Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes October 13, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

October 13, 2011

6:30 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Rob Montgomery, Bradley Smith, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill (Interim Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Michael Crites, Law Director; Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant. 

Visitors: Eric Rosenberg, Mary J. Zink, Will Zink, and Bob Ramsey.  

Description of Procedure:

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)        The applicant;

(2)        The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3)        The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4)        Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied. 

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)        Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)        Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3)        Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4)        Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)        Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board. 

New Business:

Eric Rosenberg on behalf of Douglas Feller, 401 North Pearl Street, Application #2011-125

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from North Pearl Street and the front yard setback along the shared driveway access from thirty (30’) feet to thirteen (13’) feet to allow for the construction of a two-story addition. 

(Alison Terry, Eric Rosenberg, Bob Ramsey, Will Zink, and Mary J. Zink  were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Scott Manno stated he would need to recuse himself from voting on both applications submitted by Mr. Rosenberg.  (6:37 PM)  Mr. Manno left the meeting and returned after the Finding of Facts had been decided.  

Eric Rosenberg, stated the drawings of the proposed addition were presented to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Montgomery asked for clarification of the addition in relation to the location of the existing driveway.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the protruding portion would be the garage with the house addition above.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there is already a deck in the existing space.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.  Mr. Gill asked if there have been any conversations with immediate neighbors.  Mr. Rosenberg stated he has spoken to all neighbors except the Zinks and they were not present at the Planning Commission hearing.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the Zink home is for sale and they had already moved out of the house when this addition was planned.  He went on to say that the Zink house (to the south) does not have a right to use the driveway.  He also stated the Zink’s were given notice to come to the Planning Commission meeting and they did not appear.  Mr. Rosenberg stated he and the Zink’s “don’t have the best relationship.”  Mr. Rosenberg stated his wife owns the home and they were willing to give an easement to have the driveway come in like it does.  He stated he is purchasing the home at 401 North Pearl Street for his mother and she is 76 years old and needs to have access to a garage.  Ms. Terry provided a copy of the plat map from the Licking County Auditor for the BZBA indicating the location of Mr. Rosenberg’s property, the Zink property, and the location of the property Mr. Rosenberg is purchasing.     

William Zink, 343 North Pearl Street, stated he is the white house to the south of Mr. Rosenberg.  He acknowledged he received notice in the mail about the meeting and he has not spoken with Mr. Rosenberg about this application.  Mr. Zink stated he did not attend the first Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Zink indicated he is aware that Mr. Rosenberg would like to make some cosmetic changes to the home.  He stated Mr. Rosenberg is threatening him through Mr. Ramsey to prevent him from using the shared drive.  He stated he owns his property and his deed indicated he has access to a shared driveway.  Mr. Zink stated Mr. Rosenberg is threatening him knowing his house is up for sale saying he can do whatever it takes to prevent access.  Mr. Zink stated there is a small shared portion of the driveway and Mr. Rosenberg lives at the top.  Mr. Zink stated he went to the County and looked at the plat map and no one owns the driveway and it has been a shared thing since at least 1952.  Mr. Gill asked Mr. Zink how he feels about the application in regards to the proposed Variance for the bump out (addition).  Mr. Zink stated Mr. Rosenberg contacted his attorney a few days ago and stated that if he derails this proceeding then the deal Mr. Rosenberg wanted him to sign with Mr. Ramsey to have access (even though he feels he already has access) would go away.  Mr. Zink stated he is “flabbergasted I was threatened.”  Mr. Gill indicated that Mr. Zink is within his legal rights to offer an opinion on the proposed variance.  He asked Mr. Zink if he feels there is any way this variance will impede access to his property.  Mr. Zink stated he has concerns that Mr. Rosenberg’s plans are not in line with the neighborhood and he has a very visual concern.  Mr. Zink stated he moved to Granville because of the character of the homes.  Mr. Zink stated that another concern he has is the business that Mr. Rosenberg has located at his house.  He stated there are people coming up and down the driveway and they are clients.  Mr. Gill reminded Mr. Zink that he is obligated to remind him that the BZBA is discussing items only relating to this application.  Mr. Zink stated the proposed variance will not block access, but there is a positioning concern regarding the retaining wall being located right next to the shared driveway.  He stated the retaining wall would have to be moved over for the driveway, so ultimately this would affect access.  Mr. Gill asked if this would come over to Mr. Zink’s property.  Mr. Zink stated yes.  Mr. Gill asked if this has been measured out and how wide is the driveway.  Ms. Terry stated from staff review – it does not appear that access to the driveway would be impacted.  Mr. Zink stated they enjoy the privacy from the existing trees and he asked how they would be impacted.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the hemlock, which is a safety hazard, would be removed.  He stated one or two smaller trees would also come down.  Mr. Zink asked which side of the driveway would be affected.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the west side of the driveway.    

Mary Jean Zink, 821 West Broadway, stated she has ownership in the home at 343 West Broadway.  She stated the proposal by Mr. Rosenberg would possibly affect the integrity of the neighborhood and she wants this preserved.  She indicated she has concerns with the variance.  Mr. Gill questioned why these concerns were not said at the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Zink stated she was unaware of the Planning Commission hearing.  Ms. Terry explained the Planning Commission approved the style of the addition pending the approval of the needed variances from the BZBA.  She indicated that notices did get mailed to the Zink property at 343 North Pearl Street.  Ms. Zink stated that if she would have been aware of the Planning Commission meeting she would have attended to view these concerns.    

