Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 10/22/98

AGENDA
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 22,1998
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MUNUTES
A)August 27, 1998
B)September 24, 1998
4) CITIZENS COMMENTS
5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
A)James & Jill LeVere, 216 North Granger Street
Suburban Residential District -B
Variance Application -Side yard setback
7) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday,November 19, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.,at the Village Offices.
B)Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,December 17, 1998,7:00 p.m.,atthe Village Offices.
8)ADJOURNMENT
0. r:.fgj -C.i(' :L. 2/1(1'.i/- 2 1- w #0· AE: n.L..A: fl.et,- I.#I.*2 6 ,4,·1.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS MEMORANDUM
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
KATHRYN WIMBERGER,VILLAGEPLANN0E* OCTOBER 15,1998
MEETING ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 22,1998
PUBLIC HEARING
A)216 North Granger:JamesJ i&ll LeVere Zoned: Suburban Residential District -B
Variance Application -Side yard setback for driveway extension
FACTS:
The applicants wish to extend their driveway toward the reare (ast)of their property at 216 North Granger Street. The request is for a one foot setback,which equals a 4 foot variance. Their Zoning Certificate for their addition to the rear of the house,and the demolition of the existing garage was approved on September 28, 1998. In order to continue the line of the existing driveway and allow for maneuvering of vehicles in and out of the garage,which will face north,this variance is requested.
RELEVANT SECTIONS:
1147 Variances
1163.01 Suburban Residential District -A: Purpose and Intent 1163.03 b( 2)() Suburban Residential District -A:ParkingA &ccessory Buildings
CONSIDERATIONS:
1: Variance Application -Side yard setback. The applicant would like to have a straight line ofasphalt driveway in order to promote safety and better accessibility to the new attached garage. The garage doors will be facing north and therefore requires vehicles to turn southward to enter into the garage and then again on the exit,some maneuvering will be necessary to exit out of the drive. The neighbors might be concerned about the closeness of the pavement due to the vtreeheisclaelsong the lot line as well as the potential for damage to the trees or their lot from possibly not driving on the pavement. With the variance,however,it would seemIttmhaigt ehnt obuegh pavement would be provided so as to prevent such scenarios. argued that the additional driveway is not necessary for adequate fmoarntheeuvmerainjogriitny othfethderivderiwveay. . The driveway would be approximately 16 feet in width
extenTshioenBsoinardtheof Zoning and Building Appeals has given variances for driveway past.
I have received one concern in regard to this application(s)at this time. Their more targeted at the addition,rather than the concern was the side yard setback. The pavement,and the variance application is for additions falls within code and has been approved.
DECISION:
Is this application consistent with the requirements of applicable ordinances? Do special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structures dinivsotrlivcetds?which are not applicable to other lands or structures in e same zoning
Would it be unreasodable to grant the variance due to the possible restrictions with the lot,such as shape,or the structure's location?
Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning ordinance deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance?
Would granting the variance, in no manner,adversely affect the health, safety, and gveanriearnacl ew?elfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed
WORK SESSION
Home Occupation Ordinance
I have included a couple other communities'home occupation ordinance,as well as ours. Hopefully we can discuss this and decide where we need to go with our ordinance,ifnecessary. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me.
2

