Granville Community Calendar

04/25/96

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 25,1996
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana,Don Contini,Bob Essman,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Lon Herman
Also Present: Joe Hickman,substituting for Doug Tailford, Village Planner;Rufus Hurst,Law
Director
Visitors: Dixie N&eil Andrew 2(36 West Elm)B, rett A&pril Faris 4(28 E. College)B,uddy
Carole Sue McCluskey 1(28 S. Cherry)D,orothy Garrett 4(5 Donald Ross)T,im Klingler
218 East Elm), Richard Downs ( 4174 Loudon St.),
Minutes: February 22.1996: Mr. Stewart moved to approve minutes as presented;Mr. Contini
seconded,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business.
Brett and April Faris, 428 East College -Variances
The Farises are applying for two variances for a one-story garage: ( 1)lot coverage and
2)setback. The variances are needed because the house was built before the ordinance code,
and the construction of a two-car garage would violate the code. The owners request a garage to
protect their automobile,and on this corner lot,there is no room for flexibility. Adhering to the
code would only permit a garage too small to use.
1)The garage will require an additional 528 sq.ft.,which together with the house,totals
a 5 per cent overage.
stc+s7 / 2( )AR=afIAt+inna1 6' from the side property line on the north is requested,whereas the code specifies 12' setback.
There have been no objections from the neighbors. The driveway will be gravel until
such time as they can pave with brick or similar material. Mr.Essman would encourage brick
pavers on the driveway,as opposed to concrete and asphalt;brick is more attractive and would
O +0 ,shedw, atetrte r* BZBA members agreed but did not want to place a condition on this subject,
althddgh Ms. Caravana reminded the group that water runoff is addressing potential problems
connected with increased lot coverage. Mr.Fans stated that he liked interlocking brick.
Ms. Caravana stated that 6' would be ample space to maintain the lawn and building,and other lots in the neighborhood have short setbacks. Mr. Contini added that the garage will enhance the property and the street and provide off-street parking.
Mr. Stewart applied the request to the criteria for (1)lot coverage.
a)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures( )involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. It is a small lot, a corner lot,and the structure predates the current owner. A 5
1
per cent violation will not crowd the residence very much.
b)That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would
deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Quite a few properties in the area have
garages either on the property line or within the setback distance,so the applicant should also
have this right.
c)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The owners have done nothing to affect the special conditions of the lot.
d)That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. No others have been denied the right and this does notquaaslu*ndue privilege for
the applicants. Applicant should be able to protect the automobile as others do.
e)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the
health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of
the proposed variance. Rather than adversely affecting the safety and general welfare,it gives
promise of enhancing it. There is still a lot of greenspace and open area on the lot.
MR. CONTINI MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION;MR.ESSMAN
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2)Mr. Stewart suggested that the setback request be granted, as applied to the criteria:
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 iii the same
zoning district. It is a smalljot and there is no other way the garage can be located to provide
protection for the car without moving closer to the lot line. This still allows room for
maintenance and does not crowd the neighboring structures. No special circumstances exist.
b)That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would
deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The applicants are one of the few owners
who do not have a garage so this would accordingly bring them up to par with others.
c)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The applicants bought the property in this condition.
d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. Other structures in the area do have similar structures.
e)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the
health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of
the proposed variance. No one has objected to the proposal and it should not adversely affect
anyone. It will not deny access to emergency vehicles or neighboring homes.
2
MR ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS MR-CONTINI SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Neil and Dixie Andrew,236 West Elm -Variances
Mr. Andrew stated that they have completed a great deal of work already and are
attempting to maintain historical integrity but now a challenge arises because of the corner lot
configuration. They have tried to balance functionality and aesthetics and still adhere to the
ordinances.
The Andrews will need three variances: ( 1)instead of the 10' setback,they wish to place
the garage on the property line;2 ()a 6'brick wallf/ence around the side and back yard;vs. 42"
maximum for front yard fences;3 ()a 60.6%lot coverage i(ncluding paved driveway)instead of
the 50%maximum in the code.
I)Mr. Andrew stated that moving the garage farther east would consume more lot
coverage and ruin architectural lines and decrease privacy. Leaving it as in the plan would
simplify entrance for emergency vehicles, etc.
2)Mr. Andrew stated that the pillars will be 6' high. The brick wall on Cherry Street
side will be in line with the wall of the house,or 6' from sidewalk and approximately 16' from
the curb,which should not affect visibility. The concept will enhance privacy and reduce noise.
2)Ms. Caravana stated that Mr. Tailford had reviewed the proposed variance for a wall
along Cherry Street and determined that it was not necessary. The wall is offset 1' from the
property line. Walls can be between 42"and 72"and this wall meets two of the other criteria;
therefore we will forego this variance.
3)They plan on exposed aggregate for the driveway with attractive flower beds The site
plan includes a turnaround for cars to provide safety, provide more on-street parking,and
enhance convenience.
