Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 10/24/96

BOARD OF ZONING AND-BUILDING APPEALS
October 24, 1996
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman,
Eric Stewart
Members Absent: none
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),John Woods, Mary Fellabaum (320
W. Elm),Joe &Dorie Overman (546 N. Pearl),Dave Samuelson (C.
Williams),Bob Needham (815 Burg),Elizabeth &Carl Frazier (554 N.
Pearl),Ed Vance (248 Thornewood),Bill Wernet (134 S. Mulberry),
Leta Ross &Greg Ross (IGA) , John Burriss (332 Cedar) , Eloise
DeZwarte (338 E. College),Garry Wilcox (Certified Oil),Bob Erhard
87 Miller Ave.F)r,ank Abele
Minutes:
PREPARED.
September 26, 1996: MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Oakley &Delores Overman, 546 N. Pearl -
Variances
Setback and Coverage
The Overmans wish to add a two-story garage and a utility room, which 1) would be 35' closer to the rear lot line than
permitted and also (2) exceed maximum lot coverage. Mr. Overman
explained that they lack sufficient living space, especially a utility/bathroom and garage space. This would allow him off-street
parking. He plans to square" the house and improve its
appearance. A 50' setback would be impractical in this case. The
current structure already violates the setback regulations, as do houses of neighbors.
Following discussions with Mr. Reyazi and the next-door
neighbors, Mr. Overman has revised his plans to build a side-entry grealroacgaet,e to add an entry door, and to eliminate one window and one window.
Mr. Contini suggested improving appearance by offsetting the line in or out a foot or jogging the roofline. Mr. Overman agreed
to move it in one foot. He added that they will remove a portion
of the hedge by no more than is necessary. Mr. Reyazi stressed
maintaining safe visibility for automobiles.
1) MR. STEWART APPLIED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CRITERIA FOR SETBACK 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. unusual circTuhme sthaonucsees was built on a curved lot, which presents and Cuts off available space for the
applicant' s plans. Also, the house sits between two streets rather
2
than backing up to another house.
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. Not applicable because no one else
has a three-car garage.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased
the house as it was.
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.
We would give the same consideration to anyone with a curved lot.
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. The neighbors agreed with the plans, and safety concerns have been addressed.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE WALL PARALLEL TO PEARL STREET BE ONE FOOT
CLOSER TO PEARL STREET AND THE GARAGE DOORS BE ON NORTH SIDE.
MR. STEWART SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2) The criteria for lot coverage were reviewed. The plans
cover 18. 8 per cent (or 576 sq. ft),whereas 15 per cent is
permissible:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land applicable to other olarndsstructure(s) involved and which are not or structures in the same zoning
district. Again, the house was built on a curved lot, which
presents unusual circumstances.
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. Not applicable because no one else
has a three-car garage, and no deprivation exists.
c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The lot is irregularly shaped and the curve of the road is not a result of the applicant.
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.
we are dealing with a unique property in an irregular setting.
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 adverse effects are apparent.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE. MR.
HERMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James Pletcher, 448 West Broadway -setback variance
Mr. Pletcher wishes to remove the porch and add a two-story
addition of the same width and height but 12' deeper to the rear of
the house. 1) It would be in line with the house but closer to
west lot line than setback requirements decree. Mr. Pletcher says
his family has grown and they need more room. The house already
violates the side setback; they would not violate the rear setback.
2) They would also violate lot coverage by 23. 3 per cent, whereas
20 per cent is maximum. Mr. Reyazi has heard no complaints from
neighbors.
1) Mr. Contini applied the request for setback variance 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 in the same zoning
district. The rest of the structure does not conform to setback and
the proposed addition would not violate this condition to any greater extent.
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. Other houses in the neighborhood
appear to violate the setback requirements.
C) That
result from the
the special conditions and circumstances do not actions of the applicant. The setback from lot
lines is a condition inherited from the time the house was built.
d) That the grant of the variance will applicant not confer on the any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.
They are not asking for anything unique. Such setbacks are quite
common in the village.
e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the pvearrsiaonnsce.resNiodinadgveorsre working within the vicinity of the proposed effects are noted.
MR. CONTINI MOVED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
3
2) The lot coverage is over by 3 per cent.
Ms. Caravana applied criteria for variances of lot coverage:
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. All lots in the area are relatively small.
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. Other houses in the neighborhood have
appear to have similar additions.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased
the lot then subsequently needed more space.
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
variance will not grant undue privilege. It is only 3' maximum. over
e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
pvearrsiaonnsce.residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are noted.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE. MR
HERMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Robert &Meredith Needham and Helen K. Park -Side yard variance
Applicants wish to build an addition with garage, which intrudes into side yard setback by about 2' 8".The neighbor has no objections. There is heavy vegetation there and would be a minor encroachment. The addition would not be very noticeable and will line up to existing asphalt drive. The lot is not rectangular, and the house was built parallel to Burg Street. If it had been
parallel to side lot lines, there would have been room for
expansion without variance.. The Needhams prefer to care for· Mrs. Nnueerdshinagm' s mother at their home instead of forcing her to live in a home.