Bob Ramsey, 399 North Pearl Street, stated he lives at the top of the driveway and has been a lifelong resident in this subdivision.  Mr. Ramsey stated he views this change as a visual improvement to the property.  He stated Mr. Rosenberg bought 395 North Pearl Street and improved it.  He stated the homes in this area are not everyone’s thought of character but these homes are and have been there for quite some time.  He went on to say the proposed improvements would increase the value of properties in this area and he sees no reason to object to the requests.  Mr. Ramsey stated he does not see traffic being affected by the proposed variances.  He also stated the changes would be directly in front of his living room window.   Mr. Gill asked if the proposed bump out would create a blind spot.  Mr. Ramsey stated no - the hazard is Pearl Street.  Mr. Gill asked if he has been in communication with Mr. Rosenberg.  Mr. Ramsey indicated that Mr. Rosenberg has shown him drawings and that he attended the Planning Commission meetings.  

Mr. Rosenberg stated that regarding access, this addition has no impact on the Zink driveway if they had the right to use it, which they don’t.  He estimated the driveway will be located twenty feet from the retaining wall.  Mr. Rosenberg stated there is no access issue at all.  He stated the Zinks do not have a legal right to use the driveway even though they have been using it.  Mr. Rosenberg acknowledged he spoke with the Zink’s attorney and there is no desire on his behalf to file a lawsuit.  Mr. Rosenberg stated he has lived in his house for three years and there has been a standing tradition on the one access point.  Mr. Rosenberg stated it is important to address the issue regarding the driveway because the driveway is in bad shape.  He explained the cost would be broken down between the property owners with 25% due from each party.  Mr. Rosenberg stated he just put $10,000 in concrete on the top part of the driveway.  He stated the Zinks didn’t want to pay to do the bottom.   Mr. Rosenberg stated he wants to help the Zinks sell their house and they need a legal right to the driveway.  He stated if the Zink’s pay the 25% cost for the bottom portion then everybody is happy.  Mr. Rosenberg clarified the driveway is blacktop in the lower area.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that on one side there is discussion on a shared driveway agreement, but this is a non issue for the BZBA.  He also stated the complaints by the Zink’s didn’t come to the floor until after the Planning Commission meeting.  He stated that now when they happen to be discussing the driveway issue they have a problem with the addition. He indicated that first Mr. Zink stated the proposed driveway/retaining wall didn’t impede him, but now he says it does.  Law Director Crites reminded both parties to address questions and comments to the board and not to each other.  Mr. Zink stated he doesn’t understand how Mr. Rosenberg says he doesn’t have rights to the driveway.  He stated he has looked at the deed and he does own the driveway.  Mr. Zink stated he thinks Mr. Rosenberg is implying he exclusively owns the driveway.  Mr. Gill stated the driveway issue can’t be resolved tonight between the two parties.  Mr. Zink stated that Mr. Rosenberg is implying that he is being difficult.  He stated he was unaware that they wanted to repair the bottom of the driveway.  He stated he told his lawyer an improvement such as this would help him sell his house and he just wants to make sure he only pays for ¼ of the total cost.  Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Zink may not want to mention what he has said to his attorney for legal reasons.  Mr. Zink stated that if the variance is granted he would have no recourse once Mr. Rosenberg starts construction.  He stated that based on other things he doesn’t believe Mr. Rosenberg and he is worried the project will be bigger than he has lead on.  Ms. Terry stated that the property would be checked and if the addition is larger than what Mr. Rosenberg proposed, he would have to get an amendment for the change or he could be required to tear down the portion of the structure that is non-compliant.  Mr. Zink stated the proposed retaining wall would prevent larger vehicles from maneuvering on the common driveway and they could be forced to enter his property.  Mr. Smith asked the approximate width of the driveway.  Ms. Terry estimated 20’ 9” wide.  She stated she has seen the plat map and Mr. Rosenberg’s retaining wall location follows what the plat says for the Ramsey subdivision.  Mr. Gill indicated Mr. Zink’s concerns are valid, but it doesn’t look likely that this would happen.  Mr. Montgomery asked how far the corner of the addition would be from the existing blacktop.  Mr. Rosenberg was unsure and stated this is a residential driveway.  Mr. Smith asked to what extent this addition would be visible from Pearl Street or Spellman.  Mr. Rosenberg stated you won’t see most of it in the summer due to the trees.  Mr. Smith asked if the Village can verify if notice was sent to the Zink’s for the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Terry stated notice was sent out on August 12th.  Mr. Smith questioned if the easement is by adverse possession.  Law Director Crites stated they have no way of knowing and adverse possession takes affect after 21 years.  Mr. Smith stated the Zinks are suggesting the 20’9” inch driveway is not wide enough.  He questioned what could happen if a court looks at this.  Law Director Crites stated that when an issue involving adverse possession is at play a total action is filed and a determination is made by the court.  Mr. Smith asked if any drainage issues have been raised.  Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission did address drainage and there were no further requirements made.  She stated the applicant met with the architect, Joseph Galano, Mr. Rosenberg, and Village Service Director, Terry Hopkins.  She stated Terry Hopkins managed storm sewers and that the proposed down spouting and gutter locations would not adversely affect Pearl Street.  Mr. Smith asked if there have been any issues raised regarding emergency access up this private drive.  Ms. Terry stated this isn’t something our emergency services would review with an application like this because they are not modifying the access to the properties.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the proposed wall itself would be over a car’s length and there is no way any car could go onto Mr. Zink’s property and “its just impossible - it couldn’t be done.”  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-125:

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 the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith agreed that the proposed variance is substantial.  Mr. Montgomery stated the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Montgomery stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated FALSE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve Application #2011-125 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-125: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-125 is Approved as submitted. 

