Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 5/23/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 23,1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Neil Andrew (236 West Elm), Carole Sue McCluskey (128 S. Cherry), Janet

Derr (3248 Raccoon Valley), Larry Terry Dickson (438 Fern Hill), Jim Gimieson

Longaberger B,ob Daganhart 4(4 Waterford), Jim Bascom (15 Thomas Road)

Minutes: April 25. 1996: Page 1, under 2( ):In "addition, 6' from theside Page.2", line 4

under first (d), change quality to qualify. Page 4,Paragraph 2,change "provide more

maintenance space and to relocate gardening area toward the street. Page 6,Paragraph 3, line

1, change allow 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's request of 15',and lining 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 wheel paths. The driveway will be exposed aggregate concrete.

Ms. McCluskey, the immediate neighbor, stated that they would have 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 originally designed,it would be possible to move the window,but not with the revised plan. There would not be any direct alignment of windows.

Mr. Herman was concerned that someone in the future would use this proposed variance Ms. Caravana applied the criteria to the application. The walls do not require 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 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.

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 property could be aesthetically 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 large is because of these issues and because if applicant takes coverage this 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 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 absence Mr. Stewart for being a close neighbor.

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 structures 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 would require reduced setbacks. Other structures in the neighborhood are built on.

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 under the provisions of this Ordinance. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming therefore, applicant should not be denied the privilege.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

not be affected. 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 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

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 chain link 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 stair-stepping 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 property beyond by tractors and emergency vehicles. It's a very steep stated that they have not planned to add a gate. The fence is in 7' sections, could remove a post,which would be expensive. He will consult with a gate.

Ms. Caravana stated that the gate issue is not apropos to the variance itself and a neighbors cannot be withheld for this reason. The gate issue has to be determined between

Ms. Caravana applied the application to the criteria for variance in height:

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.

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 above-normal 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 acres,and

requires safety features,which others in the village already enjoy.

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: 8:10 p.m.

Next Meeting: June 27, 1996, 7 p.m.

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.