Granville Community Calendar

06/26/97

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
June 26, 1997
Minutes
Present: Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Bob Seith, Dan Rogers, Betty
Morrison, Noni Nutter, L. Nadwodney, Constance Barsky, Steve
Katz, Ben Rader, Judy and Dennid Guenther and two builders,
Cheryl Jalbert
Minutes: May 22: MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;
MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street
Mr. Rogers wishes to construct a 25' x22' detached garage
located 1' from north property line and 1'fr/om east property
line, 20' high. The wood siding will match the house. There are
three trees on the property, and he plans to leave them there.
Mr. Rogers stated that to build it within setback minimum would
deprive him of most of his back yard. The one-foot setback will
p#Be·ir@w enough room for maintenance. There are other similar
garages nearby, and this plan is very much like Neil Andrew' s new
garage on Cherry and W. Elm. Under the proposed plan he can
drive straight into the garage; there is no access from the
alley. Mr. Rogers believes there was a garage at one time but
does not know how big it was or how long ago it was removed.
There is a shed on the property which will have to be moved, but
this application does not include such a move.
Mr. Reyazi pointed out that he received a letter from Sharon
L. Sellitto, who owns adjoining property on the west side. She
would object to a variance allowing the shed closer to her property
than the law allows, but the shed is not on the application
for tonight. Mr. Rogers will speak with her. He will have to
move the shed to a temporary location while he builds the garage.
No other neighbors have recorded objections.
Mr. Stewart asked whether there was a problem with height,
which is supposed to be within 10%of the average height of the
adjacent buildings. Mr. Reyazi thought the ordinance was vague.
but this plan is consistent with what is close by.
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MR. ROGERS'
VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR THE NEW GARAGE. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2 ,
Mr. Sharkey applied the criteria for variances for this
application:
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 special circumstances would be that Mr. Rogers
desires to maintain his back yard and in so doing wants to keep
the garage a certain distance from the house and that is the
special condition peculiar to this property.
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. We have heard that there are other
garages that sit within a few feet of the property line in that
area, and applicant' s structure would be consistent with the
others.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The house has been
there for many years, and Mr. Rogers is simply placing the garage
a sufficient distance to protect the back yard.
D) That the granting 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 have heard testimony that there are other placed similarly garages close to lot lines in the neighborhood.
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. In terms of the new garage structure, we have heard no objection from neighbors, and there is no other reason we can think of that would affect the health, safety and general welfare of people in the area.
Betty Morrison, 129 Westgate Drive
Ms. Morrison wishes to use her late husband' s shop for Noni Ntoutrteert'asil.gift shop, which constitutes a change of use from shop Mr. Reyazi stated that this would require 10 parking
ssptiapcuelsa, tecompared to the 9 available now. Also, the ordinances that any off-street parking area for more than 5 vehi- citlesisshall be of dustless asphalt or cement, whereas at present gravel. The advantage of gravel is that it permits better drainage than a paved surface would. Ms. Nutter stated that if bituihldaidngbe. en paved, recent flood water would have entered the Most of the parking areas in this district are gravel. Mr. Reyazi stated that this area is not an established retail district and the applicant wishes to "test the water, "without incurring a great deal of cost. To this end the Board may choose to grant the variance for a specified period of time. If this vinariuasnec. e is granted, Mr. Reyazi will be able to approve a change
rMR.
STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM 10 TO 9 VEHICLES AND TO APPROVE
VARIANCE THAT THE PARKING LOT REMAIN GRAVEL. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart applied 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. Existing parking lots can only accommodate 9 cars.
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 properties have gravel
parking lots and they are not subject to the same restrictions
for parking spaces.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The property was pre- existing when applicant instituted this change of use. D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance other lands to or structures in the same zoning district. Board
members do not think overcrowding is going to be a problem.
Granting would be preferable as far as health, safety, and general welfare of the area.
Mr. and Mrs. Guenther, 120 West Broadway
1) The Guenthers wish a change of nonconforming use from a flower shop to a gift basket shop. The property has been used
