Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Wednesday
Dec182013

BZBA Minutes December 12, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

December 12, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Neal Zimmers, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: E.J. Meade, Tim Klingler, and Alisa Jones.    

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill 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 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.

 

Swearing in of New BZBA Board Member:

Neal Zimmers was sworn in as a member to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals by Law Director King. 

 

New Business:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, Application #2013-151

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a fence from six (6’) feet to eight (8’) feet to allow for the construction of two (2) eight (8’) foot arbor structures with gates. 

 

(Debi Walker and Tim Klingler were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, indicated he is proposing two solid steel rebar posts with arches.  Mr. Klingler stated the proposed structure would not be visible by someone passing by.  He explained the idea is to have hedging encompass the arches so one wouldn’t even know they were there.  Mr. Klingler stated the proposed door would not have glass, but there would be an opening.  He also stated the door would not go to the top of the arch.  Ms. Walker stated the variance would approve the structure in its entirety with the door and the arches.  Mr. Burge asked what is currently in place?  Mr. Klingler stated nothing.  Mr. Smith asked if this is essentially an enclosed garden?  Mr. Klingler stated yes. Mr. Burge asked if any of the neighbors’ have commented on the application.  Ms. Walker stated no.       

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-151:

 

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. Gill, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Kemper agreed TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated the applicant is requesting an eight (8’) foot fence, 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.  Mr. Smith stated the nature of the property with privacy is different than surrounding properties with the parking lot surrounding the home. 

 

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 there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2013-151 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-151: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-151 is Approved as Presented.

 

E.J. Meade, Arch 11, Inc., 445 Burg Street, Application #2013-159

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval to reduce the required northern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to four-feet-six-inches (4’6”) to allow for the construction of a single-story addition that totals fifty square feet. 

 

(Debi Walker, E.J. Meade, and Alisa Jones  were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

E.J. Meade, Arch 11, Inc., 1820 Mapleton Avenue, Boulder, Colorado, indicated he is representing his client who serves on a board for Denison University and visits the community often.    He stated the house has been neglected and is currently considered a non-conforming use with a second dwelling.  Mr. Meade stated his client is planning a full restoration of the exterior and getting rid of the second dwelling to make it a single family residential use.  Mr. Meade stated they would be taking plaster down and going to the studs.  He explained they discovered a small addition from the 1970s on the north side of the home that sits within the setback.  There is a small addition proposed.  Mr. Meade stated this is on a very steep side of the property and they hope to fix the foundation.  Mr. Meade stated they are proposing removal of the addition in the rear and half of this is non-conforming.  He stated tearing this down is what triggered their need for a variance.  Mr. Meade provided Photoshop renderings of the impact there would be for neighboring homes.  He stated a compressor would be removed and placed in the rear of the home so it is not bothersome to neighbors.  Mr. Gill asked about the addition of an additional four feet.  Mr. Meade explained this would have multiple windows and there would be a cantilever. 

 

Alisa Jones, 439 Burg Street, stated her property is next door going down the hill on Burg Street.  She stated she had concerns over proposed changes to the parking area.  Ms. Jones stated the water from the current parking area drains onto her property and has caused her flooding problems.  Mr. Meade stated all of the drainage on the house would be fixed.  He stated they could introduce a curb and he would be willing to share the civil engineering information with Ms. Jones.  Mr. Meade stated he highly suspects the proposed changes would alleviate water issues for Ms. Jones.  He stated his client wants to be a good neighbor and they will work to ensure water is not drained onto her property.  Mr. Meade stated they are proposing a permeable paving surface.  Mr. Kemper stated storm water runoff would be addressed as part of the approval process.  Ms. Walker agreed.  Mr. Smith asked if the gable roof has a downspout?  Mr. Meade stated yes and it would remain in place so water goes down the hill.   

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-159:

 

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. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated to build addition would trigger the need for a variance.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Zimmers 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 #2013-159 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-159: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-159 is Approved as Presented.

 

Finding of Fact:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street,  Application #2013-151

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 #2013-151.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-151 are approved. 

 

E.J. Meade, Arch 11, Inc., 445 Burg Street,  Application #2013-159

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 #2013-159.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-159 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Schedule November 14, 2014:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the presented BZBA 2014 meeting schedule.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (abstain), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for November 12, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (abstain), Smith (abstain), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Motion carried 5-0.  

The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM.   