BZBA 10/22/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 22, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,
Members Absent: Eric Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors: James and Jill LeVere, Ilkka Aro
Minutes: August 27: Since Ms. Wimberger was absent at the
previous meeting, she had a few corrections to make at this time:
Page 1, Line 12 from bottom should say, Rhonda Southard, next-door
neighbor, asked about the distance from lot lines. She was also
concerned about yard weeds and overgrown foliage. Mr. Jones said
he would clean up that area."
Page 5, Begin the Abraham paragraph with "Mr. Abraham has
requested a zoning interpretation."Change 1145. 03 to 1147. 03 and
delete "of conditional uses."
Page 6, Line 8, change "property" to properly.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THESE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of September 24: Page 1, paragraph starting with Ms.
Caravana, fix typo in Line 2. Next paragraph,to "tw..o. paved
lanes of sufficient width to comfortably accommodate vehicles moving in opposite directions."
Page 4, Line 4, delete "especially if it were ever expanded." MR ESSMAN MOVED THAT THESE MINUTES BE APPROVE MINUTES AS
AMENDED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Public Hearing:
James and Jill LeVere, 216 North Granger Street
The applicants are requesting a 1' setback, which equals a 4' variance. Mr. LeVere stated that they would like to extend the drive down the property line to give access to a proposed threec-ar garage. The driveway would make a right angle and would be right on the property line. The sliver of land will be grassed with a burning bush. A dead dogwood tree will have to be removed. Two
ndeoeodrs towiclhlanfagcee ththee sfirteontplaannd toonerewveialll ftahcies tchhaena g-jeo.ke. They will 1/$6.4 changed the plans He said they of the house. so that his son can play more safely in the back carriage He may not have windows in the garage and likes the house style.
A neighbor, Ilkka Aro, said his mother lives next door and has no objection.
Ms. Caravana likes to minimize amount of pavement and thought
12' was excessive. She wanted to make approval contingent upon
project not exceeding 50 per cent of lot coverage.
Mr. Sharkey asked for accurate drawings of the doors facing
the rear and a rough measurement as to how far back the driveway
extends. Mr. LeVere said it was about 25' further. Mr. Sharkey
also would like to add as a condition that applicant round off the
driveway to recapture some of that greenspace on the side. Mr.
LeVere would do that to protect the garage.
Ms. Caravana thought we ought to specify approximately 6' of
greenspace on NE corner. Also, the changes in the plan, even
though they do not change the structure, may need to be revisited
by GPC. This is up to Ms. Wimberger.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS AMENDED
WITH CONDITIONS: (1) DRIVEWAY NOT TO EXCEED 25' FROM EAST END
OF ADDITION; (2) NO LESS THAN 6' WIDE PLANTED AREA ON NORTHEAST
CORNER OF ADDITION BETWEEN FIRST GARAGE BAY AND THE REAR
OF THE ADDITION; 3) NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BACK AREA BE
CURVED TO SOFTEN THE EFFECT; 4) MS. WIMBERGER NEEDS TO BE
SURE THE ENTIRE PROJECT FALLS WITHIN COVERAGE ALLOWANCES. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure( applicable to other lands s) involved and which are not or structures in the same zoning district. The special circumstance is that the front part of the
driveway already follows this alignment. The sloped lay of the
land affects the driveway, and this is a more logical plan for it to follow.
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. It is not unusual for driveways in athllioswezdo.ning ordinance to be closer to the property line than
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The existing setback has been there for many years and was not done by the applicant. 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 approval would not give undue privilege. E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vpaerrsiaonncse.resTidheingcoonrdiwtioornksing owf ithin the vicinity of the proposed approval are made to preserve
greenspace and minimize the impact on the neighboring property.
Work Session: Home Occupations. Members discussed the samples provided from other towns. The main items of discussion were: Foot traffic, car traffic
Signage
Expansion of coverage
Accessory Buildings
Deliveries >
Prevention of nuisance or stress on services
Lighting
Ms. Wimberger will research this further. She will check IRA
tax codes. Ms. Caravana thought some of these things should be an
administrative judgment. Mr. Sharkey wants more general definitions.
The words "including but not limited to" could be used
where appropriate. Try saying 25 per cent usage including the
entire property.
Next Meetings: November 19, and December 17, 7: 00 p.m. (irregular)
Adjournment: 8: 45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 05/28/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May 28, 1998
Minutes
Present: Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana. Congratulations to Ashlin on the
birth of her son John last night. We wish you well!
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Sally Hannahs, Bryan Law, Eloise DeZwarte
Minutes: April 23: Page 2, Line 5, change to, "Since they would
like. to have 20' for two cars.... 1!
Page 2, end of central paragraph, "4' from front of house. "
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
April 30, special meeting: Page 2, 5th line up, "furnace to
fit within the 38' of length."
Add at end "Transcribed from tape."
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Sally Hannahs thanked the BZBA for what they
are doing for the community. She asked if there is any way people
could be made to clean up the mess that has accumulated in some
back yards. Mr. Reyazi sympathized and said only the County Health
Department can enforce these things because we do not have a property
maintenance code. Newark does have one and they are giving us
samples, but this is very difficult to enforce except for abandoned
cars. His recommendation would be to write a specific letter to the
Village Manager and Village Council.
Old Business:
David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street -Finding of Fact
Mr. Sharkey made several corrections to the draft he wrote
summarizing the Finding of Fact for the Schnaidt decision.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FINDING OF FACT AS
FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Schnaidts have made some changes to their application fit within to the code, and they are going ahead with their plans.
Public Hearing:
Sally Hannahs, 423 East College Street
Ms. Hannahs explained that she wants to replace the screenedin
porch on the side and add a deck on the rear, which would be 11
from the property line, requiring a variance. She already has GPC
approval pending BZBA approval. She wants to replace fence with a
new 6' wooden picket or gothic fence on south and west property
lines. The only way she could adhere to the code would be to
forego use of her back door.
Mr. Reyazi has suggested to the Board of Education, who owns
three lots next door, that when they build, they line up their
houses with the Hannahs house.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BE GRANTED.
MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Essman applied the variance request 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 special circumstance is that the house is already on
the property line and the additional structure proposed will be
less intrusive than the existing house. The door to the house can
only be accessed from the proposed porch.
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 other properties where the
house is closer to the property line than the required 10'.The
proposed addition is set back from the existing line of the house.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant did not build
the house or put the door where it is.
D) That the granting 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. We have
granted variances for similar situations in this 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 board has determined that granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare.
Christine and Bryan Law, 346 East College Street
For the improvements the applicants wish to build, they will need a variance for lot coverage and setback. The applicants wish to replace the deck with a porch; install lattice fences to replace the old fence to tie in with the neighbor' s fence; build a brick pcaartpioorwt. ith sidewalk to Granger Street; and add new roof section to He needs a storage shed and is attempting to gain pri- vsaitcuya. tioTnh.e proposal will be more attractive than the current
Mr. Law did not realize he was required to include both the
unpaved driveway and the carport in the total lot coverage, and the
C6
proposed coverage is at 60 per cent. This is a corner lot and it
is difficult to have room to maneuver within the code. Mr. Law
said that the neighbor on the north has given his approval. He will
retain the tree and will be careful about disturbing roots. The
fence goes along the back property line 6' from one line and 11
from the other. Vegetation will eventually hide the fence. It
would be about 50' from Granger Street.
Mr. Sharkey is concerned about the 60 per cent coverage and
wants assurance that the construction will not exceed this amount.
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
ON LOT COVERAGE TO BE INCREASED TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 60
PER CENT AND ADHERE TO THE DIMENSIONS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
MR.
APPROVED.
ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
ON SETBACK ON WEST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The variance request was applied 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 special circumstance is that the house is on a
corner lot and there is not a lot of room to maneuver without going
over 50 per cent coverage and getting into the setback. Some of
the coverage is permeable.
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 previously allowed people to
to have reduced coverage and go over over 50 per cent coverage in
order to accommodate a small lot without creating undue problems C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant did not build
the house and is attempting to improve it.
D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this other Ordinance to lands or structures in the same zoning district. We have granted variances for similar situations in this 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 board has determined that granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare. Garden tools will
be safely enclosed in a storage building.
Adjournment: 8: 10 p. m.
Next Meeting: June 25, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1

