it’s a violation of the permit that was issued.  Ms. Terry added that a Certificate of Occupancy is required for the structure and they would issue a temporary Certificate until the evergreen trees are planted.  Mr. York asked Ms. Recchie if there is a shade she would be willing to change the paint color to.  Ms. Recchie stated that they would probably have to do a green color since the roof is green and she stated that the body of the building would still be white.  She later stated that they could use same color as the stable doors – a green color.  Ms. Recchie stated that she would have no problem accommodating Mr. York’s request to paint the structure a dark color and add additional landscaping.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the motion to approve the application could specify that the applicant must paint the structure a dark color and install landscaping.  He added that Ms. Recchie could plant smaller trees which cost less.  Mr. York stated that dark purple is a dark color and he would hate to see this as the chosen color on the structure.  Ms. Mitchell stated that Ms. Recchie has verbally said that she would be using an existing green color already located on the stable doors.  Mr. Gill added that he would hate to specify a color in the motion because it would be hard for the Village to oversee/manage.  Assistant Law Director Crites cautioned against specifying a specific hue. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-112: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Montgomery stated he agreed because of the new zoning that was imposed after the structure was in place.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated that they did not create the situation and they are therefore asking for a variance. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated a “slightly more equivocal true” response to the statement.  Mr. Montgomery noted that there is also a garage at the corner of the lot line. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #08-112 with a qualification that the applicant agree to paint the structure a darker earth tone and for the color to be reviewed by village staff; And that appropriate plantings to include evergreens be brought to bear over the next year which will accomplish the overall purpose of screening the addition from the adjoining property. Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-112 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

Keith and Courtney McWalter, 223 East Elm Street,  Application #08-113

Village Residential District (VRD), Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the required eastern side yard setback from ten feet (10’) to nine feet (9’) for installation of a generator.  Kevin Reiner, Firmly Planted, is representing the owners of the property – Keith and Courtney McWalter.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Garret Moore, Debbie Troutman, and Kevin Reiner. 

Discussion: 

Kevin Reiner, Firmly Planted, stated that he is representing the property owners – Keith and Courtney McWalter.  He stated that the generator was originally proposed to be placed on the other side of the structure, but they decided that they would like to tuck it into the nook depicted on the drawings.  Mr. Reiner stated that the manufacturer recommends that the generator be placed three feet away from the structure.  He added that the generator will be used to keep the pipes safe.  Mr. Reiner stated that a more aesthetically pleasing fence has been approved and it will help shield the generator.  Mr. Reiner added that the property owners certainly want to accommodate the neighbors any way they can and they will also shield the generator with some boxwoods.  When asked by the Planning Commission, Mr. Reiner explained that the generator will need to run once a week for fifteen minutes and this can be pre-programmed in the system.  He also stated that there are noise buffer panels on all sides.    

Mr. Ashbaugh presented paperwork he printed off of the internet that stated the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards - NFPA – 37 – Paragraph 4.1.4.  Mr. Ashbaugh said that the information states that these generator units are supposed to be five feet away from the house.  He went on to explain that these standards normally only apply if a community adheres to NFPA standards.  Mr. Reiner stated that they are working with Clay’s Electric and their recommendation was to have it three feet away from the home and he stated that this was also the manufacturer’s recommendation.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Licking County adheres to these standards.  Ms. Terry stated that they allow generators, but she is not certain if they adhere to the NFPA recommendations.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that some people are putting their generators far away from their house.  Ms. Terry stated that she could research what the building department recommendations are.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant could choose to table the application so they can further research the information.  Mr. Reiner asked if the county standards have been implemented here in Granville.  Ms. Terry stated that all of our work goes through the Licking County Building Department.  Ms. Mitchell asked if there would be any liability on the Village if the variance is approved and the generator were to catch on fire or catch another structure on fire.  Ms. Terry stated that she is aware of no liability on the Village by approval of the variance. Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the BZBA Board can address any safety factors when reviewing the criteria.  Mr. Montgomery asked the applicant if they ever considered putting the generator behind the house.  Mr. Reiner stated that they did consider putting it to the east of the home.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if the NFPA standards take precedence over the building code.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that in some municipalities he would think the NFPA standards prevail.  Mr. Reiner agreed he would like to table the application to gather more information.

Garret Moore, 207 South Pearl Street, stated that his main concern with the generator is the noise.  He said that his bedroom is on that side of the property where the generator would be located.  He went on to say that there would not only be one generator but also two air compressors and this will undoubtedly be very loud.  Mr. Moore stated that a neighbor around the corner has a generator that cycles once a week and he hears it.  Mr. Moore went on to say that the request for generators will come before the Village more and more and he asked them to please consider the noise and safety.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked Mr. Moore if he would prefer to see the generator installed in the rear of the home.  Mr. Moore stated that he would prefer it to be located on the west side and this is probably twenty to thirty feet away from the house on the west side.

