Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 7/24/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

July 24, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Bob Essman

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Ladd Michael, Stephen Blake,

Greg and Ginny Sharkey

Minutes: June 26:

read provide.

change."MR.

Page 1, halfway down page, correct typo to

Page 3, 7th line up, add in use after "any

SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Public Hearing:

Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm Street

The Blakes wish to install an air conditioning unit on the

west side of the house, approximately 6' from west property line.

Placing it here would be in good proximity to the furnace, and

the applicant feels the unit will be screened from his neighbor

by the neighbor' s garage. He prefers to place the unit under the

window on the west side.

Ladd Michael, neighbor to the west, requested that the unit

be placed behind the garage so that it is centered or a couple of

feet behind the garage, as close to the house as possible. He

feels the garage itself would not provide a sufficient noise

barrier. Mr. Blake said that could be done but they would have

to construct the unit to go through the crawl space rather than

the cellar.

Ms. Caravana said they would have to work around the fire

escape. She added that landscaping would help screen the pipes,

which Mr. Blake said would have to twist and turn if the location

were moved. They would rather keep it as proposed, but Mr.

Michael wanted the unit moved.

Upon being asked more about the unit, Mr. Blake did not know

the capacity but the size was 30"x38"x26"high. Mr. Reyazi

thought it was probably a regular size unit, probably 2 ton air

conditioner: An air conditioner is a structure and needs a variance

in the side yard instead of the back yard.

Mr. Sharkey stated that one criterion is that a structure does not affect health, safety, and general welfare of neighbors,

and given Mr. Michael' s preferences, it might not pass. Could

the unit be moved a couple of feet back? Mr. Stewart wished

there were more information available about how much of a burden

would 'be· 'imposed b-y moving, i't 'a"couplse'-of"f·eet,·back," a 'nd Mr-: ,-

Blake said it could be done but it would be more costly to go

through the walls at that location.

BZBA members were unwilling to approve the application

against Wishes of the neighbor, and Mr. Blake asked exactly where

the unit should be placed. Consensus of those involved agreed

that 3' back from front of garage doors would be best but if fire

escape is in the way, 2' would be all right. Air conditioner

pipes can run outside the house.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE BLAKE APPLICATION FOR A

VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE UNIT BE MOVED BACK FROM

ITS PROPOSED PRESENT LOCATION AND PUT NO CLOSER THAN 2' FROM

THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NEIGHBOR' S GARAGE NEXT DOOR. MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE

ABSTENTION (MS. CARAVANA).

Mr. Stewart 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 the air conditioning

unit cannot be placed at the back because of the location

of the furnace and there is not room for a 10' setback.

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. There are many other lots with

narrow side 16ts and many of them have air conditioner units on

the side because of the situation of the house on the property.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the property as is and is anxious to improve the house.

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. Other structures have been granted similar variances

in the same zoning district.

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 proposal with the conditions imposed to

help block the sound will be acceptable to the health, safety,

and general welfare of persons in the neighborhood.

Greg and Ginny Sharkey, 117 South Plum Street

The Sharkeys wish to build a 8' x8' deck onto a porch on the back of their house. Mrs. Sharkey indicated that it would

extend directly to the west with steps on the property line. It would be 3' 8" from the rear lot line, which adjoins Sugarloaf

Park. The nearest park trail is 253'-0' from the proposed deck.

Lot coverage would increase to 54%.A letter was received from

the only neighbors, the Borishanskys, expressing that they have

no problem with the deck. The Village Manager has no problem

with the deck' s proximity to the park.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.

MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH

MR. SHARKEY ABSTAINING. '

Ms. Caravana 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. The special circumstances are that the house sits so

far back on the lot and is already in the setback, thus precluding

an addition within the code. They are only adding 2'- 3'

plus steps. It' s a small deck and 253'-0' from the closest path

of the park. A backyard extends beyond the rear property 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. Other properties abutting Sugarloaf

and elsewhere in the Village have structures or decks that

go into the setback.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The house was built 85

years before the applicants purchased it.

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. Granting the variance would not confer any privileges.

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 there

would be no adverse effects. The steps would be a good distance

away from the park paths.

Work Session:

Review of "Rules and Regulations"

Mr. Reyazi requested members to review the draft and bring

suggestions to the next meeting.

Committee Discussion: Members discussed the Village Council decision

to overturn BZBA' s decision and allow Fackler' s to operate a drive-through but with limited hours for selling beer. Mr.

Herman feels the Council is not being accountable to members of the community and would like to see their factual evidence for arriving at their decision.

4

1

Finding of Fact:

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL

DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR THE BLAKE APPLICATION APPROVED

TONIGHT; MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL

DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR THE SHARKEY APPLICATION APPROVED

TONIGHT; MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY

MAJORITY WITH ONE ABSTENTION (MR. SHARKEY).

Adjournment: 8: 30 p. m.

Next Meeting: August 28, 7 p. m. Mr. Stewart will be absent)

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.