BZBA 03/26/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
March 26, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Rick Gummer,
Bill and Nancy Nichols,
Rose Wingert, Ned Roberts, Richard Downs,
Julie and J. W. Hopson
Minutes: JANUARY 22: Page 2, following Paragraph (E), a"nd,
the board has determined that granting of the variance will not
affect health, safety, general welfare."
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
New Business:
Rose and Jack Wingert, 179 Victoria Drive
Mrs. Wingert explained that because of the deer eating their
mfloeswhefresncaend. trees, they wish to install a 90" polypropylene black The manufacturer recommends 90" to deter the deer,
pvesr.m (i1tt)edthein7t2h"epermitted in the code for back yards and (2) 42" front. Mrs. Wingert said they will attach it to
the trees, and in the summer it will not be visible. She said she has not seen this type fence in the village and showed a sample. Neighbor Rick Gummer was concerned about the appearance of the fence from the street, and the Wingerts will adjust the loca- tion to make it less visible. Mr. Gummer thinks the deer got there first and really need room to run.
Ms. Caravana was concerned about the height and suggested they move it closer to the pinetrees to make it less visible. Mrs. Wingert will talk to her husband about other possible locations and come back, but the problem is now, in the spring when the deer come browsing.
Mr. Summer suggested locating the fence inside of the hem- locks on the west on a mutually agreed-upon line.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM FENCE HEIGHTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) FENCE WILL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND (2) IT BE MOVED TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE LINE OF HEMLOCKS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS DONE TO MITIGATE EXTRA HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. APPROVEDM. R. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
this Mapr.plSicteawtioarnt: applied the criteria for variances (1147. 03) for
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which
L'
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 circumstance is that the height is recommended
by the manufacturer as minimum barrier for deer.
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. If applicant is required to adhere
to the ordinance, the landscaping would be devastated by the
deer. A lower fence would be useless. Applicants have spent a
lot of time and money on their gardens and wish to protect them.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicants are not
responsible for the deer population. The lot is located on a
deer trail, nearby subdivisions have forced the deer into less populated areas.
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.
Because of the special nature of the lot, the secluded area, the wooded and large-scale area available, granted. The fence would be in no undue privileges are visible. the wooded area and not very
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 pro- posed variance. The fence is soft and has no sharp wires or electrical devices. The board has determined that granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare.
William and Nancy Nichols, 17 Samson Place
The applicants wish to construct a 336 sq. ft. two-bedroom single story addition on the back of the house located 45' from rear property vs. 50' required by the code. Several neighbors
have submitted letters of consent. It will bring it to the foot of the hill and should not present a drainage problem. They would like to have put it on the side, but they would have had to disturb a lot of trees and there would have been less room.
criteMrisa. : Caravana applied the application to the variance
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist taripcptl.icable to other lands or structures in the same zoning The special circumstance is the lay of the land and the presence of trees in a location that would be within code. It would be more detrimental to the neighbors in that area. B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly pernojovyiseidonbsy other properties in the same zoning district under the of this Ordinance. Other variances in the neighbor-
1
2
hood have been granted. Applicants prefer to preserve the natural
beauty of the lot.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicants are not
responsible for the lay of the land and did not plant the trees
they wish to protect.
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. The board is not aware of any undue privileges to be
involved in granting this request.
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 board has determined that granting of the
variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED IN THE
APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
James and Julie Hopson, 318 East College Street
Mr. Hopson stated that they wish to build a wooden deck the brick patio, which over would not extend the footprint of the patio, and then they wish to build a shelter for shade and privacy. A variance is required because the house is closer than
10' to the western lot line.
will not be visible from ROW.
Mr.
The hemlocks will remain. The deck
Reyazi spoke to a neighbor, who had no objections.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The criteria were applied:
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 There is an existing patio and the pergola will not encroach any further into the setback than it is now, and it will be screened by evergreens. Since it is an open structure, it will be less obtrusive than an enclosed room and will not disturb neighbors. Neighbors have shown support for the project. 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 Board has allowed other people otordirneabnucieldagllaorwagse. s and decks closer to the lot line than the
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Special circumstances
G 7
3
4
are not created by the owners, who bought the house with brick
patio and now wish to enjoy a privacy deck.
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. The board is not aware of any undue privileges to be
involved in granting this request.
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. A deck would enhance the appearance and it is
not really visible to the street. The board has determined that
granting of the variance will not affect health, safety, general
welfare.
Ned Roberts, 348 East Maple Street
Mr. Roberts said that when the addition to his house was built, it did not have proper foundation and would he look better if replaced it with a narrower and 6' deeper family room. The
haobuasnedoinseda. lmost on the property line, but it is a ROW partially If/When the vacation of the ROW for South Granger Street occurs, this area will be part of Mr. Roberts' property. The old two-story addition is 608 sq. ft, 21' x10',whereas the new one would be 19' x16' and approximately 25' high. A variance is
required because it is only 1' 6 5/8" from the east property line. A neighbor has submitted his approval of the project.
Ms. Caravana stated this would not be a further encroachment and we have frequently allowed such variances. It is likely that
aabtansodmoenepd.oint Mr. Roberts will own some of the land when it is
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED, and applied the criteria: A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist tarpicptli.cable to other lands or structures in the same zoning There is an existing addition which has an even greater encroachment into the side yard than the proposed plan. 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 Board has allowed other people to rebuild decks and garages closer to the lot line than the ordinance allows. Applicant should be able to upgrade his house. C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Special circumstances
parreopneorttycarenadtemdakbeyitthe owner, who now wishes to improve the more attractive. 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. The board is not aware of any undue privileges to be
involved in granting this request, and strict adherence to the
code would deprive him of what others have been 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. The board has determined that granting of the
variance will not affect health, safety, general welfare of anyone.
On the other hand, the project would enhance the of the house and therefore the neighborhood. appearance
Finding of Fact:
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
APPLICATIONS FOR WINGERT, NICHOLS, HOPSON, AND ROBERTS AS FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 45 p. m.
Next Meeting: April 23, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

