Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Friday
Dec122014

BZBA Minutes November 12, 2014

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

November 13, 2014

 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, Neal Zimmers and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith, Vice Chair.

 

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

 

Visitors: April & Skip Shaw, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Eriech Horvath, Keith Eschbaugh, Julio Valenzuela, Joe & DeMaris Rosato, Steve Mershon and Barbara Franks.

 

Mrs. Goumas requested the Agenda be modified to allow her application to be heard prior to Old Business, as she had a scheduling conflict and needed to leave the hearing early.  The Board agreed by consensus and the Mr. Gill so ordered.

 

226 East Broadway, Suite C – Keith Eschbaugh; Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn  - Application #2014-165  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for a retail use from four (4) parking spaces to two (2) parking spaces.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Keith Eschbaugh.

 

Discussion:

Keith Eschbaugh, 226 East Broadway, Suite C, stated that the building housing the business of Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn is part of a multi-use building which also houses Goumas’ Confections.  Currently, Goumas has the use of six (6) of the eight (8) off-street parking spaces.  This only leaves two (2) spaces remaining for the new business.  Planner Terry confirmed the parking facts and Staff recommended approval of the request. 

 

Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

a)         The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:         

 

1.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved, and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

                        which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

                                                             

 

2.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

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

 

(a)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (b)       Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(c)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(d)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (e)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

(f)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(g)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

3.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

4.         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 Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

5.         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.

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2014-165 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-165:  Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Absent), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

 

2929 Milner Road, Lot #4 – Kenneth J. Ayers - Application #2014-122 

The property is located within Granville Township, however the right-of-way and access to the property is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Granville.  The request is for an appeal of the denial of a zoning permit application for the following:

1)         To remove the requirement that Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road and Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road share a common access drive; and

2)         To establish a new driveway access for Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, April & Skip Shaw, Steve Mershon and Bryon Reed

 

Discussion:

Law director King asked if the application had been continued or tabled from the last meeting.  Review of the minutes of the last meeting confirmed that the application had been tabled.

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to remove Application #2014-122 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to remove Application #2014-122 from the Table:  Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Absent), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Mershon, 404 East College Street, stated he was representing April and Skip Shaw and Kenneth Ayers.  Discussion was held regarding the decision reached by the Planning Commission in 2004 to limit the number of driveways fronting Milner Road.  The Planning Commission decision from 2004 centered on M.S. Consultant’s traffic study which recommended combining driveways when feasible and that there had been insufficient evidence to show that it was not feasible to do so.  Mr. Mershon discussed whether or not seven (7) access points were better than five (5) access points, citing stop distance and safety issues.  He stated that though the Village had preferred fewer accesses, circumstances had changed and the original driveway is neither practical nor feasible. Also mentioned was that Lot #3’s access has been modified since the original 2004 approval.  Mr. Mershon cited the large utility pedestal as an impediment to the shared driveway location, which sits at the edge of the property and serves the entire neighborhood.  He stated that the Shaw’s feel that sharing a drive is not feasible economically. 

 

Mr. Gill stated that the staff had previously found that fewer driveways were better than more and he could see no clear reason to overturn the Planning Commission or Village Staff’s decision. Mr. Mershon replied that the drive was neither safe nor feasible where it is currently located. Mr. Gill suggested leaving the discussion of the undeveloped lot to another day.  Mr. Mershon then stated that driving across the front of the property (as with a shared drive) would lower the property value. The Board was reluctant to violate codes.  Mr. Mershon then stated that feasible or practical issues despite the non-compliance to code could warrant a variance to be granted by the Board.  Mr. Gill asked what happens if the driveway is moved?

 

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Terra Nova Homes, testified about the safety issues for a flared driveway and provided pictorial examples.  He stated that Mr. Ayers, who owns the undeveloped Lot 4, does not want to put in a driveway on his property.  

 

Mr. Gill said that if an allowance is made for this lot, it will set a precedent for Lot #4.  He stated that the original plan called for fewer driveways.  Mr. Reed pointed out there is no other situation like this in the Village.  Mr. Mershon argued that the plan was to combine accesses when feasible and that due to safety issues this is no longer feasible. 

 

Mr. Zimmers asked if Mr. Mershon represents Mr. Ayers and the proposal is to approve a driveway for Lot #5 only then where would Lot 4 place their access.  Mr. King brought forth a copy of variance 1196.09 which reviewed criteria under part B that stated the accesses shall be combined when feasible.  Specific criteria allows for variances.  The words infeasible and impractical are interchangeably used.  Mr. Gill asked what it would take to grant a variance for access.  Mr. King replied that there could be the possibility of a variance rather than an appeal.  Mr. Mershon was asked if he would agree to a motion to amend the application to a variance application rather than the appeal.  Mr. Mershon agreed to this modification on behalf of both of his clients. 