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, Application #2011-126

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)                  To reduce the front yard setback along the eastern property line from thirty (30’) feet to zero (0’) feet to allow ford the construction of a walk and stairs;

2)                  To reduce the side yard setback along the southern property line from ten-and-a-half (10 ½’) feet to six (6’) feet allow for the construction of a walk and stairs; and

3)                  To reduce the rear yard setback along the western property line from six-and-a-half (6 ½’) feet to four (4’) feet to allow for the construction of a stairway from an existing balcony to grade. 

(Alison Terry and Eric Rosenberg, Will Zink, Mary J. Zink, and Robert Ramsey, were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, stated there is currently no access to the house except through the garage.  He stated they are proposing to take away the old deck and this is specifically for accessibility to the house.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the back of the house is back up against Mr. Ramsey’s property. He also explained the previously approved addition (which utilizes the same setbacks he is proposing) is on the submitted drawings.  Mr. Rosenberg stated there are no access issues with the driveway.  

He stated his home is up 150 feet and it’s a steep grade.  Mr. Montgomery questioned where the line is from 30 feet to 0 feet.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the previous addition was granted to zero for the garage and now it needs to go to zero for the walkway/railing.    Mr. Gill asked Mr. Ramsey if he had any comments regarding the setback being directly along his property.  Mr. Ramsey stated he had no comment.  Mr. Zink stated his only concern is drainage.  He stated they would want to ensure excess water is taken away from his house.  Ms. Terry indicated that staff did not feel drainage would be an issue with this application.  Mr. Montgomery clarified that the setbacks impacted by this project were already impacted by the previous addition.  Ms. Terry stated the zero setback already affectively exists, but for the garage only.  She explained the variance is required for not necessarily the sidewalk, but the stairs.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-126: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE because of the slope in nature. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with          knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously      agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2011-126 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-126: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-126 is Approved as submitted. 

Finding of Fact

Eric Rosenberg on behalf of Douglas Fellers, 401 North Pearl Street,  Application #2011-125

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 as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-125.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.

 

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-125 are approved.

 

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street,  Application #2011-126

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 as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-126.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-126 are approved.  

Mr. Manno rejoined the meeting at 7:35 PM.  

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for September 8, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.     

Other Matters:

Mr. Gill indicated that Fred Ashbaugh has stepped down as Chair of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals and the board appreciates his time to the panel.  Ms. Terry stated Mr. Gill will step in as Chair and a Vice Chair will be elected at the next meeting.  She stated the vacant position for the BZBA will be advertised. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM.    

Next Meeting:

November 10, 2011 (Ms. Terry stated she is unable to attend this meeting and that Ms.                                                 Walker would be attending in her absence)

December 8, 2011

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes August 11, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

August 11, 2011

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Rob Montgomery, Bradley Smith, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Fred Ashbaugh and Scott Manno

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

Visitors: Mark Clapsadle, Elizabeth Moss and Ed Ridgeway. 

Citizens Comments:

No one appeared to speak under citizens comments.

Old Business:

Scott and Martha Keyes, 418 West Broadway, Application #2011-50

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-seven (37’) feet to allow for the construction of an eight foot (8’) tall cedar trellis. 

(Alison Terry and John Noblick were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, 51 N. 3rd Street, Newark, stated the applicant would like to have a variance for installation of a trellis.  He indicated that the height requirement in the code is six (6’) foot and the proposed trellis is eight (8’) foot.  Ms. Terry explained that this is considered to be a structure, rather than a fence due to its height.  Mr. Gill noted a friendly amendment to correct the agenda and application, which indicates that the trellis was seven (7’) foot in total height.  Ms. Terry stated that this is the measurement to the bottom of the trellis top, whereas the actual height to the top of the trellis would be eight (8’) foot.  Mr. Gill asked if there had been any response from the notifications sent out.  Ms. Terry stated no.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-50: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Montgomery stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2011-50 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-50: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-50 is Approved as Amended. 

Walter Palawsky and Denise Landman, 86 Fairview Avenue, Application #2011-88

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum allowable height in the district from thirty-feet (30’) to thirty-one-feet-six-inches (31’6”) to allow for the construction of a two-story addition to the home.  

