Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Friday
Jan292016

BZBA Minutes December 10, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

December 10, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director, Michael King, Law Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager.

 

Visitors: Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Steve Flowers, Bob Johnson and Andy Franks.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

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.

 

 

Old Business:

 

119-123 South Prospect Street –Barbara Franks - Application #2015-23:  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 parking spaces from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces for the additional occupancy of the first floor only of the rear accessory structure for a restaurant use, and totaling seven hundred sixty-eight (768) square feet of space.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

 

Barbara Franks, 121 ½ South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated she was requesting the same kind of parking variance given to Granville Inn, Del Mar and other businesses.  Her retail area has decreased and she would like to have the ability to have handicapped seating in her barn.  Mr. Gill asked for clarification about handicap seating in the barn.  Ms. Franks named Mai Chau, Day Y Noche, Moe’s, The Broadway Pub and Brews as having no requirement for parking and she wants the same as those businesses, as approved by the Village.  Mr. Zimmers asked if she was expanding her business.  Ms. Franks said “no, she wanted the barn space ‘back’ because it was taken away from her.  Ms. Franks made statements about a “vindictive neighbor who calls the police.”  Mr. Gill asked Mr. King about this accusation and was told that an injunction was filed against Ms. Franks in November.  Mr. Zimmers asked if this application was really for an expansion for a beer garden.  Ms. Franks denied that was the intent, that this request was to regain seating that was “taken away from her” since when she has lost $220,000 in business income.  Ms. Franks claimed she has spent all her inheritance to build up her business.  She complained of persecution by the village residents and other businesses.  Mr. Zimmers again tried to ascertain if the application was for handicapped seating or expansion. Mr. Gill asked Mr. King if the business (Taco Dan’s) formerly had approved seating in the barn?  Mr. King said, “No”.  The barn was originally approved in 2009 as an accessory building as storage for the Footloose business (retail).  Ms. Franks interrupted Mr. King.  Mr. King continued that there was an injunction against Taco Dan’s because the business was exceeding the approved footprint.  The Village never approved bar use for the barn.  Mr. Gill stated that the BZBA does not handle seating issues. Ms. Franks stated that County Health Dept. guidelines were followed when designing handicapped seating in the barn. 

 

Mr. Smith asked for the chronology of the 2009 approval for the accessory building for retail.  Mr. King stated that the barn, as an accessory use, did not require extra parking in the record from 2009.  It was not appealed to the Common Pleas Court.  March 17, 2012 Taco Dan’s was opened and began serving in the parking lot and the barn without Village approval.  The business was told NOT to serve outside the house or in the barn.  Ms. Franks maintained that the barn was solely for handicapped seating and mixed retail.  Mr. Zimmers referred to the last meeting testimony that the barn was not used for solely handicapped seating.  Mr. Gill said that it does seem like the request is an expansion.  Ms. Franks said that the Village gave back 4,700 square feet of restaurant in the house.  Mr. King stated that Village approved 400 square feet and the owner then expanded to most of the interior of the main building and the outside rear patio area, then onto the front porch.  The Village filed an injunction after several complaints, police responses and requests to the owners by the staff to do business with in the building.  Finally, paperwork was submitted by the owner and approved by the Village to expand the business to 4,700 square feet, all within the main building.  The application was approved by the Village to maintain the barn as an accessory to the Footloose retail store, not as a primary use for retail and restaurant. 

 

Mr. Smith asked if the barn is an accessory can it be used as a restaurant?  Mr. King replied that section 1157.14 states no commercial usage may be from an accessory building under Granville Law.  Mr. Smith asked if this request is for a change of use.  If so, then there is a need for a variance on parking spaces.  Mr. King answered that a change of use is now an administrative approval, but when a request for a change of use triggers other issues such the need for a variance, those issues must be resolved before the change of use can be approved.  Ms. Franks complained of her neighbor’s disapproval of the business.  She also wants more lighting.  Mr. Gill stated there is lighting in the back. 

 

During these remarks there were some vocal interruptions from members of the audience among the Franks’ supporters.  Andy Franks, 210 E. Maple, was sworn in and stated he is part owner of the business and son to the owner.  He stated in so many words that the business was being discriminated against and that other businesses and private requests in the area have gone smoothly and wondered why objections were being brought up in this meeting.  Mr. Gill explained that the BZBA is the body that deals with the Village’s right to address objections and concerns.  Mr. Franks continued to challenge the board re: their previous decisions on other business applications and was not accepting of Mr. Gill’s explanation.  Mr. Zimmers commented on the lack of similarities of business properties in the same district.  Mr. Gill explained the BZBA looks at each case individually.  Mr. Zimmers pointed out that the residences in the area are markedly different from 134 S. Prospect.  Mr. Franks said the criteria are identical.  Mr. Gill said that the BZBA will decide that.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 E. Maple was sworn in.  He said that every bar and restaurant in town has expanded.  He said that only Granville Inn and the Buxton have been granted outside seating. 

