Granville Community Calendar

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

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.