(Alison Terry and Mark Clapsadle were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion: 

Mark Clapsadle, Granview Road, stated that they are requesting a height variance.  He stated they received another variance for the height of the home in 2004, to increase the total height to thirty-six (36') feet.  Mr. Clapsadle indicated the new owners would like to expand the size of the home.  He stated they exceed the thirty foot (30’) code limit and need an additional foot and a half (1’5”).  Ms. Terry explained the initial variance was for thirty-six (36’) feet in height, but it does not carry with any addition to the home.  She also stated the application has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved with the contingency that the applicant receives a variance from the BZBA for the height of the structure.  Mr. Smith stated the location of the addition where the variance is needed would not be visible from the road.  He also noted none of the neighbors seem to have an issue with the request.  Mr. Montgomery asked the setback from the nearest property line.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the front of the house does not face the street and it is approximately sixty foot (60’) back.  He stated that the side yard is a sixty-one foot (61’) set back.  Ms. Terry stated that the neighbor’s most closely affected by the addition would be the Leithauser’s.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-88: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2011-88 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-88: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-88 is Approved.

Michael and Wendy Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, Application #2011-97

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to zero-point-three (0.3’) feet to allow for the construction of a rear two-story elevated deck.  

(Micheal Duffey and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Mr. Smith indicated he lives across the street from Mr. Duffey, but he did not receive any notifications in the mail about this application.  He indicated he has reviewed the application and he would not be able to see the proposed deck from his home.  Mr. Smith indicated that he is willing to move forward on review of the application if there are not any objections.  Mr. Duffey stated that he does not have an objection.  Ms. Terry noted that the mail notification was an oversight by her Department and that she did speak with the Assistant Law Director, Mike King, regarding Mr. Smith's ability to vote on this application and Mr. King indicated that this would not be a problem.   

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, stated that he is proposing the installation of a new deck on the rear elevation of his home.  He indicated that he had already received architectural review and approval of this project from the Planning Commission, contingent upon a variance being approved by the BZBA.  Mr. Duffey stated that the proposed size of the deck is nine and a half feet (9’.5”) by twelve feet (12”).  He indicated that the deck would be off of the rear elevation.  Mr. Duffey stated the house sits less than one foot from the eastern property line, and the neighboring property to the west is on a high elevation.  He stated the deck wouldn’t come to the neighbor’s first floor view and he has had discussion with them about this project and they have no objections.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if the deck would protrude beyond the Duffey’s home.  Mr. Duffey stated that the deck would be in alignment with the home.  Mr. Gill asked if there were any comments by neighbors regarding this application.  Ms. Terry stated no.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-97: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2011-97 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-97: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-97 is Approved.

Elizabeth Moss, 331 North Pearl Street, Application #2011-98

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the northern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a rear second-story addition.  

(Alison Terry, Ed Ridgeway, and Elizabeth Moss were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion: 

Ed Ridgeway, Mark Builders, stated he is the builder for the project.  He indicated the addition would stay in line with the existing house and be placed on top of the first floor flat roof in the rear.  Mr. Ridgeway stated this area cannot be seen from Pearl Street.  He went on to explain that the bump-out would be a 10' x 25' addition and their goal is to create a straight line up so it does not appear to have been added. Ms. Terry stated anytime a home is built up with a second story a variance would be required if the new addition does not meet the current setback regulations, because of the increase in massing and scale in proximity to the property line.  Ms. Terry stated that all other setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Moss indicated she had a conversation with the White’s who live to the north and they did not have a problem with the proposal.  She stated that she did not speak to the neighbors to the south, but they were notified by the Village.  Ms. Terry stated the application would have to go before the Planning Commission for final architectural approval. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-98: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2011-98 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-98: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-98 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact

Scott and Martha Keyes, 418 West Broadway,  Application #2011-50

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 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-50.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-50 are approved.  

Walter Palawky and Denise Landman, 96 Briarwood Drive,  Application #2011-88

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 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-88.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-88 are approved.  

Michael and Wendy Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, Application #2011-97

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-97.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-97 are approved.  

Elizabeth Moss, 331 North Pearl Street,  Application #2011-98

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 as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-98.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-98 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to excuse Scott Manno and Fred Ashbaugh from the BZBA meeting on August 11, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.    

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.     

Next Meeting:

September 8, 2011

October 13, 2011 (Mr. Gill stated he needs to leave the meeting by 8:00 PM and he, and other members of the Board, questioned whether the meeting time could be moved to 6:30 PM. to accommodate this request.  Staff indicated they could look into this request and would get back with the Board)

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes July 14, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

July 14, 2011

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Scott Manno, Bradley Smith.

Members Absent: Jeff Gill and Rob Montgomery.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Assistant to the Planner Debi Walker.

Visitors: Mary Thurlow-Collen, John Noblick, Chris Lucas, Miller, Barb Hinterschied, and Dustin Gerkin. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not a public hearing.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)  The applicant;

(2)  The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3)  The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4)  Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied. 

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)   Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)  Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3)  Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4)  Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)   Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board. 

New Business:

Chris Lucas-Miller & Mary Thurlow-Collen, 329 East College Street, Application #2011-66

Village Residential District (VRD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to six feet eight inches (6’8”) feet to allow for the construction of a second story addition.  

(Alison Terry, Chris Lucas-Miller, and Mary Thurlow-Collen were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)

Discussion:

Chris Lucas-Miller, indicated that this project would add a second floor bedroom and bath addition to the existing home.  This addition would reestablish the original exterior architectural design of the home.  The current first floor addition was not architecturally compatible to the home. 

Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission approved the architectural plans.  

Mr. Smith confirmed that this addition would not be extended beyond the current footprint.  Mr. Miller responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Miller indicated that the roofline of the addition would be designed to be more compatible with the home.  

Mr. Smith asked if there were any comments from residents.  Planner Terry indicated that one resident reviewed the plans and requested an explanation of the how the setbacks were handled. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of application #2011-66: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)     Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)     Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial and was FALSE. 

(3)     Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(4)     Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)     Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)     Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)     Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c.   That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

d.   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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.   In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve application #2011-66 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote to approve application #2011-66:  Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-66 is approved. 

Bruce and Julia Rooke, 96 Briarwood Drive, Application #2011-83

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

a)   To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty-five (35') feet to twenty-three (23') feet; and

b)   To increase the lot coverage from fifteen (15%) percent to eighteen and three-quarters (18 3/4%) percent to allow for the construction of a one story addition.

c)   To increase the maximum height of a fence between the front yard setback line and the street from forty-two inches (42") in height to sixty inches (60") in height, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence; and

d)   To remove the requirement that no chain link, wire mesh, or other similar type material can be installed fronting a street as a decorative landscape wall or fence, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence. 

(Alison Terry, John Noblick and Barb Hinterschied were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

John Noblick, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He indicated that the wooden fence was

predominantly decorative with the mesh fencing added to keep the resident’s animals in their yard and the wildlife out.  The property topography drops off so the height of the fence has been adjusted to allow the fence to look aesthetically pleasing.  

Mr. Smith asked if the fence was split rail or a three rail fence.  He was confused by the various photos.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the fence would be rail.  The photo showing a split rail fence depicted the type of mesh fence being used.  Mr. Smith asked that the photos be included as exhibits. 

Mr. Manno asked if the fence could be continued all the way around the property.  Mr. Manno expressed concerns about the look of a partial fence during the winter months.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the back of the property was heavily wooded, so the homeowners were just planning to use the mesh fence to all the wooded area to remain natural, but he indicated that he could check with the homeowner about extending the fence.  

Mr. Manno commented that the lot coverage was already over the permitted coverage.  Planner Terry indicated that the lot coverage was being increased by an additional one and three-quarter percent. 

Mrs. Hinterschied, 143 Briarwood, spoke in opposition to the installation of the fence.  She indicated that there were no other similar fences in the area.  The Rooke’s current backyard was an open vista and she felt that the vista should be maintained.  She was especially not supportive of the fence in the front portion of the property.  She indicated another neighbor was required to keep their fence behind their house.  Mr. Smith asked Mrs. Hinterschied if Mr. Noblick’s description of the property was correct.  Mr. Hinterschied responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Smith asked Mrs. Hinterschied what she objected to the most regarding the application.  Mrs. Hinterschied indicated that she objected to the height of the fence. 

Mr. Smith indicated that he felt there was substantial difference between a 42” and a 60” fence.  Mr. Smith suggested tabling the fence portion of the application and holding it over the next meeting when a full board would be available.  Planner Terry indicated that the Board could vote to approve the variance and allow the applicant to amend the fence portion of the application. 

Mr. Smith moved to amend and approve the variance to reduce the required front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to twenty-three (23’) feet, to increase the lot coverage from fifteen 915%0 percent to eighteen and three-quarters (18¾ %) percent to allow for the construction of a one story addition and to table the request to increase the maximum height of a fence between the front yard setback line and the street from forty-two inches (42") in height to sixty inches (60") in height, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence and to remove the requirement that no chain link, wire mesh, or other similar type material can be installed fronting a street as a decorative landscape wall or fence, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence until the next Board meeting.  Second by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote to approve application #2011-83 as amended:  Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-83 is approved as amended.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of application #2011-83:

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)  Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)  Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial – FALSE. 

(3)  Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4)  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)  Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)  Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)  Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c.   That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d.   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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  

e.   In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, Application #2011-85

Village Residential District (VRD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

a)      To reduce the required side yard setbacks from ten (10’) feet to eight (8’) feet;

b)      To reduce the required rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five (5’) feet; and

c)      To increase the total lot coverage from fifty-seven (57%) percent to fifty-nine (59%) percent; to allow for the construction of a greenhouse addition on the rear of the accessory structure. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

(Alison Terry and Dustin Gerkin were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

Dustin Gerkin, 178 Thurman Avenue, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He indicated that

this request was to add a lean-to glass, greenhouse to the back of the accessory structure previously approved by the Planning Commission and BZBA.  The glass that would be used was vintage greenhouse glass.

Mr. Manno asked if the fence could be continued all the way around the property.  Mr. Manno expressed concerns about the look of a partial fence during the winter months.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the back of the property was heavily wooded, so the homeowners were just planning to use the mesh fence to all the wooded area to remain natural, but he indicated that he could check with the homeowner about extending the fence.  It would be a two (2%) percent increase in lot coverage. Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission and BZBA approved the accessory structure. 

Mr. Manno asked if this greenhouse and the accessory structure would be used as part of Mr. Reiner’s business.  Mr. Gerkin indicated that it would not.  Planner Terry indicated that using either structure as part of his business would be in violation of Village Code..  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-85: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

b.   That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)  Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.  

