Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 10/24/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND-BUILDING APPEALS

October 24, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Erin 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 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

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 somebody can' t say "You did not discuss this."In case of appeal, it is important 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 misinterpreting 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 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 ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS OUR FINAL

DECISION FOR THE RODNEY APPLICATION. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10: 45 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.