Bob Johnson of 218 E. Elm Street asked to speak.  Mr. Gill asked if his property was contiguous to the Franks property.  Planner Terry said “No”.  Mr. Sam Sagaria, of 117 S. Prospect asked if he, a contiguous owner, could grant Mr. Johnson permission to speak.  The answer was yes, so Mr. Johnson was sworn in.  Mr. Johnson asked if the variance is approved, does that approve the rear structure for what they want to do in the barn?   Mr. King said that if change of use is approved, then the administration has to process the approval.  Mr. Johnson addressed the handicapped use of the structure.  He said his concern was pro-business and pro-community.  If there are people eating, drinking, waiters going from one structure to the other, something is going to be consumed in between, then it becomes a beer garden.  This is not good for the neighborhood.  Mr. Gill stated that would be a liquor commission problem.  Mr. Johnsons asked if handicapped patrons were the concern, why not have that area on the inside of the house?  Mr. Burge asked for clarification about whether liquor would be served in the outdoor area.  Mr. King said that currently there is to be no outdoor service or consumption of alcohol outside the main structure.  Mr. Johnson pointed out that it was difficult to enforce. 

 

Mr. Sagaria’s input was requested by Mr. Gill.  Mr. Sagaria said that the Village was originally told that a 400 ft. taco restaurant was the original plan, and it was to be closed by 7 PM.  Now the entire house is used as a “beer joint” until 1 AM and later and it has a ‘frat house’ environment.  He does not want a beer garden in the back.  Mr. Gill said that was not what the board was approving.  Mr. Sagaria said that the Franks want a fence, then they can expand to a beer garden and barn and first and second floor.  Mr. Gill said to Mr. King that something like that could trigger additional parking requirements.  Mr. Zimmers asked if the issue at hand was granting a variance on parking aside from expansion.  Mr. Gill said he does hear expansion as a concern.  Planner Terry said that the entire street is not commercial, Mr. Sagaria’s home is single family residential and there are 3 residences facing the business.  Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Sagaria wanted to change from residential to commercial would he need a permit?  Planner Terry answered “Yes”. 

 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. King if a change of use was granted could it be limited to handicap or not?  Can anyone sit in that area?  Mr. King said that legally the application only asked for handicapped seating but it would be practically impossible to enforce.  Discussion between Mr. King and Mr. Smith about change of use approval and appeal.  Mr. Zimmers asked what the handicap thing was all about.  The discussion about recouping business is an expansion of business, not about handicapped.  Mr. King said that the application could have said they wanted to expand business.  It is up to the BZBA to determine credibility or not.  Mr. Burge asked Mr. Gill whether granting the application gives the go ahead for change of use.

 

Mr. Smith said that the Ohio Supreme Court states that such cases should consider if the question can be obviated by other means.  Feasibility of handicap access may be handled in some other way.  The properties on Broadway have ramps, for example.  Ms. Franks said it would require a 20 - foot-long ramp with a rise of 27 inches to get a wheelchair to the first floor.  There is no place for that and a lift would cost fifteen thousand dollars.  She had already spent 20 to 30 thousand dollars to place a handicap accessible bathroom in the barn.  Mr. Gill observed that accommodation is a side effect of expansion.  Mr. Burge asked why Ms. Franks made all those capital changes in the barn without approval for use.  Ms. Franks said that in 2005 they wanted to update the barn and have a restaurant.  Dan Rogers wanted to update the 1800 era barn but because it took so long to come back and get a change of use permit they proceeded to follow the state requirements to make such improvements and then were told NO by the Village so they ended up in the house.  Mr. Smith asked how people would access the rear structure.  They would have to use the PNB parking lot or the driveway shared with Mr. Sagaria.  Ms. Franks talked of negative hearsay from neighbors.

 

Mr. Smith mentioned that the staff has expressed safety concern regarding use of the shared driveway.  Mr. Gill asked Alison for input.  She said the staff report discusses the idea of handicap use and the need for such usage to be closed by 11:00 PM, alcohol would need to be in the rear of the structure and not be outside the structure except as carried by servers.  There are no special conditions.  There would be an inability to provide parking.  There is limited accessibility to the structure, as faced by many other businesses that have put in ramps.  Others also have zoning and practical difficulties.  More details are available in the staff report.  Mr. Gill asked how staff would respond to the zero parking variance.  Planner Terry replied that N. Prospect has been a mix of uses in the past as principle uses.  Applications to change from retail to other usage has had grandfathered parking.  Ms. Terry gave example of the Pub fronting directly onto the sidewalk on the Pub Right of Way, principal use of retail occupied by employees with the cash register where patrons are and no spillover from the property. 