Debbie Troutman, 205 South Pearl Street, stated that her concerns are similar to what Garret Moore stated.  She stated that the back yard is quite substantial and larger than the area on the side of the home.  She went on to say that a variance would not be required if the generator were to be placed in the rear.  Ms. Troutman stated that Kevin Reiner and the McWalters have been fantastic working with the neighbors.  She stated that they have a patio outside and she feels her living quarters would be impacted by the installation of the generator on the east side.  Ms. Troutman stated that she feels it could be located elsewhere - even by the outbuilding in the far corner of the lot and this would be out there away from the neighbors.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there is any existing AC unit in this location now.  Ms. Terry stated that there was one and now there are two.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Ms. Troutman feels moving the unit would be more appropriate.  Ms. Troutman stated yes.  Mr. Montgomery asked if a variance would be required if the unit were placed in the rear.  Ms. Terry stated that if the applicant moves the generator then it wouldn’t require a variance and they could have the applicant withdraw the application.  Ms. Hoyt asked if it would be costly to rearrange the plans to place the generator elsewhere.  Mr. Reiner stated that he didn’t think so and he would like to check with the certified electrician.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the generator would have to be within thirty feet of the panel – if there is not an extension.  Ms. Terry reviewed the plans and showed the BZBA potential locations.  Mr. Montgomery asked if a variance would be required to place the generator on the west side.  Mr. Reiner stated no.  Mr. Montgomery stated that if the county does enforce the NFPA standards then the applicant may need to look at putting the unit in the back or west side of the house. 

Mr. Montgomery moved to Table Application #08-113.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-113 is Tabled. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-112                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1165, Open Space District, and hereby give their approval of the application. 

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-112.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-112 are Approved. 

Approval of the Minutes

August 14, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (abstain), Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (abstain), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The minutes are approved as presented. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM.  

Next Meeting:

October 9, 2008

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes August 14, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

August 14, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill.

Member’s Absent: Jean Hoyt.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Law Director, Allison Crites. 

Appointment of new Vice Chair:

Ms. Mitchell agreed to take the position of Chair with the resignation of Mr. Bill Heim. 

The BZBA Board agreed to elect a Vice Chair at the next meeting since Jean Hoyt was not present. 

New Business: 

Ross Granville Market, 484 South Main Street,  Application #08-97

Suburban Residential District (SBD), Architectural Overlay Review District (AROD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the roof pitch on the addition from 8:12 to 1’ 9 13/16”:12 on the northern slope and to 1’ 10 7/16”:12 on the southern slope, to match the existing roof on the main structure. 

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Leta Ross, and Laura Andujar 

Discussion:

Laura Andujar, stated that they originally asked for a 3/12 roof pitch, but they later found that the existing pitch is actually 2/12.  Ms. Andujar stated that they are before the BZBA to request a change to 1’9 13/16:12 and she explained that they later realized that the original pitch of the roof was not what they thought it was.  Mr. Ashbaugh commented that the original application didn’t look like the one currently before them.  Ms. Terry stated that the current concept is the same except for a tower on one end.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the video store originally had its own entrance.   Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission required some changes to the way the plan looked.  Mr. Ashbaugh commented that the BZBA only voted on the roof pitch and not what it looks like.  Mr. Gill stated that technically they still are not voting on the way it looks, only on the roof pitch.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission asked for the applicant to keep the colonnade look.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked about there being two approvals for the same applicant.  Ms. Terry stated that this approval could state that it supersedes the previous request in roof pitch on Application #07-074.   Mr. Gill commented that he loved the look of the design but he questions why we (The Village) don’t check what the applicant states in the application regarding the actual roof pitch.  He stated that he has some concern when he reads that this application states we need to review it because of an assumption that was said to be fact the first time around.  He asked how this should be handled.  Ms. Terry stated that she believes it’s a good faith effort on the applicant’s part – verses just moving forward without appropriate approval.  Mr. Gill stated that the word “assumed” made him take a second look.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the pitch on the front colonnade roof pitch would change.  Ms. Andujar stated no – this will remain an 8/12 pitch.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-97: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.    

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-97 as presented with the former variance for reduction in roof pitch under Application #07-074 being superseded by this application.   Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-97 is approved.

Finding of Fact

Application #08-97                                                                               

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-97.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

The Findings of Fact are approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

June 13, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

The minutes are approved as submitted.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The BZBA meeting is adjourned.  

Next Meeting:

September 11, 2008