Granville Community Calendar

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

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.