Next Meetings:

January 12, 2014

February 12, 2014

Wednesday
Nov202013

BZBA Minutes November 14, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

November 14, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith (one position is currently vacant).

 

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

 

Visitors: Robert E. Boydoh, Pat Taylor and Judy Preston.  

 

Description of Procedure:

 

Mr. Gill 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 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:

Robert E. Boydoh, 2667 James Road, Application #2013-138

Open Space District (OSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for review and approval of an area variance to two-point-zero-eight-five (2.085) acres. 

 

(Alison Terry, Robert E. Boydoh, and Pat Taylor were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Robert E. Boydoh, 2513 James Road, indicated he received a letter from Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, on May 3rd regarding his request for a potential new home.  Mr. Boydoh stated this letter indicated that Ms. Terry had reviewed the code and she did not find anything with the development standards section of the code, under minimum lot area, which would prohibit him from building a new home.  Mr. Boydoh stated he is owns a parcel in the back plus the two acre parcel in the front.  Mr. Boydoh indicated he plans to live on the front property once he constructs a house.  He went on to say the back acreage would be used to put together an area for disadvantaged people in Licking County.  He stated it would be “a place for people to fish and spend the night in a loving environment.”  Mr. Boydoh stated he will have a private home at the front of James Road and he would be managing the property behind him.  He also stated the house planned for this area fits within the guidelines and setbacks of the Village 100%. 

 

Ms. Terry explained the request is for an area variance.  Mr. Boydoh stated he feels his request is appropriate when compared to the surroundings and it should increase the values of the surrounding properties.  He added his plans do not conflict with anything around it.  Mr. Gill asked if it occurred to the property owner to divide the property so the front would be five acres and then there would be no variance required.  Mr. Boydoh stated yes and he had a soil analysis done which indicted this was the best way to provide safe sanitary sewer.  He went on to say the property could be broken up in different ways with four parcels, but this was the best way.  Mr. Boydoh stated he had independent people and the Licking County Health Department complete this research.  He stated he has approval for water and sewer in the front. 

 

Ms. Terry stated when they looked at splitting anything from the back property there is an existing house and garage which would be required to obtain variances because those existing structures would be located too close to the western and southern property lines.  Once you split the lot it would be required to come into conformity and at least three variances would be required.  Mr. Gill stated it appears Mr. Boydoh’s request as presented would require the least amount of variances.  Mr. Gill agreed the code is complicated when it comes to analyzing and interpreting this request. 

 

Law Director King stated initially when Ms. Terry reviewed the request she looked at the development standards in Section 1165.03 and the only restriction is the five acre minimum lot size, which is limited to farm dwellings or accessory farm buildings.  He explained an initial review showed Mr. Boydoh was good to go, but when looking at statute 1165 as a whole, referring to use for a single family residence – this provision provides the parcel cannot be less than five acres for a single family residence.  Law Director King stated the five acre minimum should not have been stated in the Permitted Uses Section of the Code, it should have been clearly delineated in the Development Standards which regulates the minimum lot size.  He went on to say that Mr. Boydoh reviewed these development standards in the code to get a clear answer and unfortunately information is incorrect.  Mr. King also stated the Open Space District regulations were drafted sometime before the 1990’s and have not been updated since.  He stated Mr. Boydoh had no way of knowing this because the minimum lot size information was located in the wrong section of the code.  Law Director King stated the Village Staff will be recommending an amendment to this Code Section to the Village Council.  The amendment to the code should clarify the lot size restriction in the Open Space District.  Law Director King stated this area of James Road was annexed into the Village in 2007 and placed in the Open Space District zoning classification at that time.  Ms. Terry stated this was just prior to her position as the Village Planner and she believes this zoning classification was selected because the Village wasn't planning on providing public water and sewer to this area. The Open Space District has the largest lot size within the Village Code which doesn't require public water and sewer.  Ms. Terry stated the designation of Open Space District was also more in keeping with the zoning in the Township at that time.  Law Director King stated that if this application were to be considered a use variance it could not be considered by the BZBA – use variances are no longer permitted in Ohio.  He explained use variances have different standards than area variances and this particular request should be analyzed under an area variance standard, because it's really dealing with the minimum lot size not the use of the property.  Mr. Burge stated most of the lots in this area do not meet the five-acre rule. 