Mr. Zimmers observed that the principal use of this property is asking for zero parking, so we are being asked to continue zero parking but is parking request to deny expansion?  Dan Rogers loudly objected, saying the board is asking him to spend 50 thousand dollars that the County Health Department already approved.  He said the Board is going against the handicapped patrons.  He has endured financial hardships over attorney fees and more.  He just wants to comply with handicap needs.  Ms. Franks said that when she bought the property the barn was leased to another person.  For 35 years it was used for other things.  She bought it as a common piece of property.  She had no knowledge of variances how it affects the neighboring area.  Mr. Gill pointed out that the property title would have told her that.  Ms. Franks said remodeling the barn increased their property taxes, and then the Zoning Inspector reduced the taxes when the barn use was “taken away.”  She feels her rights have been removed.

 

Mr. Gill asked Mr. King “Are we grounded?  Have we made the record clear and allowed everyone to speak?”  Mr. King had additional information which he passed to the board and the applicant.  Relevant to the third Duncan Factor regarding how a business is run and its effect on a neighborhood.

 

LD-1 is a copy of a public record from municipal court 15CRV352 regarding Ms. Franks’ disturbing the peace in March of 2015 at the business location.  It concerns a late noise complaint transferred by Ms. Franks from Mayor’s Court to Municipal Court.  Ms. Franks applied for a diversion program which was approved on August 19, but Ms. Franks was terminated from that program when she was subsequently arrested and jailed on open container and obstruction of official business charges (to which she ultimately pleaded Guilty). LD-2 and LD-3 were charges which are part of the record involving charges and trials and a letter to the Franks.

 

Mr. King reminded the board of how the business has been operated, the effect on the neighbors, documented disregard for the law and the way they do business, should the variance be approved as an expansion, given history, the problems will not get better.  Mr. Gill asked if there were any questions for Mr. King from the board.  There were none.

 

Dan Rogers objected strongly to the information brought up and was outraged that only one neighbor objected, etc.  Mr. Gill said he has spent money at the business and enjoyed the food, and the board has discussed how to help them.  The board has an obligation to acknowledge the number of complications.  Mr. King would have been remiss to not bring the evidence to the board.  At that point, the presentation of testimony and evidence concluded. 

 

The board decided to hold the application over as some members would like to review the April minutes and think about their decision.  Mr. Zimmers moved to hold the matter over to January 14, 2015 meeting, seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call vote Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (abstain) and Gill (yes).  Motion passed.

 

A three - minute recess was taken before considering the next item on the agenda.

 

New Business

 

232 East Elm Street -  Steve Flowers of CS Construction Group; on behalf of Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-166:  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height for an arbor from six (6’) feet to seven feet seven inches (7’7”). 

 

Discussion:

 

Steve Flowers, 1360 Loudon Street, Granville, Ohio, General Contractor, explained the plan to install air conditioning and a generator on the east side of the property.  There is a wish to add a fence and an arbor, as well.  Mr. Gill asked if the fence would be purple and was told “No”.  Mr. Gill asked if neighbor Laura Frame had been spoken to and was told that she had been and has no objections.  Mr. Burge asked about the height of the arbor and was told that the arbor has a gate for access to the yard and therefore must be taller than the fence.  There is no problem with the project because it is within 10 feet of the side lot line, according to Planner Terry.   

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-166:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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 this criteria was 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; Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

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

 

(6)               Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated            through some method other than a variance.  The board members voted 2 True       and 3 False.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The board members voted 2 False and 3 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, Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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 #2015-166, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

Findings of Fact

 

New Business:

232 East Elm Street – Steve Flowers of CS Construction, on behalf of Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-166:  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 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-166.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-166. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Gill suggested holding over the BZBA meeting minutes for April 30, 2015 for review. Board members all agreed that would be the best thing to do.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for October 8, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:   Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve the 2016 Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Meeting Schedule:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting schedule for 2016.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Gill stated that he and Board greatly appreciate the time Alison Terry has spent with the committees, Mr. Kemper said her professionalism and knowledge has been excellent and Mr. Burge will miss her and wishes her the best.  Mr. Zimmers reiterated the same with thanks.

 

Steven Stilwell was present and thanked Alison for her service, announcing an open house for her on Friday December 18 from 1 to 3.

