Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 5/22/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 22, 1997

Minutes

Present: , Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,

Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana, Eric Stewart

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner, Jim Sweeney,

Assistant Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Dan Shaw, B. J. Weaver, Louise

Courson, Linda Barash, Tod Frolking, Jeff Fleckner

Minutes: April 24: Page 4, Line 7 under Guenther, add and/or

after "cup of tea."Page 5, line 4 from bottom, add area after

residential."Page 8, Line 3 under Fackler, change "He" to Mr.

Sharkey. Page 9, line 5 from bottom, change "relative" to

relevant. MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS

AMENDED.

Citizens Comments:

Mr. Reyazi announced that the Public Hearing on 445 Palmer

Lane (Cellular Phone Antenna) scheduled for tonight has been postponed. JEFF FLECKNER of Granville Square Apartments wondered

whether there is a map of where cellular tower might Reyazi said there is go, and Mr. no map yet.

New Business:

Daniel E. Shaw, 209 Kildare Street

Mr. Shaw seeks a setback variance from rear property line in order to build a deck with rose arbor and grape arbor. The deck would be 36' from rear lot line and 20' from side lot lines. Mr.

Reyazi noted that when new houses in Village Green were built, minimum rear setbacks were 40' under PUD development ordinances. After they are built, Zoning Ordinances set the standards. If

deck had been added when house was built, it probably would have met setback requirements in place at the time. Mr. Shaw feels

it will be attractive and an asset to the neighborhood. There

have been no objections from neighbors.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED AS PRESENT- ED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria for variances for this appl-ication:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist tarpicptl.icable to other lands or structures in the same zoning The applicant is asking for the same standards as oisthers in the subdivision have. Special circumstances are that he building a deck after the house was built and must apply

4

3

2

built.

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. Literal interpretation would deprive

applicant of the same rights as others in the neighborhood.

There are other decks nearby of similar construction.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The house was built

under a different set of ordinances.

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. This

building would not confer undue privilege; applicant is simply

asking for what others in the area have.

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. People in the area are comfortable with their

decks, and applicant' s deck would be similar.

Phelps and Karen Jones, 113 Donegal Drive

Ms. Jones wishes to build a 14' x16' deck similar to others

in the neighborhood, which is less than the 50' required setback.

In a situation identical to the Shaw application just described, Mr. Jones wanted to wait and build the deck himself instead of

adding it when the house was built. With a 50' setback, his deck

could only be 6' deep, and he is asking for a 7. 59' variance. MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Essman applied the criteria:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved not applicable and which are district. to other lands or structures in the same zoning Applicant did not build deck when house was built, whereas others in the area were able to avoid a variance

procedure by adding decks when houses were built, under different setback requirements.

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. Literal interpretation would de- prive applicant of the right to have a deck, as others in the neighborhood have.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The deck was not part doef cak.pplicant' s original construction, but now he is ready for a

different standards from those who added decks when houses were

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. This

building would not confer undue privilege. BZBA would merely

grant the privilege that others have already.

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 objections have been noted from neighbors;

in fact, the deck will enhance the neighborhood.

Old Business:

Mr. and Mrs. Guenther, 120 West Broadway

The Finding of Fact needs to be adopted as formal decision

One minor correction was noted, and Mr. of the board last month.

Reyazi will type up the Finding.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT WE ADOPT FINDING OF FACT. MR. HERMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

The Finding of Fact needs to be adopted as the formal decision of the Board last month.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT WE ADOPT FINDING OF FACT. MR. HERMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements:

Mr. Reyazi distributed draft design standards Frank Elmer, pertaining proposed by for only to commercial districts, and asked any comments from the Board.

Mr. Reyazi handed out standards for traffic studies, which he would like to move toward adopting soon. This is a rough

draft from ODOT, and he invites your comments.

Jim Sweeney, part time Village Planner, was introduced.

ProceMdur.re.Reyazi is still asking for comments on Rules for Perhaps the Vice Chair can be responsible for DFiinredicntgosr. of Fact. Rules will be rewritten and shown to the Law

Adjournment: 7: 35 p. m.

Next Meeting: June 26, 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.