 

Ms. Terry stated when she did prepared her Staff Report she indicated this property is located where there are other much smaller lots, with existing homes, in close proximity.  Ms. Terry stated the request would be in compliance with the normal development standards of the Code, meets all setback requirements and the property owner is proposing the construction of a single-family home footprint of 2,163 square feet within a 38,00 square foot buildable area.  Ms. Terry stated staff is recommending approval of this variance for construction of a single family home because it would be in keeping with the overall character of the general area.  Ms. Terry stated she received information from the Licking County Health Department and they determined there is enough area on the site for a well and septic system.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-138:

 

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 BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

            The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE, 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.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated that the property owner had reviewed the development standards in the code related to minimum lot size and those regulations did not require a five-acre minimum lot size for single family residential.     

 

(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. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2013-138 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-138: Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2013-138 is Approved as Presented.

 

Pat Taylor, James Road, asked "will this always be the policy that if you don't live next to it, you can't say anything about it?

 

Mr. Gill indicated the BZBA is required to only hear testimony from parties of interest, that they can't have testimony from someone who has a community interest.  He indicated Ms. Taylor can go to the Council to express her concerns when the Village looks at modifications to this Chapter to address the inconsistency of the two sections.  That would be an appropriate time for her to voice her objections.

 

Judy Preston, asked "would you consider it a direct interest if allowing this to happen impacts zoning in other areas of the Open Space District"?

 

Ms. Terry indicated that would be viewed as a community interest.  Mrs. Taylor asked if Mr. Boydoh wants to split the other parcel in the future would that be allowed.  Ms. Terry indicated that would be splitting the lot versus an existing lot of record and would be held to a much higher standard by the BZBA.  She indicated it most likely would not be granted a variance.

 

Ms. Terry stated the Village Staff will be working on a proposed zoning code change which would be reviewed by the Village Council.  Mr. Gill encouraged Ms. Taylor to attend those Council meetings to voice her concerns, as they are the only authority able to make zoning code changes.  Ms. Terry stated she would contact Ms. Taylor about the timing of a zoning code amendment before the Village Council.   

 

Finding of Fact

Robert E. Boydoh, 2667 James Road,  Application #2013-138

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

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-138.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-138 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Brad Smith from the BZBA meeting on November 14, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Ms. Terry stated Neal Zimmers name has been submitted to Village Council as a potential person to fill the vacancy on the BZBA. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for October 30, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

December 12, 2013

Thursday
Oct312013

BZBA Minutes October 30, 2013 Rescheduled Meeting

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

Rescheduled from October 10, 2013

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

 7:30 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith and Kenneth Kemper

 

Also Present: Debi Walker; Village Planning Department.

 

Visitors: Deborah Barber.  

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is 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:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2013-122

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback along the southern property line from twelve (12’) feet to six (6’) feet to allow for the relocation of an existing detached accessory structure. 

 

(Debi Walker and Deborah Barber were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, indicated she would like to move a detached accessory structure to the back part of her yard.  She indicated she would like to move this because she is planning on putting an addition on the back of her home.  Mr. Gill asked if any other area was considered that would not require a variance.  Ms. Barber stated yes, but ultimately she and the neighbors agree this is the best location.  Ms. Barber stated she would be encroaching on Shelly and Russ Ringler’s property and they are in full support of her request for a variance.  She added that Mr. Ringler suggested the proposed location.  Ms. Barber stated she and the neighboring property owner would be combining efforts on a landscaping plan that benefits both properties.  Mr. Gill thanked Ms. Barber for her presentation.  He added the BZBA is unable to consider the comments regarding the neighbor’s being for or against the location of the accessory structure since they are not present to testify.  Mr. Manno asked if approval for the shed came before the BZBA before.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant does have a previous variance on file for the present location.  Ms. Barber explained she needed to seek a variance for the existing location because the contractor built the shed in the wrong place previously.  Mr. Burge asked if it would be just as easy for the applicant to locate the shed within the setback.  Ms. Barber stated yes, but her view would be obstructed when the new addition goes on and she would lose too much yard space.  Ms. Barber thanked the BZBA for scheduling a special meeting to hear her application.    

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-122:

 

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 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.  Mr. Gill stated this is a long narrow lot. 

 

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2013-122 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-122: Gill (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2013-66 is approved as presented.

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street,  Application #2013-122

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. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-122.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-122 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Ken Kemper and Brad Smith from the BZBA meeting on October 30, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.   

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for September 12, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

November 14, 2013

December 12, 2013

Wednesday
Oct022013

BZBA Minutes September 12, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

September 12, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:   Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

 

Visitors: Bob Gravitt, Mark Clapsadle, and Mr. and Mrs. Zander.    