 

There has been no successor found yet for the planner job.  Three applicants looked suitable on paper, as reviewed by Mr. Burriss from BZBA, a member of the Village Council and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. One applicant was rejected, one withdrew and one was not qualified.  Search would begin again the following day (December 11, 2015).  There are some discussions between the chair of the GPC and the BZBA as to how to carry on in the meantime.  They intend to be deliberative in their approach and do a good job for the Village.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr.  ____________.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

 

Next Meetings (Tentative):

January 14, 2016

February 11, 2016

Monday
Nov232015

BZBA - No meeting held in November

Tuesday
Oct272015

BZBA Minutes October 8, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

October 8, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Present:  Jeff Gill, Chair, Bradley Smith, Vice Chair, Kenneth Kemper, and Larry Burge.

 

Members Absent: Neal Zimmers.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager

 

Visitors:  Tim and Cathy Klingler, Phil Demarest, Jim Cooper, David and Susan Schmidt and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

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

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not 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:

 

2 Sheppard Place – Nancy Noecker - Application #2015-124:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To decrease the required side yard setback for a structure from twelve (12) feet to one and one-half (1.5’) feet to allow for the construction of an attached carport; and

2)         To reduce the required side yard setback for a driveway from five (5’) feet to one and one-half (1.5’) feet to allow for the expansion of the driveway to access the carport.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Nancy Noecker, was unable to attend the meeting due to a death in the family.  The board agreed to hear the application in her absence since there were no attendees with objections. 

 

Planner Terry explained the applicant would like to expand the size of her existing one car attached carport to a two car carport.  There is not much area to the north of the home, so she would like to decrease the required side yard setback for a building from twelve (12’) feet to one and one half feet (1 ½’)  and reduce the setback for the driveway from five (5’) feet to one and one half feet (1 ½’).  The Staff has received no objections from anyone. 

 

Mr. Kemper asked if the dimensions are accurate.  Planner Terry said yes.  Planner Terry indicated Ms. Noecker had discussed whether or not the south side of the property could have been utilized and it cannot because it is prohibitively expensive.  Mr. Gill said that since no one was objecting, the board would move on to the Standards and Criteria.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-124:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill said TRUE, Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper said FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. All Board members agreed this would be 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; all members agreed this is TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. 

All members voted TRUE.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Kemper, Burge and Smith said TRUE; Mr. Gill said FALSE.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. All members said FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members said TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  All members said 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. All members said TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Gill said FALSE, Mr. Burge, Smith and Kemper said 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, all members said TRUE, and not diminish nor impair established property values within the surrounding areas, all members said TRUE, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, all members said TRUE, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All members said 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.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-124 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Mr. Gill (yes)  Motion carried 4-0.

 

457 North Granger Street, Granville Ohio, - Application #2015-129:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B). 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 installation of deer fencing.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Tim Klingler and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 457 N. Granger Street, stated he is planning to construct a 28’ x 24’ garden area to the side and behind the garage and it requires a deer fence.  It would consist of posts and a standard mesh deer fence.  A neighbor to the West has a 6-8 foot fence that the deer can jump.  Mr. Klingler would like to grow vegetables.  He indicated the neighbors have no objection and knew about the meeting.  Mr. Klingler has not spoken to the neighbor to the north as that owner does not live there.  No questions from the board other than Mr. Burge asking if the Village staff has any objections.  The answer from Village Staff was No.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-129:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land, wildlife or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burge voted TRUE, Mr. Kemper, Smith and Gill voted 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 board voted 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; Mr. Burge said FALSE, Mr. Kemper, Smith and Gill said TRUE; or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  All members said TRUE.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  All members said FALSE.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, all members said FALSE, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  All members voted FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members said TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  All members said 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. All members said TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  All members said 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,  all members voted TRUE; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted TRUE; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All members voted TRUE; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  All members voted 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. There are no requirements or conditions.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-129 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

134 South Pearl Street and 316 East Elm Street Phil Demarest on behalf of The Properties on Elm Street, LLC Application 2015-130, The properties are zoned Village Residential District (VRD).

 

1)         134 South Pearl Street: To increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from fifty (50%) percent to sixty point one five (60.15%) percent;

2)         316 East Elm Street: To increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-eight point six (58.6%) percent; and to reduce the required minimum side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to eight (8’) feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Jim Cooper, an attorney, was not required to be sworn in.

 

Discussion:

Jim Cooper, 334 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated he was council for the property on Elm Street.  Two variances for impervious surface and side yard reduction apply to the property.  Replatting would split the properties via a driveway at 134 South Pearl Street and 316 East Elm Street, moving the east property line of 134 South Pearl Street to the east to allow for joint use of the driveway by both properties as has been historically used. 