06/25/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
June 25, 1998
Minutes
Present: Bob Essman, Lon Herman,,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana, Greg Sharkey
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: David Bussan, Jules and Rochelle Steinberg, Jim Harf,
Lindsey O' Leary, Bernard Lukco, Bob Kent
Minutes:
PRESENTED;
APPROVED.
May 28: MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY
Citizens Comments: None
Public Hearing:
Granville Exempted School District, 130 N. Granger Street
The applicant wishes to construct a 13-space parking lot for
employees of the school building. The application requires three
variances ; they are asking for (1) 9' wide _spaces, -rather than 10 '
in the ordinances; (2) 13 spaces rathetrh/an the 24 requiredy (3)
zero setback on Granger SEr6€ 67- ------
Mr. Reyazi stated that initially Scheme C was submitted, but
more information was requested, which resulted in a landscaping plan with new schemes. After much discussion, Scheme E was agreed- upon by applicant and neighbors. GPC approved the application with
conditions regarding landscaping and fencing, restoring the tree lawn, and eliminating the dumpster.
cussedT.he question of how many spaces would be required was dis- There will be five employees regularly and school board members and meetings from time to time. The idea was for it not to become a public parking lot. Regarding the use of the building, it
was determined that it was for educationally related purposes only resource centers/taff officesb/oard meetingso/ther meetings)a,nd tfioornaanl y other uses, the applicant would have to apply for a condi- use permit.
The issue of limiting the lot to official use only would be handled by a sign (Violators will be towed) and a pair of posts hidden in the landscape which would hold a chain after hours if necessary.
Ms. Steinberg said the neighbors are very concerned about the use of space to the east of the lot. They would like to see that space added to Lots 2 or 3 or maybe sell it to adjoining neighbors. The school board has not discussed this yet, but Mr. Harf stated the fiduciary responsibility of the board to maximize income and minimize cost, and maybe sometime in the future they could rent an office to a nonprofit tenant. This met with opposition from neighbors.
M
0
09 -
Mr. Harf requested removal of Condition 3, as setback issue
is not included in Scheme E}
CONDITION 1:
APPLIED FOR.
APPROVED.
CONDITION 2:
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE 13 SPACES
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE 9' WIDTH OF
EACH SPACE WITH ALL SPACES SHIFTED ACCORDINGLY TO THE WEST;
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman 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 not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. The special circumstance is that this is the only school
building in the area, and relative to the amount of traffic
envisioned in stated uses, 13 spaces and 9' wide spaces seem
appropriate in the SRD.
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. This situation is unique in the SRD
and a literal interpretation probably would not fit.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant wants to make
a more appropriate use of the property.
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 s.tructures in the same zoning district. This
granting will noranundue privilege. 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 variance. of the proposed Based on uses described, the number of spaces and width
are appropriate and should not affect health, safety, general
welfare.
MR. HERMAN EXPRESSED OUR SINCERE APPRECIATION TO REYZA REYAZI FOR HIS HARD WORK OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT FINDING OF FACT FOR THE SCHOOL AS FORMAL FINDING OF THE BOARD. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 10 p.m.
Next Meeting: July 23, 1998, 7: 00 p.m. (Betty may be absent.)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 07/23/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 23, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Betty Allen
Also Present: Matt Trumbull, Acting Village Planner
Visitors: Scott Hickey, Cherry, Richard Downs, Richard Mahard, Richard J.M. Morey
Minutes: June 25: Page 1, No. (2) under the School District, {?}.
Page 2, change " grant" to confer under (D) . MINUTES WERE
APPROVED with one abstention.
Citizens Comments:
Public Hearing:
None
Scott and Marjorie Hickey, 211 South Main Street
The applicants wish to (1) enlarge the kitchen, which will extend 21' west from the house, by 16' wide and 18' high, totaling 315 sq.ft. This will require a 3' variance on the north side.
2) They also wish to construct a carriage house garage/ office in the SW corner of the property, set back 4' from south property line and set back 0' from west property line. This will rseoquuthiresidae.variance for the 0' setback in the rear and 6' on the In the absence of the Hickeys, Richard Downs explained wthiethavpaprliiacnactieosn. and thought the plans would fit within the criteria
the TCOTDheiscanrroiat ge house would be farther than 100' from the ROW so affected. There will be 64.8 per cent open space. sTidheereudnpaved patio will be counted as open space and is not con- in the current application. If paved, it would be a structure. opposition. Neighbors Mr. Mahard and Ms. Jordan have expressed no
There was a discrepancy in the actual boundary lines. Mr. Mahard explained the jog in the eastw/est line as having been sold noeffightobotrhinegnpeirgohpbeorrtya. t one time because the house encroached on the There is a monument in the NW corner of the pfolar to, tahnedr tphreopbeenrtcihemsark noted has been an assumption over the years in the area. He discussed the surveying of the Academy Building, and there is no problem here.
The applicant has not considered the carriage house as home bocuciludpinagtios.n. Home occupations are not to be carried out in accessory
Richard Cherry, neighbor two doors to the south, feels that
6-
the design will set a precedent toward having a possible dwelling with bath in the carriage house. He is opposed to the carriage
house idea and would prefer a garage. In Arlington people are not
allowed to have living space over a detached garage. He noted that
the applicants bought a nice small house in the village want to expand it and now to what is not logical. A garage would cut off
his nice view and would be very massive. The question is whether
this plan is living space or office space; it will have no kitchen.
With plumbing, itO,«lbcecuomkes a dwelling, noted Ms. Caravana.
What options did the applicant consider without requiring a variance? Ms. Caravana said that putting it elsewhere would eat up too much greenspace but wondered whether the proposed use of space is allowable.
Having a home office in an accessory building crosses the line toward home occupation, she thought. Although there is more of this going on, she did not want to start a precedent. This type of plan is what the ordinances caution against. She thought that with
no customers, no advertising, no sign, just a phone, the plan would not comprise home occupation. With no people coming and going, it is just an office, but she wanted more information. Answering
alonwoethreedr . question, Mr. Downs did not think the roofline could be
1) Regarding the kitchen addition, Ms. Caravana said we haven't had much problem with additions continuing the line of the
CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3'
house.
MS.
THE GREATROOM ADDITION.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
She applied the criteria:
SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR
MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or
applicable
district.
continuing
to
The
the
other structure(s) involved and which are not lands or structures in the same zoning special circumstance is that applicants are only north wall of the building, not creating greater In the past this board has
encroachment into the sideyard setback.
treated this kind of application positively. B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly penrojovyiseidonbsy other properties in the same zoning district under the of this Ordinance. This situation is similar to others dineprtihvies area; therefore a literal interpretation probably would the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. resultC) That the special conditions and circumstances do not from the actions of the applicant. Applicant bought the house before the ordinances were in effect.
applicaDn)t That the granting of the variance will not confer on the any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands granting will or structures in the same zoning district. This not confer undue privilege.
E) adversely That the granting of the variance will in no other manner affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vpearrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed Extending the existing wall would would not affect health, safety, general welfare of others.
2) Regarding the carriage house, the issues are (a) the uses proposed, b() whether bathroom should be allowed in a detached nsetriguhcbtoursre. , c() appearance of the planned structure to the immediate
MISSS.UECSARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THESE THREE COULD BE CONSIDERED IN MORE DEPTH. MR. STEWART
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting: August 27, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen (transcribed from tape