 

The panel discussed their options briefly.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-122.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-122: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

2979 Milner Road, Lot #5 – Skip & April Shaw - Application #2014-123 

The property is located within Granville Township, however the right-of-way and access to the property is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Granville.  The request is for an appeal of the denial of a zoning permit application for the following:

1)         To remove the requirement that Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road and Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road share a common access drive; and

2)         To establish a new driveway access for Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, April & Skip Shaw and Bryon Reed

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to remove Application #2014-123 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to remove Application #2014-123 from the Table:  Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Discussion:

See discussion above under Application #2014-123.  The same testimony was given for both applications.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-123.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-123: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

New Business:

 

1239 Cherry Valley Road  – Eriech Horvath; Buckeye Property Holding Group - Application #2014-152  The property is zoned Planned Commercial District.  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from eight (8) parking spaces to five (5) parking spaces;

2.         To reduce the size of required parking spaces from ten (10’) feet in width to nine feet three inches (9’3”) in width for three parking spaces and from ten (10’) feet in width to eight feet nine inches (8’9”) in width for two parking spaces.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Eriech Horvath.

 

Discussion:

Eriech Horvath, 1239 Cherry Valley Road, stated the property was purchased but then it was found that extra parking spaces were required.  The staff of the business would be out on site 85% of the time, two to three people would be in the office approximately 15% of the time.  Planner Terry indicated that within the Planned Commercial District no additional parking was allowed in front of structures.  Further, the house sets close enough to both side property lines that there would be no way to provide parking to the rear of the structure, unless a portion of the structure were demolished to provide access.  Also, the septic system for the structure is located somewhere in the rear yard and could interfere with additional parking.  She stated based on these variables, the anticipated number of employees and hours proposed that staff was recommending approval of the variance. 

 

Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

a)         The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:         

 

1.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved, and Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.                                                                 

                        which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.   

                                                             

2.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

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

 

(a)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

 (b)       Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Burger stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(c)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(d)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (e)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated FALSE; Mr. Gill stated TRUE.

 

(f)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(g)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

3.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

4.         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 Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

5.         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.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-152.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-152: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

203 East College Street, Suite A – Julio Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC - Application #2014-166  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces, as established by the Planning Commission at their October 14th hearing, for a fitness use from three (3) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, Julio Valenzuela and Mr. Rosato.

 

Discussion:

Julio Valenzuela, 140 Pembroke Lane, stated that this business would operate throughout the day and evening, with many classes and that approximately 75% of the clients would be from foot traffic. 

 

Planner Terry stated that fitness use parking requirements are not specified in the code, but instead are determined by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission ruled that three spaces should be required for this use and that the two previous grandfathered parking spaces, from the previous use, should not apply. 

 

Mr. Rosato, 217 E College Street, said that as a neighboring resident the parking in this area was already tight.  Mr. Rosato’s property has room for only a single car in the driveway and he and his wife depend on street parking as does anyone who may visit them.  He asked for consideration from Mr. Valenzuela and that he wanted to go on record to say parking is an issue for him.  Mr. Gill suggested that such problems do come with Village life but that perhaps Mr. Valenzuela could suggest his patron’s park farther away or walk.  Mr. Zimmers observed that there were fewer cars in the past and now there are major changes to the numbers of cars and people.  The panel agreed that parking is always a problem downtown.

 

Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

a)         The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:         

 

1.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved, and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.                                                              

                        which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

                                                             

2.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

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

 

(a)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

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

 

 (b)       Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(c)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

(d)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (e)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated TRUE; Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

 

(f)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 

(g)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

3.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

4.         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 Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

5.         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. 

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-166.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-166: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Kenneth J. Ayers, 2929 Milner Road, Lot #4, Application #2014-122-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consisted with Chapter 1196, Access Management Plan Guidelines and Standards and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-122 as submitted.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-122. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Zimmers (Yes), Kemper (Yes), and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Skip & April Shaw, 2979 Milner Road, Lot #5, Application #2014-123-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consisted with Chapter 1196, Access Management Plan Guidelines and Standards and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-123 as submitted.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-123. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Zimmers (Yes), Kemper (Yes), and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Eriech Horvath; Buckeye Property Holding Group, 1239 Cherry Valley Road, Application #2014-152- Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals finds the request to be consistent with Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-152, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-152. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Keith Eschbaugh; Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn, Application #2014-165- Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals finds the request to be consistent with Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-165, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-165. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Abstain), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Julio Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC, 203 East College Street, Suite A, Application #2014-166- Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals finds the request to be consistent with Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-166, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-166. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse member's absence:  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  All members voted by voice in favor. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for October 9, 2014. Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  All members voted by voice in favor. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:27 PM.