 

Mr. Smith asked why a variance was needed for the impervious surface coverage, as the applicant was proposing no new construction.  Planner Terry indicated it was triggered because the properties were being re-subdivided.  Any time this occurs, the properties are required to come into compliance with the Zoning Code requirements at that point in time.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-130:

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 members voted TRUE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  All members voted 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; all members voted TRUE; or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; all members voted TRUE;

(2)               Whether the variance is substantial.  All members voted FALSE

(3)               Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, all members voted FALSE; or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  All members voted FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members voted TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  All members voted 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. All members voted TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  All members voted 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, All members voted TRUE; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted TRUE; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; All members voted TRUE; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets; All members voted 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.  No conditions were imposed by the Board.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-130 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:   Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes),  Mr. Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

134 North Prospect Street – Julio Valenzuela on behalf of Robert Schilling - Application #2015-143: 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 parking spaces for a retail use from three (3) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces for four hundred twenty (420) square feet of retail space. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Julio Valenzuela 1359 Welsh Hills Road, Granville, Ohio stated he was requesting a variance for a parking reduction from three (3) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.  The address is changing from a restaurant use to a retail use. 

Planner Terry said that the previous business, a restaurant, required one (1) parking space for every two (200) hundred square feet.  The previous restaurant use had two (2) grandfathered parking spaces.  She went on to explain the complicated parking variances involving administrative offices, retail, and design space. 

 

Mr. Gill mentioned that parking seems to be a recurring problem in the downtown
Village area.  If property was purchased on the other side of town would there be a parking requirement?  Planner Terry explained the differences between parking requirements in the downtown area vs. in other areas of the Village.

 

Mr. Valenzuela commented that changes will come up as occupants change, and multi-tenant building spaces will contribute to that change.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-143:

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 members voted TRUE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  All members voted 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; Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith voted FALSE, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Burge voted TRUE; or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  All members voted TRUE.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  All members voted TRUE.       

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, all members voted FALSE; or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  All members voted FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members voted TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. All members voted 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.  All members voted TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  All members voted 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, All members voted TRUE; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted TRUE; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All members voted TRUE; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  All members voted 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. Though no requirements were passed by the board, Mr. Smith commented that the Village Council should consider what to do about the downtown parking and congestion problems.

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2015-143 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:   Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Mr. Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approval

 

New Business:

a)         Application #2015-124, 2 Sheppard Place, Nancy Noecker; Side Yard Setback Reduction and Reduction in Required Side Yard Setback from Property Line for a Driveway:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-124.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-124. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)         Application 2015-129, 457 North Granger Street, Tim Klingler Increase in Maximum Height of a Fence:  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 1183, Height, Area and Yard Modifications Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-129.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-129. Second by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

c)         Application 2015-130, Properties on Elm Street, LLC, 134 South Pearl Street and 316 East Elm Street; Variances Related to the Replatting of Renumbered Lots 208 and 209 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 1159, Village Residential District and Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-130.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-130. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes),  Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

d)         Application 2015-143, Julio Valenzuela of Urban Restoration, LLC; 134 North Prospect Street; Reduction in the Number of Required Parking Spaces from Three (3) to Zero (0).  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  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 Business District and Architectural Overlay Review District.

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2025-143, Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote :  Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) , and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Review and Approval of meeting minutes from September 10, 2015:  Mr. Kemper moved to approve, Second by Mr. Burge.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Discussion on Planning Director Search:

Steve Stilwell, Village Manager, Thanked everyone on the board for their service to the community.  He said there will be a reception to thank everyone for their service.  Mr. Stilwell stated that the Village celebrates the contribution Alison Terry has made to the Village and that she has led quite well for the past eight years.  She will be difficult to replace.  He indicated the Village has put out a job description of the Village Planner opening in advertisements in the APA, OCMA, and Ohio Municipal League.  The job applications received so far are not satisfactory so they are extending the search two more weeks.  Alison will be a resource when needed and may be contacted for follow-up work.  The hiring of this position will need community involvement by the various boards and staff members.  Mr. Eklof has committed to serving on the interview panel for the GPC.  

Mr. Gill made an observation regarding the job description, indicating that from an historical precedence economic development job duties cannot be tacked on to a very busy staffer.  Either the qualification is or it is not part of the job qualification.  Steve Stilwell replied that the job description is exhaustive.  They do not expect to get someone as good as Alison Terry, so there will be concessions.  Manager Stilwell went on to discuss the zoning code updates implemented to date and how small, repetitive issues now brought before the zoning board may be dealt with on an administrative level, not a board level, to trim time from the Planning Department’s busy scheduled.  He indicated Planner Terry has streamlined many functions in her tenure with the Village.

