Granville Community Calendar

06/27/96

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
June 27, 1996
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman,
Eric Stewart
Members Absent: none
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner
Visitors: Jim Schmidt, Bill Anderson, Vince Messerly (Concepts
in Lodging),Steve &Carol Tunnicliff (31 Vill-Edge),Jurgen Pape
403 E. Broadway),Kevin Bennett (105 Mt. Parnassus),George
Griffin (4 Samson PlaceO, Carl Wilkenfeld (317 West Elm),John
Kessler &Eloise DeZwarte (338 East College)
Minutes: May 23. 1996: Page 1, before Section (a),add title LOT
COVERAGE VARIANCE 6' from the side. .
Page 2, line 4 under first d),change quality to qualifv.
Page 4, Paragraph 2, changd "provide more maintenance space and"
to relocate Mardenine area toward the street. Page 6, Paragraph
3, line 1, change alluw to: allow. Mr. Herman moved to approve
minutes as presented; Mr. Stewart seconded, AND MINUTES WERE
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Neil and Dixie Andrew, 236 West Elm -Variances
Mr. Andrew described a change from the plan for his carriage
house, which was continued by BZBA at the last meeting. He has
moved the structure back 13. 6',a compromise with the McCluskey' request of 15-,and lining s up with the screen porch. Mr. Andrew
understood that there would be some lenience regarding lot
coverage in order to compromise with the neighbors' concerns. The revised plan would require more lot coverage. He requests a paved drive instead of wheelpaths. The driveway will be exposed
aggregate concrete.
wouldMhsa. veMcCluskey, the immediate neighbor, stated that they preferred moving it 15 . There are a lot of children
in the neighborhood, and placing the garage on the property line would block visibility for cars and be less safe. She also
requested that the location of the window facing their house be changed or removed.
Mr. Andrew stated that if they had left the plans as origi- nally designed, it would be possible to move the window, but not with the revised plan. There would not be any direct alignment of windows.
4
Mr. Herman was concerned that someone in the future would
use this proposed variance as a precedent.
LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE: Ms. Caravana applied the criteria
to the application. (The walls do not require a variance):
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
district. It is a small lot and the structure was built before
the zoning ordinance. There is no other way the garage can be
located to provide protection for the car without moving closer
to the lot line. Originally the property included a summer
kitchen, so historical integrity would not be affected.
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. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming
garages; therefore, applicant should not be denied the
privilege.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant has done
nothing to create special circumstances to the lay of the land.
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. Most
other neighbors have similar garages and driveways.
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. Members determined that visibility will not be affected by the new structure. The general welfare could be
affected by increased lot coverage; but at the same time, the plan would provide more street parking and aesthetically property could be enhanced by the new structure. Safety is improved
by off-street parking and more visibility for school busses.
Special Notes about the Variance: As a result of suggestions by the board to address the neighbor= s concerns regarding privacy and' decreased sunlight, the plan was altered by the applicant and the lot coverage was increased. Part of the reason BZBA is
granting coverage this large is because of these issues and because if applicant takes out the turnabout, it would not be as safe for cars who would have to back into the street. Also, the fact that he has a 6' high wall which will block almost all the view by the public will mitigate the large area of concrete.
Lest precedent be set here, Mr. Herman reminded the group that the lot coverage variance is granted in response to the
t
15
neighbor' s concern about sunlight. This is a unique and particular
concern relative to this situation only.
ALL MEMBERS THEN APPROVED THE REVISED PLAN WHICH WOULD
APPROVE LOT COVERAGE OF 72. 3 PER CENT. There was one abstention
Mr. Stewart) for being a close neighbor.
SETBACK VARIANCE: Members applied the criteria to the
setback variance of zero, requested by the applicant:
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
district. This is a very narrow lot, built before the ordinance
was put in effect. A garage of any size would require reduced
setbacks. Other structures in the neighborhood are built on the
lot line.
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. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming
setbacks; therefore, applicant should not be denied the
privilege.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant has done
nothing to create special circumstances to the lay of the land.
d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance other to lands or structures in the same zoning district. Most
other neighbors have similar setbacks.
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. By moving the structure back, we have addressed
the general welfare of the people closest to subject property. There is adequate light reaching the neighbor s house, and windows will not line up with each other. Safety does not
appear to be a factor.
MEMBERS VOTED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE OF ZERO ON REVISED PLAN. There was one abstention (Mr. Stewart) for being a close neighbor.
New Business:
David Longaberger, 537 Jones Road
16
1
Mr. Longaberger is requesting to continue the wrought-iron
fence around the rest of the property without the stone pillars.
He wishes to increase the height of the fence to 8 in the back
areas because of the topography and for security reasons. A
variance of 2 is required for most of the fence and 5. 5- for the
Jones Road side of the property.
Jim Gimeison stated that they would like to replace a
chainlink fence and continue the fence style as in the front,
with standard posts rather than pillars, around the property for
security. The rolling topography precludes a firm 6 fence
everywhere and stairstepping would result. The height will vary
with the contour of the land. Mr. Longaberger, in his May 1
letter, wishes to "maintain and restore the unique historical
significance and architectural elegance through appropriate
attention to detail of materials and consistency of structures.
There are ponds and a swimming pool, and security is crucial.
People could easily climb over a 3- fence atop a dip in the
contour.
Jim Bascom (15 Thomas Road) expressed his hope that there
could be a gate to allow access to the land-locked property
beyond by tractors and emergency vehicles. It s a very steep
bank. Mr. Gimieson stated that they have not planned to add a gate. The fence is in 7' sections, so if they needed to, they
could remove a post, which would be expensive. He will consult
with Mr. Longaberger about a gate.
Ms. Caravana stated that the gate issue is not apropos to
the variance itself, and a variance cannot be withheld for this reason. The gate issue has to be determined between neighbors.
Ms. Caravana applied the application to the criteria for variance in height:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which peculiar to the land are or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The topography creates the special situation. The 50-
acre parcel is unique to the village, and applicant wishes to continue the design of the pre-existing fence in the front area. The aesthetics suggest aboven-ormal sizes to match the imposing size of the mansion. This is not likely to set an example for
any other property in the village.
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 property is approximately 50
aalcrereasd,yanednjorey.quires safety features, which others in the village
17
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased
the property and wishes to protect it.
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. The
unique and peculiar circumstances are the massive size of the
house.
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. Safety will be enhanced with a fence protecting
the ponds and swimming pool. An evenly topped fence will
look better than one following contours of the land.
THE APPLICATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Notes on the Variance: The neighbors will work out the gate
issue. Also, for the record, the enormous scale of the property
and house are unique and require a different approach. There are
no neighbors close to the fence and no negative impact would
result from a higher fence.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting:
8: 10 p. m.
June 27, 1996, 7 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
18

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.