 

Next Meetings:

December 11, 2014

January 8, 2015

Friday
Nov072014

BZBA Minutes October 9, 2014

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

October 9, 2014

7:00pm

 

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

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith.

 

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

 

Visitors: Bruce Westall, Lisa Westall, Joe Galano, Scott Kennedy, John Noblick, Rochelle Steinberg, Jules Steinberg, Julio Valenzuela, Kenneth Ayers, Skip Shaw, April Shaw and Bryon Reed.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

As no one appeared to speak, Chair Gill closed Citizen’s Comments.

 

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:

 

Application #2014-144, Bruce & Lisa Westall, 315 South Pearl Street

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

This request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the northern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to three (3’) feet to allow for the construction of a new single family home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, Bruce Westall and Lisa Westall. 

 

Discussion:

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street, indicated that he wanted to create a new lot to build a new home.  The topographic features of the lot were requiring that the house be moved seven (7’) feet on the lot, to within three (3’) feet of the northern side yard setback, which caused the need for a variance. 

 

Planner Terry advised that a portion of the garage would encroach on the setback causing the request for a variance.  The variance would enable the homeowner to access their garage entrance more easily because of the placement on the lot of the driveway.  Member Burge asked if there were any concerns expressed by the neighbors.  Planner Terry advised that there were no concerns expressed.

 

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

                                                                                                                                               

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0 due to the topography.

and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

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.  Board member Kemper stated TRUE, while the other three Board members stated FALSE 1-3.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(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 Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.  

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.   All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.   All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

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, All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

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. 

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2014-144 as presented.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-144: Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes) and Zimmers (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2014-144 was approved.

 

Application #2014-120,  Joe Galano, 317 West Broadway

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

  1. To reduce the southern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to six (6’) feet; and
  2. To reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five (5’) feet.

The variances are being requested to allow for the construction of a two-story addition to the existing detached garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Joe Galano. 

 

Discussion:

Joe Galano, 317 West Broadway, indicated that he received approval for a larger addition to his garage, but let that approval expire.  He now wants to increase his proposed garage from a three-car garage to a four-car garage.   Planner Terry reported that this change would result in a reduction of the southern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to six (6’) and the eastern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five (5’) feet.

 

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

                                                                                                                                               

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

 

            and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

 

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. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(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 Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.   All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.   All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Board member Burge stated TRUE.  All other Board members 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, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,

All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,

All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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. 

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2014-120 as presented.  Second by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-120: Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2014-120 was approved.

 

Application #2014-121, John Noblick, on behalf of Scott Kennedy, 423 East College Street

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

This request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to zero point four seven (0.47’) feet to allow for the construction of a two-story addition on the eastern side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, Scott Kennedy, John Noblick, Rochelle Steinberg and Jules Steinberg.

 

Discussion:

 

John Noblick, 12037 Bolen Road, Newark, OH, indicated that the project would be to add a drain behind the existing garage, raise the grade in the garage, extend the back of the garage and add a second floor to match the symmetry of the other side of the house.   The homeowner has advised the neighbors of his plans.  Mr. Noblick indicated that CS Construction Company had a good reputation and would work to ensure that the Steinberg’s driveway and yard would be kept clean and undamaged.  But should damage be caused, any damage would be repaired.

 

Rochelle Steinberg, 425 East College Street, advised that she was the adjoining neighbor.  She indicated that Mr. Kennedy had approached them and explained the project, but they had not approved of the project.  The second floor addition would block the light in their den.  The addition was also too large when compared to the other homes in the area and alters the scale of the homes in the area.  She was also concerned about the construction workers using her driveway as an access point to the neighbor’s backyard and cause damage to the driveway.  She asked that the BZBA not approve the second floor addition as it would restrict the light to their den and alter the scale of homes in the area.

 

Jules Steinburg, 425 East College Street, expressed concern that he would lose the use of his garage and driveway during construction.  He also felt his property value would be reduced because the second floor addition would obstruct light to their second floor causing their house to be dark.