 

Motion to excuse a member’s absence: Mr. Kemper moved to excuse Mr. Zimmers’ absence, Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes), Smith (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Next Meetings:

November 12, 2015

December 10, 2015

 

Motion to Adjourn:

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Kemper. Motion carried 4-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:58 P.M.

Friday
Oct022015

BZBA Minutes September 10, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 10, 2015

 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.  Mr. Smith arrived at 7:06 p.m.

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planning Director

Visitors:  Phil Claggett, Russ and Melissa Bow, Ron Davis and Paul Palumbo.

Citizen Comments:  None.

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

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not 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:

1229 Cherry Valley Road – Kyle Libby and Mallory Land - Application #2015-115:  The property is zoned Planned Commercial District (PCD).The request is for review and approval of a Conditional Use to allow the structure to be occupied as a single-family dwelling.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry.

The applicants were not present at the beginning of the meeting, so Mr. Smith suggested postponing this application until later to give the applicants time to arrive.

Discussion:

Mr. Kemper had realized in reading the letter from the property owners that they would probably not be at the meeting.  The board decided to consider the application since a sign had been placed and the public was made aware of the application. 

Planner Terry indicated the property was annexed years ago and zoned Planned Commercial District (PCD). The properties are on septic systems, but do have public water.  Access to the properties is only from the road.  The properties were not bought up by larger commercial development as originally thought.  The staff approached the Village Council about allowing for single family homes to be allowed as a conditional use.  Council agreed and the Code now authorizes single family as a conditional use in the Planned Commercial District. 

Planner Terry further indicated this area will be cut off once the Cherry Valley Road Interchange is constructed and opens in late 2016.  The property in question was last home to a legal practice, which has since been relocated.  Planner Terry said the property could be used commercially in the future as well.

Mr. Burge asked if the application is granted can the owners make improvements.  Planner Terry said that improvements could be made, subject to the requirements of the Zoning Code.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-115:

 (a)       The proposed use is a conditional use with the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met.  The proposed use is a conditional use within this Zoning District and does meet with the applicable development standards as outlined in the Staff Report.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; this use is a conditional use in this District.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Kemper.  

(b)        The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel. Mr. Kemper, Mr. Smith and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE the proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and transportation plans for this area.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

(c)        The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  All BZBA members voted TRUE.

(d)       The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.  The applicant has indicated there will be little to no noise from the operation of this proposed use.  All BZBA members voted True.

(e)        The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  All BZBA members voted TRUE.

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-115, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

931 Newark-Granville Road – Phil Claggett, Northpoint Ohio Architecture, on behalf of Russ & Melissa Bow - Application #2015-117:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a building from thirty (30’) feet to forty-four feet eight inches (44’8”) to allow for the construction of a new single family home. 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, and Phil Claggett.

Mr. Claggett of Northpoint-Ohio Architecture, 825 North 21st Street, Newark, Ohio stated he was representing Russ Bow for the property located at 931 Newark-Granville Rd.  The plan for the house construction meets all conditions except for height. 

Mr. Gill asked why the height was important to this structure.  Mr. Claggett replied that the roof height limit for Bryn Du is 35 feet.  Mr. Bow’s lot exceeds three acres and the proportion of the house fits the size and location of the property.

Mr. Gill asked how the construction would proceed.  Mr. Claggett indicated the pitch of the roof would extend forty-four feet eight inches (44’8”) from the ground and forty-two feet (42’) from the interior floor.  Mr. Gill asked if the floorplan meets square footage and was told, “Yes.”  Mr. Gill asked if there was any reason for the roof height besides style.  Mr. Claggett explained that the roof height is based on the width and length of the house in relation to the appropriate roof pitch for a French Country style home. 

Mr. Zimmers asked if a less than 50% increase in roof height would affect the living space.  Mr. Claggett answered “no,” but the aesthetics would be affected.  Mr. Claggeett indicated one side yard is ten times the requirement and another is twenty-five times the required amount. 

Planner Terry pointed out the applicant is not requesting a third story living space, the design of the roofline is merely truss space. 

Mr. Gill said that once this variance is granted, it sets precedence for others to expect their requests to be granted.  Mr. Claggett disagreed, stating there were very few lots in the Village that are located this far off the main street which also have as much land.

