Granville Community Calendar

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

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.