  (2)  Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA agreed 2-1 that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ashbaugh and Smith voted FALSE, while Mr. Manno voted TRUE. 

(3)  Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(4)  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. Mr. Smith expressed concern that the backyard would now be full of buildings, but with no comments filed by neighboring residents, he agreed with FALSE. 

(5)  Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)  Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(7)  Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.   That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.   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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

  1. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve application #2011-85 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote to approve application #2011-85 as amended:  Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-85 is approved as amended. 

Finding of Fact

Sara Lee & Mary Thurlow-Colleen, 329 East College Street, Application #2011-66

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for application #2011-66.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Roll call vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for application #2011-66 are approved. 

Bruce and Julia Rooke, 96 Briarwood Drive, Application #2011-83

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 as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for application #2011-83.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for application #2011-83 are approved.  

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, Application #2011-85

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for application #2011-85.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote: Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for application #2011-85 are approved.  

Motion to Excuse  BZBA Member(s):

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Jeff Gill and Rob Montgomery from the BZBA meeting on July 14, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Motion carried 3-0.     

Approval of the Minutes:

The minutes from the June 9, 2011 meetings were tabled as there was not a quorum. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:12pm.     

Next Meeting:

August 11, 2011

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes June 9, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

June 9, 2011

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Scott Manno, Fred Ashbaugh, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Bradley Smith and Rob Montgomery.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director, Assistant Law Director Mike King (arrived late.)

Visitors: Steve and Michelle Rivers, Raymond McKenna, Flo Hoffman, Steve Mershon, Laura Hunt, Anne Aubourg, and Steve Mershon. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not a public hearings.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)        The applicant;

(2)        The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3)        The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4)        Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied. 

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)        Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)        Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3)        Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4)        Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)        Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board. 

New Business:

Scott and Martha Keyes, 418 West Broadway, Application #2011-50 AMENDED

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-seven (37’) feet to allow for the construction of an eight (8’) foot cedar trellis.  

Discussion:  Ms. Terry explained that this application would have to be tabled because they would not have a quorum with Mr. Ashbaugh recusing himself.  She stated that this application would be rescheduled to the July meeting.  

Raymond and Marilyn McKenna, 5 Sunset Hill, Application #2011-52

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to twenty-two (22’) feet to allow for the construction of a deck.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Raymond McKenna were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)

Raymond McKenna, 5 Sunset Hill, stated that he would like to build a wood deck approximately eight (8’) feet by twelve (12’) feet and also replace a concrete slab in the same area.  He explained that they would like to provide easier access to the front door.  Mr. McKenna stated that the house is close to the street and built on a formerly private road where they are the last lot on one side.  Mr. Manno questioned if the house as it stands now has a thirty (30’) foot setback.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Manno asked if construction has already begun on the deck.  Mr. McKenna stated yes and he would call what is in place a “prototype.”  Mr. Gill stated that he walked the property and viewed the deck and the existing concrete doesn’t have any historical value.       

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-52: 

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.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Manno unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ashbaugh agreed FALSE.  Mr. Gill stated TRUE based on the slope.         

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Manno and Mr. Ashbaugh stated FALSE.  Mr. Gill stated TRUE.  

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-52 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-52: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-52 is Approved.

Granville Historical Society, 115 East Broadway, Application #2011-54

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for the following variances: 

1)         To reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero (0') feet;

2)         To reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to six and half feet (6 1/2');

3)         To reduce the required off-street parking requirements from twelve (12) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces; and

4)         To increase the maximum lot coverage from seventy (70%) percent to ninety-eight (98%) percent to allow for the construction of a two story addition on the rear, southern side of the structure.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Flo Hoffman, Laura Hunt, and Anne Aubourg were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Laura Hunt, 88 Arden Place, Hebron, indicated that she is the project architect.  She explained that the applicant would like to build a 30 foot x 50 foot building footprint and they would be doing landscaping at the front entry.  She stated that the Granville Historical Society is in need of a building of this size to accommodate artifacts.  Ms. Hunt stated that they having parking at the front of the building on the street and shared parking in the back lot.  She explained that there is no written agreement on the parking.  Mr. Gill asked how many parking spaces are shared.  Ms. Hoffman stated that there are seven spaces and some of these are located near Lisa McKivergin’s property and some near the church.  Ms. Hoffman explained that they are presenting zero parking spaces in the application, but they actually have seven and this hasn’t been a problem.  Mr. Manno asked if the new building would be used for storage purposes.  Ms. Hunt stated that it would be used for archives, processing, and display.  She added that there would be a meeting room used for display and special events.  Mr. Manno questioned if there would be added traffic.  Ms. Hunt stated that there could be some pre-arranged events, and they do not expect more traffic on a daily basis.  Ms. Terry asked if the hours of operation would be different.  Anne Aubourg stated that the Historical Society has made a statement to the public that they would be open more hours with this expansion.  Mr. Gill stated that for the record he would like it noted that he has a running concern because of what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan in regards to protecting off-street parking in the downtown area.  He added that the BZBA sees projects that they want to affirm and if they keep affirming with zero parking they begin to lose all of the downtown parking.  He stated that at some point they have to draw a line.  