Victor Terebuh of 308 Bryn Du, indicated he was the most recent owner of the Tall Pines subdivision, and he sold three (3) of the lots to Mr. Bow.  The lot is uniquely situated with dense woods to the West, and a large hill to the North and East.  To the south is an open lot.  Tall Pines covenants were written by Mr. Terebuh and allowed for a maximum height of thirty-five (35’) feet.  Even so, Mr. Terebuh has granted a waiver to the covenants to allow Mr. Bow to build a home that exceeds the thirty-five (35’) foot requirement.  He wants to look at things individually.  Mr. Bow’s lot is the very back lot and will not restrict any views.  Mr. Terebuh’s property will adjoin this lot to the south.  He has no objection to the application. 

Ron Davis, 368 Bryn Du, indicated his property abuts Mr. Bow’s lot to the north.  He likes and supports the plan.  He feels the home will be a beautiful structure that will add value to the community and he likes the design. 

Paul Palumbo, 382 Bryn Du, stated he has no objection.  There will be no viewshed problems and the tall pines themselves are over forty-five (45’) feet in height.  He appreciates the work done so far by Claggett and Terrra Nova Builders. 

Zimmers stated he feels this variance request is substantial and could set a bad precedence for future applications.  He stated he was personally against granting the variance and feels it should be referred to the Village Council.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-117:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE. All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

b.         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; Mr. Burge, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill agreed with Mr. Kemper.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

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

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

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

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

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

 (5)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

(6)        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 with Mr. Zimmers.

 (7)       Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill stated FALSE; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith went on to state the intent is to preserve the character of Granville and given the lack of visibility for this property, the larger size of the lot and the nature of the general area he felt that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed by the granting of the variance.  And the only neighbors who spoke regarding the application spoke in support of the variance request.

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

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

Mr. Burge asked for more discussion on the application.  He was concerned about the precedence of any property setting up a zoning appeal.  Mr. Gill asked how far and how often does the board get challenged on height.  Planner Terry said in her term there had been very few height variances, and the law director always says the Board should look at every application on a case by case basis.

Mr. Smith said that the lot is in an isolated area and is not visible from the street.  He feels it is a nice plan and has no objections.

Mr. Zimmers agreed with the beauty of the design, but the building height was set for a reason.  He said this is a personal choice in a new structure, not a pre-existing structure and he feels it should be sent to the Village Council. 

Mr. Gill asked if this structure would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Preventing a French Provincial design was not the intention of the code.  Mr. Burge asked why the application did not go to the Planning Commission.  Planner Terry indicated the Planning Commission reviews new homes or substantial additions in the historical district only.  Mr. Smith stated that the spirit and intent of zoning ordinance section 7 is to preserve the things that make people enjoy Granville.  The current owner does not wish to disturb that intent.  Mr. Gill observed that the neighbors were supporters of the project.

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 Application #2015-117, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (no), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.

Findings of Fact

New Business:

1229 Cherry Valley Road – Kyle Libby and Mallory Land - Application #2015-115:  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 1145, Conditional Uses and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-115.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-115. Seconded by Mr.Burge. Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) Zimmers (yes) Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

931 Newark-Granville Road –Phil Claggett of Northpoint-Ohio Architecture, on behalf of Russ and Melissa Bow - Application #2015-117:  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-A (SRD-A) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-117.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-117. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote:  Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2015:  Mr. Kemper pointed out a mistake in the August 13 Minutes. Page four, number 7 should have been unanimously TRUE, not FALSE.  Correction noted.  Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the Minutes of August 13 as corrected.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Motion approved by voice vote 5-0.

Next Meetings:

October 8, 2015 - Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper indicated they may not be in attendance.

November 12, 2015

December 10, 2015

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.

Friday
Aug212015

BZBA Minutes August 13, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

August 13, 2015

7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors: Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Bruce and Lisa Westall.

Citizen Comments:  None.

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

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under Old and 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.

 

Old Business:

 

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000 – Tod & Evelyn Frolking – Application #2015-24, Amended: The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C).  The proposal consists of nine (9) single family lots located on approximately five (5) acres of land.  With the layout proposed by the developer the plan would require the following two (2) variances:

 

 

Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C):

1.         To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-five (35’) feet on Lot #1.

2.         To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-five (35’) feet on Lot #2.

            As shown on the submitted site plan labeled ‘Exhibit A’. 

Mr. Burge recused himself at this point in the meeting and from this application, as an adjoining property owner, and was seated in the audience.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Steve Mershon, Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Mike King, Law Director, started the discussion with an explanation regarding the variances the Board would be reviewing. He indicated the BZBA would only be reviewing the two (2) rear yard setback variances, as opposed to variances related to right-of-way width, roadway width, sidewalk on only one side of the street and the spacing of driveways.  It was determined after further review of the code that only the Planning Commission could review the roadway, right-of-way and sidewalk items and that a recommendation would need to be made to the Village Council for those deviations from the code requirements.