Mr. Essman applied the criteria to the application:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are papepculicliaabr leto totheotlahnedr or structure(s) involved and which are not lands or structures in the same zoning district. Special circumstances are the shape of the lot and the
4
82 AA
position of the existing and proposed addition on the lot. The
house is skewed relative to the shape of the lot.
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. Others enjoy additions to their homes
in the same zoning district. This would be a very minor
infraction, about 2%'.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased
the house as it was and now are asking for extra room.
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 undue privilege would be granted.
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 adverse effects are apparent. Neighbors have
expressed their approval.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK.
MR. CONTINI SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Certified Oil, 466 South Main -Conditional Use
John Wood and Gary Wilcox stated that the gas station built in 1970 and by was law they are mandated to upgrade the facility
by 1998. A conditional use is necessary because they are currently a gas station and wish to be a convenience store. If they merely
upgraded the tanks and omitted the store, a conditional use would not be necessary. Mr. Tailford had told them that South Main was to be widened. He had also recommended eliminating one driveway
for safety reasons, so plans were changed to combine driveways with NAPA and IGA. The area would be enhanced, Mr. Wood stated, by an upgrade of the station. He said that GPC' s greatest concern had to do with the combination entry curbcuts. They have an easement for
IGA property now, but Mr. Ross was concerned about traffic at their entry; therefore, they have moved the entry point on the plans to ofanveosr idoef tfhoirsinidgereas. s and egress. Mr. Reyazi said the village is in
Mr. Wilcox, traffic engineer, said that traffic was computed and found to be no problem; they are generating 1/3 to 12/ the maximum; the maximum was 146 cars in and out and they measured 50 cars at a peak hour. Mr. Samuelson referred to the questions he had upon reading applicant' s traffic study, and these were discussed at the meeting.
5
Ms. Caravana asked about pedestrian accommodations and landscaping.
Mr. Woods said there would be a sidewalk, pinoaks, and
other trees and shrubs. She asked whether there could be a
crosswalk, and Mr. Woods said it would be a problem because they
would put in asphalt until the state widened the road and then have
to replace it with concrete.
To Mr. Herman' s question about the convenience store, Mr.
Woods said it would be 1500 sq. ft {Mr. Reyazi had noted that
previous plans called for 1200 sq. ft} and sell pop, cigarettes,
beer, wine, etc. To a question about the canopy, Mr. Woods stated
that it will be illuminated below the deck. He added that GPC
wanted to see building material, and they wanted the dumpster
shielded by brick.
Ms. Caravana asked about parking, and Mr. Woods replied that
with parking at pumps, the spaces would be adequate.
Citizens' Comments
WILLIAM WERNET asked about the requirement for a nonconforming
use by a building roof supported by columns with excessive lighting
in TCOD, which would need 100' setback. Mr. Woods responded that
this was addressed by GPC, who said that rio varidnces would be
required. Mr. Reyazi confirmed that GPC would consider the TCOD,
and can grant variances up to 50'. Mr. Wernet is concerned about
approving applications outside the ordinances. More discussion
ensued on this topic. Ms. Caravana feels that now is the time to
look at the TCOD issue.
Mr. Contini stated that the TCOD issue is not applicable if
they remain as they are, but remaining as they are is less benefit a to this community. He does not want to manipulate to drive them out.
Mr. Herman thought the application appropriate for the area, although BZBA needs to consider nuisances and hazards.
ED VANCE was concerned about the trade-off: more traffic at a
convenience store vs. a more attractive area.
MS. ROSS stated that they are concerned about sharing the driveway, although they appreciate the improvement. There will be
a stacking problem at IGA for left-turning cars. MR. ROSS thought
the application would make the situation more difficult for the IGA. Ms. Caravana thought that c6mbining traffic is outweighted by eliminating one curbcut.
Mr. Herman asked whether on Mr. Samuelson' s report turning points were still a condition, and the answer was yes. He thought
things could be done to quantify these points. Mr. Wilcox reported that a person sat there counting nine cars during a peak hour, and the number of cars going to Certified from IGA was low.
6
JIM JUMP agrees with Mr. Contini that i]E» something is there,
let' s have it look good and improve the area.
Ms. Caravana did not feel she could approve this conditional
use tonight because she wants to look into the TCOD and sort out
requirements and whether this application is in conformance.
Mr. Herman wanted also to determine whether the structure
would be compatible, whether it would be a nuisance, and to get
clear with GPC as to what it will look like before he can approve
this.