 

Scott Kennedy, 423 East College Street, stated that he spoken with the Steinberg’s prior to the meeting and was under the impression they were in favor of the project.  Mr. Kennedy felt the reduction of light would be minimal as there were large trees which currently diffused the light.  The whole project originated to eliminate the water run-off from the neighbor’s property that ponded behind his garage.  Once the project design began, his family decided they could add additional space to the house on the second floor as part of the project.  The second floor addition was to add symmetry to the house.  The addition would match other homes in the area.  The contractor was not intending to use the Steinberg’s driveway as an access point.

 

Mr. Zimmers indicated that the Board should take into consideration access to Mr. Kennedy’s property.  He recommended that Mr. Kennedy table his application and hold further discussions to resolve the concerns expressed by the Steinberg’s.

 

Mr. Burge moved to go into Executive Session.  Second by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote to go into Executive Session:  Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Went into Executive Session 7:50pm.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to return from Executive Session.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to come out of Executive Session: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes) and Kemper (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Came out of Executive Session 8:03pm.

 

Mr. Zimmer suggested to the applicant that he should address the use of the driveway and how access would be managed as well as developing an indemnification plan.  Mr. Burge advised that the lighting issue also needed to be resolved.

 

Mr. Zimmer moved to table Application #2014-121.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to table Application #2014-121: Burge (no), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes) and Zimmers (yes).   Motion carried 3-1.  Application #2014-121 was tabled.

 

Application #2014-142, Julio Valenzuela, 130-142 North Prospect Street

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

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

  1. To increase the maximum number of canopy/awning signs on this zone lot from one (10) per zone lot to six (6) per zone lot;
  2. To increase the maximum number of projecting signs on this zone lot from one (1) per zone lot to three (3) per zone lot;
  3. To remove the requirement that canopy signs are limited to the valance face only and allow for attachment below the canopy valance and above the canopy valance for this zone lot;
  4. To increase the maximum allowable height for all projecting signs on this zone lot from fourteen (14’) feet to nineteen and one-half (19.5’) feet; and
  5. To increase the maximum allowable square footage for a building marker sign on this zone lot from six (6) square feet to twenty-one (21) square feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion:

 

Julio Valenzuela, 140 Pembroke Drive, spoke as the building owner.  He commented that he was in the process of renovating the structure.  The building would have multiple storefronts with offices on the second floor.  He was before the BZBA because according to Village code only one type of sign was permitted per building and he would need signage for multiple tenants.

 

Planner Terry indicated that this application was for multiple variances.  Planner Terry explained the variances being requested.

 

Mr. Burge asked if there were any issues expressed by other businesses.  Planner Terry indicated that she had not received any comments.

 

Mr. Burge asked the applicant the type of sign material being used.  Mr. Valenzuela indicated the sign construction would be of steel and acrylic.

 

Mr. Zimmers asked the type of tenants expected.  Mr. Valenzuela responded that the businesses would be similar to the previous uses including retail, restaurants on the first floor with office/business on the second floor.

 

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

                                                                                                                                               

  1.  That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: Board members Kemper, Gill and Zimmers stated FALSE.  Board member Burge stated TRUE that conditions were peculiar to the land.

 

            and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Board members Kemper, Burge and Zimmers stated TRUE that it was not applicable to other lands or structures.  Board member Gill stated 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. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0 in view of the other commercial buildings in the Village

 

(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 Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.   All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.   All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Board members Kemper, Gill and Burge stated TRUE.  Board member Zimmer 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, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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. 

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2014-142 as presented.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-142: Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Burge (yes).   Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2014-142 was approved.

 

 

 

 

Appeal Hearings

 

Application #2014-122, Kenneth J.Ayers, 2929 Milner Road

The property is located within Granville Township; however, the right-of-way and access to the property is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Granville.

This request is for an appeal of the denial of a zoning permit application for the following:

  1. To remove the requirements that Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road and Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road, share a common access drive;
  2. To establish a new driveway access for Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road.

 

Application #2014-123, Skip and April Shaw, on behalf of Kenneth J. Ayers, 2979 Milner Road

The property is located within Granville Township; however, the right-of-way and access to the property is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Granville.

This request is for an appeal of the denial of a zoning permit application for the following:

  1. To remove the requirements that Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road and Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road, share a common access drive;
  2. To establish a new driveway access for Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, Skip Shaw, April Shaw, Mia Law and Bryon Reed. 

