Granville Community Calendar

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

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.