Mr. Stewart agreed and is not comfortable because questions
raised tonight, especially by Mr. Wernet, exist, and he did not
feel the plan is ready for us.
Mr. Contini wanted more time but felt Certified should pursue.
He does not like the shared driveway because the Ross' reasons are
sound, and he is uncomfortable about crisscrossing traffic. Even
i f the ordinance wants to .combine curbcuts, there is a tendency for
traffic to get confusing.
Mr. Essman is concerned about traffic at IGA and would like to
see GPC follow a sensible traffic plan, and a shared driveway might
be the answer.
Mr. Wilcox said that the conflict already occurs now on the
street. A convenience store might stack 4 or 5 cars.
Mr. Reyazi recommended a work session, but Mr. Woods said they
have already had two work sessions with GPC. Mr. Reyazi added that
still pending with GPC are the canopy, size of store, and design.
BOB ERHARD stated that the ordinance says GPC decides on TCOD
matters, but it gets muddy regarding overall plans for the area.
BZBA considers impact more than design.
Samuelson what would capacity be on S. Ms. Caravana asked Mr.
Main, and he thought about 5 percent increase. In answer to
another question he believes that removing one drive would improve
the traffic situation, although sometimes planned. things don' t work out as
Mr. Reyazi said that we can go to GPC with design issues. Ms. Caravana indicated BZBA can either vote or table and Mr. Woods and
Mr. Reyazi can work together. Mr. Reyazi' s questions are the impact of traffic to be generated as a result of a convenience store. Mr. Wilcox stated that they took the most critical condition at the most conservative situation of the station at the most critical time. They were operating with a delay of one or two wseictho.nds, and that is the only objective criteria they can work Mr. Reyazi wants the traffic generated by the current site and by the future site, for it' s difficult to understand the impact. Mr. Wilcox said a different analysis would be more confusing, but Mr. Reyazi disagreed.
Mr. Woods requested tabling the application and coming back
7
next month after he works with Mr. Reyazi on statistics.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session
Discussion with Bob Erhard -procedural issues
Following the Fackler hearing, Mr. Erhard felt that some
communication was in order between him and BZBA. There are gray
areas with GPC, and it helps to know what GPC must consider, and
how a business fits into the area despite traffic issues. BZBA can
attach conditions to permitted uses and conditional uses, i. e.,
applicant must work out the TCOD situation. TCOD relates to
existing open space and less to places like Certified. They are
scrutinizing closely what was discussed, and it' s important that
BZBA not deduce things that really belong to GPC. Conditional uses
stay with the property. It would be useful to have a definition of
fast food" in the code.
Mr. Herman asked about timelines. Now we have a 30-day
period. When we vote and state reasons later, they can refer back
to the 12-page Finding of Fact in writing. The < reason is to
provide a well thought-out Finding of Fact.
Mr. Erhard said that is the only way to do it. Ms. Caravana
asked whether it was best to vote before writing the Finding of Fact, lest the Finding report inconsistencies. Mr. Erhard said
someone should use a checklist so later s6mebody can' t say "You did not discuss this."In case of appeal, it is importang to have good records. He suggested rather than saying "30 days, "to say "at the
next meeting,"for there might be 31 days interim. He also
suggested holding a joint meeting with GPC. Mr. Erhard stressed
considering everything in the ordinance and not get into items
where people can argue and find loopholes.
Ms. Caravana asked what does a continuation do to a deadline?
He replied hearing. that you TABLE a proposed action; you CONTINUE a
She asked about how appeals will be handled and what role do minutes play. He responded that minutes act as red flags if there misinustoemsething in the Finding of Fact that was not discussed in the or vice versa or if they discussed something not legitimate. You have to determine how you want your minutes.
Mr. Contini wondered what happened when BZBA denies someone and he appeals to V. C. and they read our Finding of Fact. Then
V. C. turns him down and he appeals to the courts. The courts
cannot refer to our Finding of Fact. Mr. Erhard confirms that the
courts consider new evidence.
Ms. Caravana asked whether V. C. can determine whether we made, a reasonable decision, and the answer was No, this does not make
8
you a paper tiger.
She asked about the criterion for "appropriate for the area
and compatible with existing uses,"and Mr. Erhard agreed that we
should be looking at that closely. She would like Mr. Erhard to
examine closely criteria for conditional use and variance. Gil
Krone worked on revising criteria, and BZBA will consider them
again.
Mr. Herman brought up the issue of quantification.
Mr. Erhard felt that compatibility , is more useful than
aesthetics in making decisions.
Finding of Fact: Nadwodney
MR. CONTINI MOVED TO ADOPY THE FINDING OF FACT AS OUR FINAL
DECISION FOR THE NADWODNEY APPLICATION. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10: 45 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
9
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.