for commercial purposes, for about thirty years. Mr. Reyazi has received two letters from neighbors in sup- port of the basket shop. Ms: Jalbert spoke with Ms. Guenther and has enough confidence that the business will eliminate parking problems that existed in the past. Mr. Seith expressed the hope that the business will be an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Stewart asked about the fudge-making operation, and Ms. Guenther said they make fudge now over Town and Gown in an electric machine, and they would like to add this operation to their property at 120 West Broadway. Ms. Jalbert is concerned lest this turn into a candy factory and set an unwanted prece dent. Mr. Sharkey reminded her that any changewould have to -be "US
looked at by the BZBA. Mr. Reyazi said BZBA could stipulate the A
maximum area to be used by the candy machine.
Ms. Guenther said that most of her business is by phone and parking requirements are minimal. She and Ms. Jalbert thought it would be a good idea for the village to paint parking spaces on West Broadway where the parking becomes horizontal to the curb.
1
3
Secondly, they wish a variance to allow them to put enough
money into the repair knd renovation to make upgrade the building
and make it presentabla. The ordinance allows for 60%of a
building' s valuation, and this far exceeds that estimate. Ms.
Guenther handed out a #heet of estimated expenses, cautioning
that any repair job tends to lead to other repairs. Mr. Reyaza
thinks it advisable toestablish a parameter about total dollars to be spent. Mr. Stewart thought the proposed expenses would be
no more than required by a residence in the same condition. Ms.
Guenther explained in more detail the plans for upgrading the
building. The second floor is for office space.
Regarding the space behind the building, Mr. Guenther said
he will dry up the mud puddle there. The building in the back
will be a workroom for the basket shop.
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE
NONCONFORMING USE.
He applied the criteria to the request:
a) The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not
increase the burden on public facilities streets, and services, such as utilities, schools, and refuse disposal imposed by the existing nonconforming use. We have heard testimony about the
proposed change from flower to gift basket shop, and it does not appear that there would be an increase in services. This would be
a low-volume business utilizing a lot of phone ordering.
b) The proposed use will not be detrimental nor disturbing
to existing neighboring uses in the district and will not entail
atheusesuwrrhoiuchndcinognstitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons in use district. We have heard from several
neighbors who seem comfortable with the plans and are confident that the Guenthers will have an establishment with an impact similar to that of the former tenant. We have heard nothing to indicate a detriment in any way.
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2) Mr. Herman suggested a 10 per cent cushion to allow applicants to continue if expenses hit the maximum estimate of 65, 000, and other members agreed.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO EXCEED MAXIMUM REPAIR AMOUNT AND TO ALLOW. MAXIMUM EXPENSES OF $73. 000. MR.
STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Essman applied the criteria to the application:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are
4
not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The special circumstances are that we are dealing with
a nonconforming use in a residential district.
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 adjacent property neighbor to
the east is also a nonconforming use.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The circumstances are
not a result of the applicant' s actions; in fact, they wish to
improve the property.
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. Property
next door is also nonconforming.
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 have no objections and actually
prefer to see the building improved.
Finding of Fact:
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL
DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR CASES APPROVED TONIGHT; MR.
STEWART SECONDED, AND IGT· WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Review of BZBA "Rules and Regulations" draft
Mr. Reyazi presented a draft of rules and of these items stated that a lot would require a change in Village Charter. A new
draft will be prepared, omitting such items. The document was discussed at length, particularly the following items:
VIII. F. Third sentence should be changed to "While citizens' comment is appreciated and encouraged, the chair shall have ealuimthinoarittey to limit length of speaking."Then it was agreed to the last sentehce in VIII F.
BoarUdn.d"er VIII G, add "All questions shall be directed to the
VIII. J should say, T"he Chairperson announces the result of the vote and directs the official recording of the decision. The Finding of Fact will provide clarity."
Mr. Sharkey thought it was a good idea to have the Vice Chair prepare the formal Finding of Fact.
5
6
Adjournment: 8: 50 p. m.
Next Meeting: July 24, 7 p. m. Mr. Essman will be absent; Betty
Allen will be absent)
August 28 (Mr. Stewart will be absent)··
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

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.