Flo Hoffman, 713 Friends Lane, stated she works at the historical society.  She stated that she has never had to go more than a block for parking.  Ms. Hoffman stated that there is sufficient parking behind Park National Bank.  Mr. Gill questioned what the Park National Bank guidelines are in regards to using the rear parking lot.  Ms. Hoffman stated that she has never been told that she cannot park back there.  Mr. Gill stated that authorizing a twelve car variance makes it harder to say no to future applicants for off street parking variances, but the BZBA is not a precedent setting board.  Ms. Terry stated that regarding the encroachment to the west on the property owned by the Village, the Historical Society did go to Council to get approval to encroach on that space.  She further explained that the property owned and operated by the Historical Society provides access to other properties owners in the rear area and because of this access there is no ability to provide parking on their property.  Ms. Terry stated that this in part is very neighborly of them to provide access to other properties.  Mr. Gill stated that this is helpful information for him in making his decision.  Ms. Terry explained that the Historical Society had a work session with the Planning Commission and they suggested shifting the addition to the west to get further away from the Park National Bank basement wall.  Mr. Gill asked if this shift was for structural reasons.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if the building moves closer to the right-of-way for the alley.  Mr. Hunt stated that the building is already located within the right-of-way.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the proposal to have the building two stories tall has been an issue.  Ms. Terry stated that there are other two story buildings in the same district.  Mr. Manno asked if the current building holds historical value.  Ms. Hoffman stated yes that the front of the building is historic and was built in 1815.  

Anne Aubourg, 526 West College, stated that they have given an easement to Park National Bank for part of the alley to use for their drive up window. She stated that they were being good neighbors to them and “they have been good neighbors to us.”  Ms. Aubourg stated that there are other possibilities for parking if some of the neighbors donate land for public parking.  Ms. Terry stated that additional parking in the rear has been discussed, but it was determined that there would only be a few spaces gained.  Ms. Terry stated that this application has not yet gone through the Planning Commission for architectural review and approval.   Mr. Gill noted that a Council member was present and he would welcome any clarification by Council in regards to the Comprehensive Plan’s charge to protect off street parking in the downtown area.  He stated that he would like to see his concerns on this matter addressed.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-54: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.      

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Manno and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed that the proposed variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated that the proposed variance is not substantial.    

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-54 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-54: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-54 is Approved.

Steve and Michelle Rivers, 445 West Maple Street, Application #2011-55

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of the following variances: 

1)         To increase the maximum cumulative size of accessory structures from 1,208 square feet, 0r 40% of the gross livable area of the principal structure to 2,025 square feet, or 67% to allow for the construction of a swimming pool and single story detached garage; and

2)         To increase the maximum size of an accessory structure from an 864 square foot footprint to a 1,425 square foot footprint to allow for the construction of a single story detached garage.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Steve Rivers were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)

Steve Rivers, 445 West Maple Street, stated that he would like to build a garage and add a pool and driveway.  Mr. Gill clarified that the proposed variance is not for lot coverage.  Ms. Terry stated that this is true and the variance is for the size of an accessory structure allowed on the property.  Ms. Terry stated that the pool is considered an accessory structure.  She explained that this is part of the cumulative size of accessory structures based on 40% of the gross livable area of the principal structure and an 864 square foot footprint.  Ms. Terry stated that this stipulation is in effect to keep someone from building a large detached garage that is larger than the front structure and to deal with massing.  Mr. Manno asked if the driveway affects lot coverage.  Ms. Terry stated not in this district (SRD). 

Mr. Ashbaugh questioned what the Code says regarding pools.  Ms. Terry stated that pools are allowed according to code.  Mr. Rivers explained that his lot levels out a little bit in the back of his house.  Mr. Manno asked what is located on the property to the west.  Mr. Rivers stated a two story brick house and then the condos.  Mr. Gill asked if the applicant has talked to his neighbors about his plans.  Mr. Rivers stated he has talked to the neighbors to the west and across the street.  Ms. Terry stated that she did not hear from any neighbors.  Mr. Manno clarified the size of the proposed garage.  Mr. Rivers stated that he was unsure if it would be 30' x 30' or 30' x 34'.  Ms. Terry stated that if the applicant enlarges the garage from what is proposed in the application today he would need another variance. Mr. Rivers stated that he would build the garage as proposed in the application – 30' x 30'.  Mr. Manno clarified that there would be a fence connecting back to the garage surrounding the swimming pool. Mr. Rivers stated yes. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-55:

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.      

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Manno and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed that the proposed variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated that the Variance is not substantial.    

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Gill stated FALSE.  Mr. Manno, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated TRUE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2011-55 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-55: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-55 is Approved.

Finding of Fact

Raymond and Marilyn McKenna, 5 Sunset Hill,  Application #2011-52

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 gives their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-52.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-52 are approved.  

Granville Historical Society, 115 East Broadway,  Application #2011-54

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1183, Off-street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-54.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-54 are approved.  

Steve and Michelle Rivers, 445 West Maple Street,  Application #2011-55

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-55.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-55 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith and Rob Montgomery from the BZBA meeting on June 9, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.    

Approval of the Minutes:

May 12, 2011

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes for May 12, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.     