Tod Frolking, 605 West Broadway, briefly reviewed the modifications since the previous April meeting, changing the number of lots from twelve (12) to nine (9) and changing the roadway from a loop road to a single road with a cul-de-sac at the end.  They would like to preserve the large trees on the front of Lot #1 and Lot #2 and this is why they don’t want to move the houses forward to meet the rear yard setback requirement. 

Mr. Frolking indicated he had a letter from Barbara Pursley, 840 West Maple Street, which he would like to read into the record. Mr. Smith recommended the Board accept the letter and allow it to be read and Mr. Gill indicated the letter could be read aloud by Mr. Frolking.  Ms. Pursley expressed delight that the setback request would preserve the two trees and that the tree line should be retained.

Mr. Gill asked the applicant “what if we say no?” Mr. Frolking replied “then Granville is not a Tree City.”  Mr. Gill then responded “so the reason for the variance request is to save trees?”  Mr. Frolking stated yes and the geometry of Whitney Street does not allow for flexibility with the roadway and right-of-way alignment. 

Larry Burge, 870 West Maple Street, questioned how these proposed lots related to the Shepardson Condominiums and the historical 10 foot right-of-way deeded between the two properties.  He indicated the bulk of trees on the property are in this north-south right-of-way and some Shepardson homes are within 20 feet of the vegetation.

Brad Hartfield, 770 West Maple Street, stated his condominium faces the proposed common area and the 10 foot right-of-way is now a utility right-of-way.  He began questioning the setback for one of the homes along the southern portion of the development, but was informed by Staff that the setback of the home was not before the Board for a variance and would be reviewed at the time of Planning Commission platting.  He expressed concerns that there were no elevations for the proposed homes; that drainage on the site could be a problem; and that the aquifer could be compromised by the building of homes within the southern area of the development and that the EPA should be consulted.  He stated the Shepardson Condominiums already having flooding problems.  Mr. Frolking stated the proposed development sits below the Shepardson Condominiums and water would not flow towards them.

Bill Moore, 840 West Maple Street, spoke as the President of the Shepardson Condominium Homeowner’s Association and indicated they were in support of the project.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-24, as amended:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated this was 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; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE; Mr. Gill stated this was FALSE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.    Mr. Zimmers stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated this was FALSE. 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill state this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated this was FALSE. 

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

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper stated this was TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated this was 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. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill stated this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-24, as amended.  Second by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Mr. Burge rejoined the Board at this time.

New Business:

 

232 East Elm Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-107:  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to three (3’) foot;

2.         To reduce the northern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to one (1’) foot; and

3.         To increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-six (56%) percent; to allow for the construction of a one car detached garage in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Bruce and Lisa Westall, Patti Urbatis and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated the application for variances is to allow for a one-car garage to be constructed at the rear of the property in direct alignment with the driveway from East Elm Street.  They had originally considered putting the garage behind the home, but the angles make it too difficult to navigate the turn.  Also, putting it behind the home would obstruct the kitchen window and they do not want to obstruct the neighbors’ views. 

Mr. Gill asked if there had ever been a garage in this location and the answer was “not to our knowledge.” 

Margaret Gjessing, 228 East Elm Street, was interested in the design and color of the roof of the garage.  Mr. Gill indicated this would be a question for the Planning Commission when this project appears before the Commission for architectural review.

Patti Urbatis, 537 Mt. Parnassus, stated that many homes in the Village have garages next to the house and it would be a normal situation. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-107:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. All Board members agreed this would be 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 without the variance; The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated this was FALSE, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated this was TRUE.

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

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

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge voted TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith voted 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. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.  

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-107 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Findings of Fact

Old Business:

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000  – Village Roots; Tod & Evelyn Frolking - Application #2015-24, Amended:  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-C (SRD-C) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-24, as amended and revised on June 23, 2015.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-24, Amended. Second by Mr. Zimmers By voice vote the motion carried 4-0.

New Business:

232 East Elm Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-107:  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 1159, Village Residential District (VRD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-107.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-107. Second by Mr. Zimmers. By voice vote the motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve the Minutes of July 9, 2015.

Mr. Zimmers indicated there needed to be a correction to his statement on page 4 concerning the 133 South Cherry Street application discussion.  The correction was noted in the minutes. Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve the Minutes of July 9, as amended.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Motion approved by voice vote 4-0.

 

Next Meetings:

September 10, 2015

October 8, 2015

November 12, 2015

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 5-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:46 P.M.