02/22/98

BOARD'O. F ZONING AND>B'UILDING APPEALS-7-' '- 1:'r= 9.
January 22, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,
Eric Stewart
Members Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Gary Stansbury, Clark Shai
Minutes: December 18:
Page 2, line 2, change to: ".
whether they had to do that."
told that they didn' t know
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMEMDED; MR SHARKEY
SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO FLIP THE OLD AND NEW BUSINESS ON THE
AGENDA TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR.
SHARKEY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Gary and Judy Stansbury, 660 West Broadway
The applicants wish to replace the one-car garage and car- pthoert with a new 24' x24' one-story two-car garage in approximately same location. The current garage is 6' from west property line. Mr. Stansbury showed pictures of the project and stated that two neighbors have submitted letters of approval. Another neighbor, Clarke Shai, was present and indicated his approval of the application.
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
this aMpr.plSichaatrikoeny: applied the criteria for variances (1147. 03) for
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicablecto other lands or structures in the same zoning wdiitshtriitcst.sidTehw4 aslkpecial circumstances would be that the garage sited is already there and the replacement will be at the spot where the old garage stood for many years.
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
Alprovisions
of this Ordinance. If applicant was required to
adhere to the ordinance, he would have to relocate the structure
and sidewalk.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased
the property as is and the garage has been there for a
number of years.
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 no objections about the application and
do not believe there is any undue privilege. Others in the
neighborhood have garages within the required setback.
E) That the granting of the variance will in no other
manner adversely affect the health, safety and general the welfare of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. We have heard no evidence or testimony from neighbors in objection. To the contrary, we have heard from Mr.
Shai and others who have submitted affadavits that they have no obj ection to the proposed proj ect., 1
Old Business:
FToinmd F'inuglleorf and Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway - Fact
After a few editorial comments made by BZBA members, Ms. Caravana stated she will retype the Finding of Fact for the application approved at the last meeting.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS AMENDED AS OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD UNDER SECTIONS 1159. 03 AND 1147. 03 OF THE CODE. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 7: 30 p. m.
Next Meetings: February 26, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

BZBA 02/23/98

To:
From:
Date:
Re:
MEMO
Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals
Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
February 23, 1998
Meeting on Thursday,February 26, 1998
Due to lack of applications the February 26,BZBA meeting has been canceled. Your next regularly scheduled meeting is March 26,1998.

BZBA 12/17/98

GRANVII* LE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUII DING APPEALS
December 17,1998
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A)November 19,1998
4) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
4}1M*s,llEAn -4'-
5) PUBLIC HEARINGS
A)StephenT &heresa Contini.210 Sunrise Street 9 #8097
Suburban Residential District -B fily J eis"
NA
Variance Application l
6)MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday,January 28,1999,7:00 p.m.,in the Village Offices
B)F0110Wing BZBA meeting -Thursday,Februaiy 25,1999.7:00 p.m.,in the Village Offices
7)ADJOURNMENT

12/07/98

AGENDA
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
additional meeting
December 7,1998
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
4) PUBLIC HEARINGS
A)
B)
Beverly Harris J(ohn Noblick: representative2).13 Kildare Street 9 #8087
Planned Unit District
Variance Application -lot coverage
David Goldblatt.419 Burg Street: 9 #8054
Suburban Residential District -B
Variance Application r(evised)s -ide yard setback
5) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -December 17 1998, 7:00 p.m:in the Village Offices.
B)Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,January 28, 1999, 7:00 p.m.,in the Village Offices.
6)ADJOURNMENT
flii*-»i*ku « 4 **i«k41-)4( 6 h .AA 1 '1141jl