3)The lot coverage is actually 59.5%tak,ing into account an increase of area resulting
from a 6' dedicated right of way on east side granted to the property owner.
Although the architect attempted to preserve as much historical integrity as possible,
there remain some concerns about
cutting off light from the neighbor's house and the problem of a window in direct view of the
neighbor.
Mr. McCluskey,neighbor on north side,voiced his concerns about shutting off light to
his property and about the proposed wall and carriage house crowding his lot. The roof will be
3' beyond the McCluskey roofline and a window would be on a level with his guest bedroom
window. He would prefer that the building be built approximately 15' farther back on the lot. In
such an event extra greenspace would be acquired. M( r. McCluskey provided photographs of
possible impact of diminished lighting resulting from the construction.)When the two men originally started talking about this proposal,Mr. McCluskey had the impression it would be a
one-story garage,rather than a two-story carriage house. He did not think the wall on the
property line was a very good idea and was concerned about forfeiture of greenspace.
3
4
Ms Caravana was concerned about the height of the building,and Mr Contini added that
it would block the light and cast a shadow for the neighbor and the neighbor could look right in
the window
Ms Caravana expressed her preference for brick pavement because it can also be used
a part of the overall design Sliding the garage back and adding a wheel path would pevide Atill*
gardening area r A*n[drew stated that he wanted a 30'x30' garden
spot,and also his privacy would be interfered tith if he moved it back. If it is moved back,it
would be close to the Leavell property The balance and functionality of the lot would be
reduced by moving the structure 4ADJ
Mr Contini thought the plans were attractive per se but he lS concerned about Mr
McCluskey's apprehensions The closer the carriage house is to the neighbor's house,the less
attractive will the skylights be He would be inclined to be lenient as far as lot coverage is
concerned but would prefer that the two neighbors come to an agreement Ms Caravana agreed
and suggested Mr Andrew speak to his landscape gardener to shift the flower beds Moving the
building back would make it less imposing Mr Andrew said he would be willing to consider a
one-story garage but would prefer the plans as submitted
Mr Andrew,realizing that a positive vote at this time was uncertain,asked for a
continuance of the application so that he could study the plans further MR ESSMAN MOVED
TO TABLE THE APPLICATION,MR CONTINI SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Work Session:
Legal Issues with Law Director
1) If the BZBA feels it needs more time to consider evidence to decide on an
application,what is the proper procedure?Should we hold a special meeting,and how
does this affect the tabling procedure?
Mr Hurst replied that the Board might consider amending the code to provide it with
more time to act,for there is no procedure at present to gain extra time
The only means at hand now to gain time is for
the applicant to request a continuance.
The sixty-day time-frame starts with submission of application BZBA may hold extra meetings
if they choose,but may have to act sooner than desirable Having an option to extend the time
limit is a good idea,and it would be up to the BZBA to draft an amendment and submit it to Village Council in writing
l. BZBA must make the decision to propose an amendment to Village Council, if they desire- the
option of mord time to make ddcisions.
2. All decisions 'of this boatd must be in.
writing, must be completed within 60 days, and
must be accompanied by a Finding of Fact.
items?2)When should we allow public comments,especially for the high-conflict agenda
Mr. Hurst stated that it does not matter,as a matter of law. it's easier to defendants if you
allow the applicant to fully present his/ her case and then receive input from the public. You as a
board control the action. The affected property owners must receive notice and are clearly
entitled to present their side of the story.
3)Do we need to worry about swearing- in people?
Mr. Hurst's position on this point is that the process of hearing an application is not a
minitrial and not a quasjiu- dicial proceeding. At this time he does not feel that this administration
level does not require swearing- in.
If you have an appeal,contact the Law Director,get a court reporter,and
swear people in.
4)On controversial decisions,should one member go over the criteria and apply
them to the situation?
Mr. Hurst replied that whether this is a difficult solution,he would encourage every
board member to give input.
Should there be a Finding of Fact and when should it be done?
Mr. Hurst replied that is the problem with 1139. You need someone to take
responsibility of drafting the preliminary draft. Everyone concurs on the finding of fact and then
at the next meeting you approve the finding of fact as issued. Any minor concerns must be listed
there. The comprehensive finding of fact for Marathon should be your model for the future.
The formal finding of fact does not have to be done within the sixty days. There is no
5
right"to a conditional use. Applicants have to prove that they have met the criteria. If'an
applicant wants to change something, it must be in writing and must explain how Application 2
varies from Application 1.
Board members might disagree on a finding. An individual board member may write an
explanation on his own. if the dissenting voter requests including his reasons for the findings,
that is legitimate,but he does not have to. The majority finding counts. An applicant cannot
impose his will on a neighbor. The aggrieved party,i.e.,neighbor,can appeal BZBA's decision.
00<>0<0><0><©>.
Ms. Caravana requested Mr.Hurst to draft an amendment to allgB)Z'BA an extension of A
time. Sometimes it is not appropriate to hear an application upon receipt and the board needs the
option administratively to extend the time for their consideration. The applicant must be told in
writing that the hearing decision has been continued and that the clock runs sixty days from the
time the hearing was concluded rather than sixty days from receipt of application. Mr. Hurst
will follow up on this matter.
Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.
Next Meeting: May 23, 1996,7 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6
1

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.