 

Discussion:

 

Chair Gill asked Law Director King for a ruling on the standing of Skip and April Shaw and their ability to speak on this application as they were not the property owner, attorney or owner of the adjacent property.  Law Director King’s preliminary determination was that the Shaw’s could be heard based on Village Code 1139.05 (c) (4) stating that “any other person who claims a direct, present injury or prejudice to any personal or property right or interest that was prejudiced by the decision or order appealed from, or claims such injury or prejudice will occur if the application is approved or denied.” 

 

Mr. Zimmers disagreed with the Law Director stating that without the applicant or a legal representative of the applicant, there was no case to be heard as no one was present to make the appeal.

 

The Board determined that the Board would hear the appeal, but the Shaw’s will speak only on their own behalf.

 

Skip Shaw, 3744 Phillipps Road, stated that he wanted to submit an affidavit from Mr. Ayers that was notarized giving permission for the Shaw’s to speak on his behalf. Law Director King indicated the Board could not accept an affidavit in this instance. 

 

Mr. Shaw indicated it was his understanding that the driveway need only be shared within the right-of-way portion.  The driveways could then split and be private drives.  However, lot five has an electrical box that cannot be moved and therefore the homeowners would be forced to install a longer shared portion of the driveway.  Mr. Shaw also added that nowhere else in the Village were shared driveways required.

 

April Shaw, 3744 Phillipps Road, advised the Board that Mr. Ayers owned lots four and five at 2929 and 2979 Milner Road.  She indicated that she and her husband were in contract on lot five.  Mrs. Shaw stated that currently these two lots were platted for two homes with a shared driveway access point.  She indicated that the applications, which were denied by the Zoning Inspector, were to allow for two separate access points allowing each lot a private driveway access.  The original fifty-two acre property was subdivided into nine lots in 2004.  Seven of the nine lots were proposed to have vehicular access from Milner Road.  In 2004, when the lots were subdivided, it was mandated that four of the lots have shared driveways.  Mrs. Shaw indicated that during the 2004 review, Village Engineer, Doyle Clear, suggested these access points be limited for safety reasons, but there was no specific data provided that addressed the need for restricted access points.  She further stated that the Village also did not have an Access Management Plan at the time.  However, today the Village has an Access Management Plan that would permit single lot access points.  She stated hence the reason this request should be approved.  Additionally, Mrs. Shaw expressed concerns regarding potential problems with multiple users trying to turn into and exit from a shared driveway.  She expressed safety concerns for a shared driveway. 

 

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, was called as a witness by the Shaw’s.  Mr. Reed is the builder for the Shaw’s proposed home.  He stated that by requiring a shared drive, the Village was forcing two homeowners to create an intersection and thereby this becomes a safety hazard.

 

Planner Terry indicated that the restricted access points were approved by Village Council.  She added that reducing the access points, to limit the number of drives on the north and south side of Milner Drive, was done for safety concerns in the 2004 decision. 

 

Mia Law, 76 Wexford Drive, spoke as the President of the Homeowner’s Association which is an adjacent property owner.  She indicated that the Homeowner’s Association had no objection to allowing a change in the access points.

 

Law Director King advised the Board that the decision to restrict access points in 2004 probably met with safety standards at that time.  The Shaw’s request to allow additional access points would not necessarily be permitted under the Village’s current Access Management Plan based on code section 1196.04 (b) that states “Access for multiple properties shall be combined, where feasible.”   The Village Planner was directed by the code and denied the Shaw’s request as directed by this portion of the code. 

 

Mr. Zimmer moved to go into Executive Session.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to go into Executive Session:  Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Went into Executive Session at 8:32pm.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to return from Executive Session.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to come out of Executive Session: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes) and Kemper (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Came out of Executive Session 8:48pm.

 

Chair Gill stated that the Planner Terry’s decision to deny the Shaw’s original request was not a capricious decision.  The Village Code supported that decision.  However, there may be some question as to the feasibility of sustaining a single access point. 

 

Chair Gill left the meeting at 8:55pm.

 

Mr. Zimmers commented that he had concerns as to the Board’s legal ability to overturn a Village ordinance.  Law Director King advised that Village ordinances could not be disregarded.

 

Chair Gill returned to the meeting at 9:13pm.

 

Mr. Zimmer moved to continue the testimony at the call of the Chair.   Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to continue the testimony at the call of the Chair: Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes) and Zimmers (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

The Board asked the Law Director to review the possible options the Board had to rule on this issue.  The Board would then schedule determine whether an additional hearing needed to be held.