08/27/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 27, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Greg Sharkey
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors: Richard Downs, Richard Mahard, Richard Cherry, Fred
Abraham, Janet Jordan, Donna Tegtmeyer, Debbie and Rod McPeek, Scott
and Marjorie Hickey, David Goldblatt, Roger Jones, Gordon Condit,
Rhonda Southard
Minutes: July 23: Page 2 last line first paragraph, change to "it
could become a dwelling,M.S..."CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES
AS AMENDED; MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED. /
Citizens Comments: None
Public Hearings:
Roger D. Jones, 415 West Maple Street
The applicant wishes to construct an addition to his home and a storage shed, totalling ca. 500 sq. ft. The plans would require side setback variances. The addition would line up with the garage and would put the shed about 5' from the property line and the addition · about 84' from the other side property line. Ms. Wimberger stated
that the neighbors had no objections to the project.
becauMses. thCeayravana did not have as much* concern with side setbacks are not increasing the encroachment; in fact, it
encroaches less than existing building, but ohc has a prublem Mitir-- coming within 6' of pe- arty line. Mr. Herman asked why they did not align the bedroom with the existing wall behind the garage, and Mr.
Jones thought the architecture would be too boring in a straight line and the roofline would preclude such a design.
Ms. Caravana asked why the shed couldn' t be placed in a more heifdfdeecnt. spot and Mr. Jones said they wanted to create a courtyard Also, this will balance the neighbor' s shed. Ykef
Rhonda Southard, nextd-oor neighbor, about the distance from lot relisneeds_tnartrheesl-a-gi rairasg.heeb-3e-in1+giuLtho-ervc:eMcrorr.*rce-rn·c bogllqe she is- alr that area. Jones said he would' clean up
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED; MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Ms. Caravana then 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 circumstance is that applicant is already encroaching into the setbacks; in fact it will encroach less than the existing Ph
41GD-+ec0' 4- car0-0' 442f<G lr- i- u»,n»--e-cilL.4)
3
2
wall.
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. This situation is siinilar to others in
this area; therefore a literal interpretation probably would deprive
the applicant of rights enjoyed by others.
C) That the special conditions and. circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant. Applicant bought the house in its
present state and needs more room-r
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. This granting
will not confer undue privilege.
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 would not affect health, safety, general
welfare of others. It would probably enhance the property and would
finish enc09-ure of the patio area and fit in with the existing shed. rn -2- FL-v $47V i
David Goldblatt, 419 Burg Street
The applicant wishes to apply for a sideyard setback variance construct to a garage addition in place of the existing carport as well
as do some remodeling to the existing garage and wooden deck/ porch over the garage. The roof of the garage is rotting and Mr. Goldblatt
needs to repair it and extend the garage into the driveway 6'. Less
space will be occupied than is the case now. The pitch and every- thing else will remain the same. They are continuing the existing encroachment.
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED; MR. STEWART 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 and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The special circumstance is the peculiar shape of the lot. The cshtrauncgetusrewill encroach into the setback less than the existing does.
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. A literal interpre- otathtieorns. probably would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant bought the house with the carport and needs to repair the structure. 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. Not applicable.
This granting will not confer undue privilege.
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 neighbors have objected, and others have supported the
reconstruction. The proposal would not affect health, safety, general
welfare of others.
Scott and Marjorie Hickey, 211 South Main Street
The sunroom/kitchen addition was approved at the last meeting,
but the carriage house was tabled pending more information.}
The applicants wish to construct a carriage house/garage/office
4' from south property line and 0' setback from west property line.
Mr. Hickey said they want a home office to displace their offices
from their home. They designed it at 0' setback because that location
would permit the most greenspace. A walkway will tie into the
existing patio.
Mr. Herman stated that this project is not for residential occu- pancy and is not to be turned into a dwelling. But Mr. Hickey said
they would like to have a bathroom in the new offices for convenience.
Ms. Caravana stated that if they put in a full bathroom, that
would be an efficiency or a dwelling and she would not want to create
a situation that would change this structure in the future without
the knowledge of the community. She is concerned about precedentsetting.
Also, a home occupation needs to be within the place, main dwelling and this would be a home occupation in an accessory building.
Mr. Hickey said they con'sider the entire property their home; there is not enough room in the house for the two offices and storage of materials. No clients come to the house; the Hickeys call them instead. He also said that one of their cars is parked in the drivewgaays,
annod sthteovoet,heanrdmtuhsetypark in the street. There is2*38p--ower, no --, They are requesting to tap into the sewer line. are requesting a variance, not a change in use, and any future owners would have to come before this board for a change. Richard Downs added that this is a historic house and to do anything with a house with a small footprint would change the character of the house.
Richard Cherry, a neighbor said he does not think people should be allowed to fill up their lots. Neighbors are opposed to the size of the project and the fact that there is plumbing in it. He would much rather see a garage than a carriage house. Ms. Hickey said she talked to neighbors and received no other opposition. She would be willing to take out the shower. They have no interest in a bed and breakfast project and want to keep the project in line with the character of Granville and preserve greenspace. Neighbor Dick Mahard did not feel this project constituted a hinometheoclceugpiastliaontioannd. believes that home occupation should be clarified If sometime in the future somebody does live in
3
that place above the garage, an officer would fine them.
Mr. Essman was concerned that they want to put the carriage
house on the property line, forcing maintenance and construction
vehicles onto Mr. Mahard' s property. But Mr. Mahard is willing to
allow this.
Mr. Herman stated that as long as the conditions state that
there will not be a shower or bathing or bed and breakfast or any
commercial business for anyone other than the applicants, that is as
far as his concerns go.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION WITH
CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE CARRIAGE HOUSE/ GARAGE WILL NOT BE
USED FOR A DWELLING OR APARTMENT; (2) NO SHOWER OR BATH WILL BE
ALLOWED; (3) IT WILL NOT BE A PLACE TO DO COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
OTHER THAN FOR THE OCCUPANTS. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION
WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NEGATIVE VOTE (MS. CARAVANA).
Mr. Stewart applied the criteria:
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 topography of the site does not lend itself to situating this
building in any other manner for allowing the necessary lot coverage. 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. A literal interpretation
probably would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant. Applicant bought the house as is
and did not create the topography or lot boundaries.
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. It has been relatively ordinary thing for this a Board to grant variations for similar structures. A majority of this Board feels that relative to home occupation this is a differentiation as a business. The structure
would be in the rear of the property in open space. The height
of the structure would not create a problem because of the topo- graphy.
E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
pvearrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed concerned. It will actually improve safety as far as shifting cars is It would not create a hazard for neighbors. The 0' lot
sliindees.setback does not create a problem; there is open space on all
J. Rodney and Deborah N. McPeek, 133 South Prospect Street
The applicants wish to widen the driveway to square off the line
4
A
of the existing pavement with the edge of the garage in order to
increase off-street parking for the funeral home. The existing
setback of the garage is ca. 2';however, at the curb the distance
from the lot line would be 5'.More driveway parking space would
relieve congestion on the street.
The project is already completed, as the McPeeks wanted to take
advantage of the availability of the workers.
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO WIDEN THE
DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman 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.
A nonconforming use is there now, and it has worked out well, but
there is insufficient parking space and applicants are requesting
off-street parking. This situation is not applicable in other
instances.
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 for this nonconforming
use.
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant. When the applicants bought the
house, there was a driveway there.
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. Applicants
are just widening by 4' and it lines up with the garage. Other
people have received such variances.
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.
funerals,
It will actually improve safety, particularly in time of
by providing for additional off-street parking.
Administrative Action:
Fred Abraham 460, South Main Street
Fi et -9 - 1 «*1.t-,+*-Y_nl--,·4'·74,f ' 0 1 " 9 ,v - o 9 ''.lulpU ,,0 ,32r,k
Ms. Wimberger stated that as a duty of the BZBA, interpretation
of the zoning boundary may be made in this case where Mr. Abraham
wishes a change in use for the storage building. Boundaries are supposed to follow lot/property lines, and this property is ca. 1/3
SBD and 2/3 CSD. Since the majority is zoned CSD, it would be log- ical to change the entire property to CSD. She said we should treat
it as any other v"ariance" under4.L-*01f-or approval©5-Me·.Apparently the division occurred because at one time.p.gart=o5f*2,1:®1 1 97,0 the property was in the village and part in the township. This
5
particular nonconforming use is grandfathered under the rules for
square footage. The businesses located there now would fit in CSD,
both in buildings and uses.
Mr. Herman stated the official consensus of the Board on the
interpretation concerning 460 South Main Street is that it should be
considered CSD in its entirety. It was drawn incorrectly because it
did not follow property lines. The majority is in CSD. The existing
uses and building more propelfy fit with CSD.
L
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT THE BOARD' S INTERPRETATION IS THAT, THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY AT 460 SOUTH MAIN BE CSD. MS. CARAVANA
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Next Meetings: October 22, 1998, 7: 00 p.m.,November 19 and December
17
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
6