 

Description of Procedure:

 

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is 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:

Bob and Cris Gravitt, 205 South Pearl Street, Application #2013-112

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

1)                  To reduce the front yard setback from East Elm Street from eighteen-point-six-three (18.63’) feet (calculated average of block setback) to four-point-two-five (4.25’) feet; and

2)                   To reduce the front yard setback from South Pearl Street from six-point-three-five (6.35’) feet (calculated average of block setback) to nine-point-five (9.5”) inches to allow for the construction of a new porch on the north and east facades.

 

(Debi Walker, Mark Clapsadle, and Bob Gravitt were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated he is representing the property owners, Bob and Cris Gravitt, for the property located at 205 South Pearl Street.  The applicants are proposing the demolition of two porches and the creation of a new wrap around porch along South Pearl Street and East Elm Street. 

 

Mr.Gill and Mr. Manno questioned whether the BZBA was looking at correct numbers for the variance request.  On the east side of Pearl Street the proposed reduction is from 6.35 feet to nine inches.  Alison did the math according to a new computer program, calculating the aggregated setback on the Pearl Street side.  The new porch would be nine inches off of that line, while the current porch is a foot and a half off the line.  Staff measured the entire block. 

 

Mr. Manno the setback would be 2.8 and we are doing averages along both Pearl Street and Elm Street, because there are two front yards, correct.  Staff indicated this was correct.  The Village Staff has heard no concerns from the adjoining neighbors.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-112:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Manno stated every home on this block has the same issue and no other property is any different. 

 

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: TRUE.

 

(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. Burgess stated TRUE.  Mr. Manno, Mr. Kemper, 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. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2013-112 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-112:  Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-112 is Approved as Presented.

 

 

 

Finding of Fact

Bob and Cris Gravitt, 205 South Pearl Street,  Application #2013-112

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. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-112.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-112 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Brad Smith from the BZBA meeting on September 12, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.    

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for August 8, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 4-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM.     

Next Meeting:

October 10, 2013 (Mr. Burge indicated he may not be able to attend this meeting)

November 14, 2013

December 12, 2013

 

Thursday
Sep192013

BZBA Minutes August 8, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

August 8, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Larry Burge, Jeff Gill, Kenneth Kemper, and Scott Manno.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Assistant

 

Visitors: Eric Rosenberg  

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

 

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is 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:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, Application #2013-91

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty-five (25’) feet to allow for the construction of a sunroom addition and decks on the front and rear of the home.

 

(Debi Walker and Eric Rosenberg were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

 

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, presented his request to have a front yard setback variance along North Pearl Street to allow for the construction of a new sunroom addition and new deck on the eastern side of the house which fronts North Pearl Street.

 

Ms. Walker gave a brief PowerPoint presentation illustrating the property location, proposed sunroom and deck additions, and gave Staffs recommendation regarding the requested variance. Staff feels that the lot size, siting of the home and topography of the lot creates circumstances which would be very difficult to overcome without the benefit of a variance for any new construction.

 

Mr. Manno asked if there had been any communication from neighbor, Mr. Zink (343 North Pearl Street.   Ms. Walker indicated there had been no contact from Mr. Zink regarding the request. Mr. Gill asked the Board members if there were any further questions, and having none, moved on to the Chapter 1147 Variance Criteria.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-91:

 

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. All present BZBA members agreed TRUE. The challenging topography, siting of the home and lot size create conditions that create a physical hardship for any construction on the site.

 

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. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE the property would generally yield a reasonable return.

 

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE there would NOT be any beneficial use of the property if the code required setbacks were followed and there would be no opportunity for additional livable space.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial given that there is no impinging on other neighbors or structures.

 

(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.  All present BZBA members unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage. All present BZBA members unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA members present unanimously agreed FALSE stating there could be no real additions made to the house without variances being allowed.

 

(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 BZBA member in attendance 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 there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2013-91 as presented.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-91 as presented: Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (absent), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-91 was approved.

 

Finding of Fact

 

Eric Rosenberg, 401 North Pearl Street, Application #2013-91

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District (SRD-A), and hereby give their approval of Application #2013-91 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-91.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll call vote: Manno (yes), Smith (absent), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-91 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Mr. Smith from the August 8, 2013 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for July 11, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:11 pm.    

 

Next Meeting:

September 12, 2013

October 10, 2013

 

__