 

Finding of Fact

 

New Business:

Application #2014-144, Bruce & Lisa Westall, 315 South Pearl Street – Side Yard Variance

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. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-144 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burge.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-144:  Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-144 was approved as presented.

 

Application #2014-120, Joe Galano, 317 West Broadway – Side Yard and Rear Yard Variances

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 as presented.  Second by Mr. Zimmers.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-120:  Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-120 was approved as presented.

 

Application #2014-142, Julio Valenzuela, 130-142 North Prospect Street – Sign Variances

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-142 as presented.  Second by Mr. Zimmers.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-142:  Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-142 was approved as presented.

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith from the BZBA meeting on October 9, 2014.  Second by Mr. Burge.   Motion carried.   

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Zimmer made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for August 14, 2014.  Second by Mr. Kemper.   Motion carried.   

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Zimmer made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried.  The meeting adjourned at 9:49pm.   

 

Next Meeting:

November 13, 2014

December 11, 2014

 

Thursday
Aug282014

BZBA Minutes August 14, 2014

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

August 14, 2014

 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, Bradley Smith and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Neal Zimmers.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

 

Visitors: Deborah Barber and Jay Callandar  

 

New Business:

Deb Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2014-102

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a carport. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Debi Walker, Deborah Barber, Jay Callander and  

 

Discussion:

Ms. Barber, 420 North Granger Street, stated her intention is to add an addition to the rear of her home including a carport on the southern side. Posts for the carport will be closer to the southern property line than the required twelve (12’) feet; which is the reason for her variance request. Mr. Gill inquired if there had been any communications from neighbors regarding the request. Ms. Walker indicated there had been none. Mr. Smith asked whether the proposed carport is covering the existing driveway and if not, will the driveway be expanded or moved. Ms. Barber stated the driveway will not be moved and the proposed carport will cover it in its current location.

 

Criteria for Approval:

 

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

                                                                                                                                                 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith and Mr. Burge stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE.   

           

and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0. 

 

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 All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0. 

 

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0. 

 

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

 (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 Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE, Mr. Burge stated this was 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. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

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 All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,

All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

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. 

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2014-102 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-102: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2014-102 is approved.

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2014-102-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-102, as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-102. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to excuse member's absence:

Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse Neal Zimmers’ absence from the August 14th Board of Zoning and Building Appeals meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for June 12, 2014. Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  All members voted by voice in favor.  The meeting adjourned at 7:13PM.

 

Next Meetings:

September 11, 2014

October 9, 2014

November 13, 2014

 

Thursday
Aug282014

BZBA Minutes July, 2014

There was not a meeting of the BZBA in July, 2014.

Monday
Jun162014

BZBA Minutes June 12, 2014

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

June 12, 2014

 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, Neal Zimmers and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Bradley Smith, Vice-Chair

Also Present: Planning & Zoning Assistant Debi Walker and Law Director Michael King Visitors: Lois Flanagan. 

 

New Business:

 

Lois Flanagan, 127 Carreg Cain Drive, Application #2014-67

Planned Unit Development District (PUD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty-five point two (25.2%) percent to twenty-six point nine (26.9%) percent to allow for the construction of a screened porch on the rear of the structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Debi Walker and Lois Flanagan

 

Discussion: Ms. Flanagan stated she owns the property located at 127 Carreg Cain Drive. She would like to replace her eight (8) by eight (8) cement slab with a nine (9) by eighteen (18) screened porch. She stated right now there is only room for either a grill or table and chairs. Neither of her neighbors opposed the addition and she has the home owner association approval.

 

Ms. Walker stated the village has the letter from the neighbors supporting Ms. Flanagan. Mr. King stated the board only has to approve the percentage increase for the variance.

 

Criteria for Approval:

 

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

                                                                                                                                                 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the l and or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

            and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

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. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

(2)       Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

 (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 Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

(4)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

(5)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  

Mr. Kemper and Mr. Gill stated this was TRUE (2)   Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated this was FALSE.

 

(6)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.   All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.

 

(7)       Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.   All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

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, All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,

 All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

 and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,

All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.

 

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. 

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2014-67 as presented.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-67: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2014-67 is approved.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Lois Flanagan, 127 Carreg Cain Drive, Application #2014-67-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1171, Planned Development District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-67, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-67. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse member's absence:

Mr. Burge made a motion to excuse Mr. Smith. Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for May 8, 2014. Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Zimmers.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:18 PM.

 

Next Meetings:

July 10, 2014

August 14, 2014

September 11, 2014