BZBA 04/30/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Special Meeting, April 30, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,
Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Betty Allen
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
The group had a walk-through at the Schnaidt property before
the meeting. There are questions about the property line, and at
this time we will make our determination based on the material we have before us. Mr. Reyazi said the building will be 8' 8" from
property line, so the variance is for 1' 4".
David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street
Mr. Schnaidt expressed ing. appreciation for this special meet- He reported on the GPC meeting on Monday at which this
application was tabled pending further information. Some questions
remained regarding Mulberry setback, height, and ROW. He asked for BZBA consideration of: 1) Setback of houses from
property lines in the neighborhood. 2) Variances have been
granted for similar situations: Bonar, Forsythe, Tumbas,
Alisndhreedw.s. Given these examples, precedent has been already estab- 3) Mr. Schnaidt is not asking for change in use. 4)
Regarding the size, Mr. Schnaidt has talked to the contractor. Garages are generally 23' but they decided to scale back to try to stay within code and intrude less on the Thiele property and went to 20'.Mr. Angeletti, professional garage services, said 24' is standard and his considered opinion was that 19' would make the applicant unhappy. 5) People would look' for a wider
garage at time of resale.
lationMsr.. and Mrs. Thiele adamantly oppose a variance from regu- The massive structure would limit air and light on the dniosrctho;lotrhaetiocnh.imney would be a fire hazard and smoke could cause Exhaust Trees and landscaping will be the only barrier. funes and noise would be increased.
Mr. Reyazi said GPC asked for more elevation drawing showing height in relation to existing and Thiele house. But GPC did not feel there would be a need for a height variance. The ROW issue was checked with the law director; this is a private ROW and the language says this is a private 6' ROW strip belonging to the Whites. The Schnaidts will not obstruct this and Mr. Hurst said they could measure from the ROW line. Setback on Mulberry was discussed and GPC thought the sseettbbaacckk leinstea.blished in the VROD existing buildings would be the
The Thieles said the survey will be rechecked. The Thiele
property has lost 2' 6".
that Misr. fiSnhea.rkey stated that if the line is a few inches off, But what applicants ask for is quite substantial
and taken together with Thiele opposition, that creates big problems
for BZBA. Specifically, what neighbors think is a very
important criterion, and although similar circumstances may exist
with other properties, there are some differences and they
probaby did not have opposition from neighbors intruding into
setbacks. We rarely grant requests facing opposition from
neighbors.
Mr. Herman spoke to the criteria, especially 1147. 04 (b),
depriving neighbors from rights. Could the Schnaidts build a
two-car garage without a variance? Or build a structure so they
can open one car door inside, rather than two. Mr. Schnaidt
wants to put in both cars; it could be done narrower, but would
be inconvenient for unloading a child or groceries. brings Mr. Hermnan the conversation back to 1147 (b),but Mr. Schnaidt says
many other people live with short setbacks. What the Schnaidts
would be deprived of, he said, was the right to what is reason- ably expected for a two-car garage. The right he would be
deprived of would be accessibility and convenience.
Ms. Caravana said other buildings were not necessarily
relevant and good precedents. This is a three-story structure
and will be very large. She would have fewer problems with a two-story building. This would have a negative impact on the neighborhood even if the Thieles were not opposed. Mr. Schnaidt feels that although houses on the outside of the village have these amenities,
do what
Mr
tions.
a lot of people want to stay in the village and they can to make them more liveable.
Sharkey has no doubt as to the applicant' s good inten- But one of the things he is struggling with is on what basis BZBA can determine hardship if a denial is forthcoming. This is a substantial structure and he would have to deny it. Height is important too, and he would feel better with a one- or two-story building.
Ms. Caravana asked about the possibility of having one car behind the other, and Mr. Schnaidt said that would mean a too skinny family room.
Mr. Sharkey asked what plans were in mind for the back of rthaeilrogaardage, and Mr. Schnaidt said there would be a brick slab and ties would be removed.
tweenMnre. igShtebworasr.t is concerned about damaging relationships be- house, The structure really towers about the Thiele and he would prefer a one- or two-story or attached to the Schnaidt house. Mr. Schnaidt said it is a natural progression bsetacairussteepthe Thiele house towers over the Mason house and they all down the street.
Mr. Essman asked about the inside dimension. Parking end to end would allow a lot more room. Mr. Schnaidt needs room for a staircase and a furnace to fit within the 3-0- -3'-3«'uf JV- courseM.r. Thiele said there will be a new survey presented in due It may be the same or it may be different. If property liinnvealpidro,vessaidto be different, the application will be declared Ms. Caravana.
2
Mr. Herman offered options: 1) to vote (2) to table. Mr.
Schnaidt said that given the original lot line and the professional
survey, he sees no reason for delay.
Mr. Reyazi stated that if a vote is taken today, the Finding
of Fact will be approved at the next meeting, and the clock
starts for any appeals at that time. If a vote is not taken
today, application could be modified. Determination would be
taken next time considering any new survey information. Members
decided to vote.
Jim White spoke up and said what happens if the two disagree. surveys Mr. Reyazi said this has not happened recently and is
not a decision for this body. Property rights issues need to be settled by the courts.
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
FOR THE 16" INTO THE 10' SETBACK FOR THE REAR PROPERTY' LINE. MR. STEWART SECONDED. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED, AND THE
APPLICATION WAS DENIED.
Mr. Herman said this was a difficult decision for him because of the sensitivity of all parties involved. He could not get the
criteria to fit, and he hopes the applicants will return with a new plan.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting: May 28, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
3