Next Meeting:

July 14, 2011 (Mr. Gill stated that it is possible that he will not be able to attend this meeting.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he may not be able to vote on one of the applications because he would have to recuse himself.  Ms. Terry stated that Rob Montgomery indicated that he might not be able to attend this meeting.)

Tuesday
Jun052012

BZBA Minutes May 12, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

May 12, 2011

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Scott Manno, Fred Ashbaugh, Rob Montgomery, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Bradley Smith.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael King, Assistant Law Director.

Visitors: Nick & Melanie Schott, and Lawrence & Judith Howland 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not a public hearings.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)        The applicant;

(2)        The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3)        The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4)        Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)        Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)        Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3)        Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4)        Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)        Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board. 

New Business:

Nick and Melanie Schott, 660 West Broadway, Application #2011-42

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required frontage to a right-of-way from sixty-five (65') feet to zero (0') feet to allow for a lot split.  The applicant will be providing a full driveway access easement to this property as a part of the variance and lot split approval.

 (Alison Terry and Nick & Melanie Schott were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that he has been a resident of Granville for 14 years and that he is the owner of the property adjacent to his residence at 660 West Broadway, which is 664 West Broadway, also known as the Broadway Guest House. Mr. Schott is proposing a lot split that would result in 2 half-acre lots by way of a permanent driveway easement. Mr. Gill asked for clarification on how a permanent easement was defined. Mr. Schott replied that a sample easement was included in the submittal information. Mr. Schott went on to say that they are seeking to split the existing lot; sell the front house (which is their current residence), and would like to build a new residence on the rear lot. The new residence would be compatible in size, scale and character with the neighborhood. Mr. Schott noted that   a landscape mound with evergreen screening would be included in the plan and would be located between the two properties that would be split. Mr. Schott relayed the fact that he had spoken to all of his neighbors and had received no opposing opinions. He further stated that he had been in contact with the Villages’ sewer and water providers and had received favorable feedback from them as to the ability to provide service to the new structure. Mr. Montgomery asked whether the access to the property at 664 West Broadway would be shared with the front lot (660 West Broadway). Mrs. Schott explained the history of the three adjoining lots. Mr. Montgomery asked about ownership of the easement and who would be party to it. Mr. Schott explained that the easement would be between the Granville Guest House and the resulting rear lot, both of which they would own and therefore the easement would be held by just themselves. Mr. Manno posed the question as to whether or not allowing this lot split would encourage other similar lot splits throughout the Village? Mrs. Schott explained that there are other similar situations in the neighborhood as it exists now. Mr. Schott went on to explain the topography of the lot, described how the new house would be sited on the lot, and why the lot split would work. Mr. Ashbaugh inquired as to what the two lot lines illustrated on the site plan represented. Mr. Schott explained that the actual future lot split line would be located approximately in between the two illustrated lines and that the new house would sit back on top of the hill. Mr. King indicated that there were no legal issues with the split, as long as there is an access easement.  He also reminded the Board that their decisions were not precedent setting and that all other future applications would be reviewed on a case by case basis. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-42: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance IS substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.   

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.    

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-42 as presented by the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Mannos. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-42: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (ABSENT), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2011-42 is approved. 

Mr. Ashbaugh recused himself from the review of Application #2011-43 and was seated in the audience at approximately 7:28 p.m. 

Lawrence and Judith Howland, 129 North Pearl Street, Application #2011-43

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

The request is for a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to seventy-two (72%) percent to allow for the construction of a ten (10') foot by ten (10') foot concrete patio on the southern side of the home. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Lawrence & Judith Howland were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Lawrence Howland, 129 North Pearl Street, stated that the photos included in the submittal materials illustrate the situation at hand - the repair of the existing deteriorated sidewalk and installation of a 10 by 10 seating area. Mr. Gill asked Mr. Howland whether or not he had spoken to the neighbor to the south regarding the proposal and identified Mr. Ashbaugh as the neighbor to the south. Ms. Terry offered that replacement walk and new patio had already gone before the Planning Commission and had received approval. Mr. Montgomery inquired as to the existing total lot coverage and the size of the lot. Ms. Terry stated that the lot was approximately 60’ by 55’, that the coverage was currently 69%, and that the lot was the result of a larger lot split some time ago resulting in the higher existing lot coverage figure.  Mr. Gill suggested moving on to the criteria for approval.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-43: 

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.  The BZBA members voted; Mr. Montgomery (FALSE), Mr. Gill (FALSE), Mr. Manno (TRUE).       

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance IS substantial.  

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The members of the BZBA voted; Mr. Montgomery (FALSE), Mr. Manno (TRUE), Mr. Gill (TRUE), Mr. Ashbaugh (recused). 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are NO special conditions.   

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2011-43 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-43: Smith (absent), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (recused), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-43 is Approved. 

Mr. Ashbaugh returned at approximately 7:43 p.m. 

Finding of Fact

Nick and Melanie Schott , 660 West Broadway,  Application #2011-42

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 gives their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-42. Seconded by  Mr.Gill. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Smith (absent), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-42 are approved.  

Lawrence and Judith Howland, 129 North Pearl Street,  Application #2011-43

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Montgomery moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-43.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Smith (absent), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (recused).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-43 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith from the BZBA meeting on May12, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.     

Approval of the Minutes

April 14, 2010

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.     

Next Meeting:

June 9, 2011