Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 6/27/1996

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 Place), 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 qualify.

Page 4, Paragraph 2, changed "provide more maintenance space and"

to relocate Mardenine 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 6' a compromise with the McCluskey's 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 wheel-paths. The driveway will be exposed aggregate concrete.

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 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 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 neighbors 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 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

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 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 safety features, which others in the village.

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.