BZBA 04/23/98

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 23, 1998
Minutes
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,
Eric Stewart
Members Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors: Dave and Becky Schnaidt, Sam and Heidi Schnaidt, Robin
Bartlett, Rochelle Steinberg, Jan and Jake Thiele, Julie Zarbaugh
Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson:
MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO CONTINUE MR. HERMAN' S TERM AS CHAIRPERSON;
MS. CARAVANA SECONDED. Mr. Herman accepted the
nomination under the condition that it be for one year only.
NOMINATION WAS APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO NOMINATE MR. SHARKEY AS VICE CHAIRPERSON.
MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
Minutes: March 26:
MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR.
STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Robin Bartlett expressed parking- of lot concerns home-owners around the old Granville Middle School and
Rochelle Steinberg handed out packets of information. The concerns
were: (1) to minimize intrusion onto neighboring property, 2) to reorient the parking spaces, (3) to gain a variance to reduce the 26 parking spaces required because there are only four offices in the building, (4) to site the parking lot as to not extend beyond the second lot, (5) limit parking to school employ- ees, and (6) to have no diagonal parking on Granger.
Mr. Reyazi responded by- saying the application needs to go bBZeBfoAr.e GPC, and if variances are necessary it will come before Plans have to be reviewed by the Village Engineer.
New Business:
Julie Zarbaugh, 313 Spellman Street
Mrs. Zarbaugh is applying for a conditional use permit to allow her to have an office for a pet-sitting business. The sseigrnv.ice will be at the pet-owners' homes, and there will be no objectioMnrs. . Reyazi has talked to neighbors and no one offers
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS CONDITIONAL USE WITH CONDITION THAT NO SERVICES TAKE PLACE AT THE RESIDENCE. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street
Mr. Schnaidt stated that they wish to add a three-story,
2280 sq. ft. addition on the south side of the house, 8' 8" from
property line. They want to remove the one-car garage, coming 20'
to the south. Sincet*-is:M-E555ary to have 20' for two cars, it
will require a variance. The neighbors are concerned about
exactly where the lot line is, and a survey was done.
The other concern is about the height of the structure. Mr.
Schnaidt said the roofline will be 2' lower than the existing
roofline, since it is on a hill, and will not tie into the house.
It will tie in at the fascia board and go to a peak on four sides.
The garage will have an 8' height, even with the basement
and will have a 3' fall rather than the 3' rise as now. It will
have a 16' door with 2' on either side.
In response to the question of what have the applicants
attempted to do to stay within the code, and Mr. Schnaidt said
there is insufficient room to fit this plan within the ordi- nances. Mrs. Schnaidt said they considered the room size they
needed for the bedroom and the stairs and for the two sport vehicles requiring a garage. Ms. Caravana reminded the group that this will be a very high structure and the neighbors will
have to look out on clapboards. The taller a building is, the farther back it should be sited. The new structure is set back
4' Mr. Schnaidt said the first plans were even bigger. 2hsidu1.%1 ILe
(neighbor on the south) said he didn' t want to blienetr.oublesome but he wanted to be positive about the boundary The Thieles will be firm about restricting the Schnaidts to the 10' setback on Mulberry. Mr. Reyazi said the GPC will determine what the setback should be on the corner lot; Mr. Thiele says this is the side, not the front.
Mr. Reyazi asked who owns the ROW, for if the ROW belongs to someone else, then applicants could be looking at establishing setback from the ROW. A ROW is not part of an applicant' s property, and Mr. Reyazi would measure from the edge of the ROW. Mr. Schnaidt said it is owned by him but it' s a ROW for the neighbors to the east so they can get a lawn tractor down there. The retaining wall will go down.
Mr. Herman summarized the concerns:
1. Width of door
2. Height of structure
3. Sideyard setback. Neighbor wants to stick to 10' 4. ROW issue
5. Appearance of the large structure
2
BZBA members were willing to have a special meeting on site
on Thursday, depending on what GPC determines on Monday.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL NEXT
THURSDAY' S ON-SITE MEETING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED. MR.
STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 25 p. m.
Next Meeting: Special meeting, April 30.
Regular meeting May 28, 1998, 7: 00 p. m.
Respectfully, submitted,
Betty Allen
3

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.