Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 10/27/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
OCTOBER 27,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart
Members Absent:Bob Essman
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors: James and Jill LeVere,Steven Katz &Constance Barsky,Ned Roberts,Barbara
Franks,Carmen Maclean
Minutes of September 23, 1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE
MINUTES AS PROVIDED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS
UNAN[ MOUSLY APPROVED.
All those who wishedto speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
Citizens' Comments: none
New Business:
JamesJ i&ll LeVere,216 North Granger Street d-riveway variance
The applicants wish to construct a driveway within 10' ofthe property line. Mr.
LeVere explained that adhering to previously approved decisions would create an
unforescon elevation problem,and by oreating an entrance to the garage from the rear
alloy they would have better turning radius and protect the neighbor's footers and
landscaping. They originally planned three bays but now have ended up with two bays and
added a window. He would like th keep the curb cut on Granger up to the kitchen
window to enable access for visitors, groceries, etc.,and landscape the remaining .
driveway. The neighbors think this access would be an improvement.
The alley has not been vacated between Granger and Sunrise and is Village
property,in grass. The neighbors maintain the alley. Ms. Wimberger added that ifthey
receive a variance, they will go to Village Council for approval for using the alley. Ms.
LeVere said that it's a narrow alley,and a camper was parked there this summer.
Mr. Sharkey was concerned about other residents using the alley this way,but
other neighbors have no problem with the LeVere's plans.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED WITH STIPULATION THAT BZBA IS MERELY
PERMITTING THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY EXTENDED
TO THE END OF THE'PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO ENDING IT 10'FROM
THE END;AND ISSUES RELATING TO MAINTENANCE AND USE OF
THE ALLEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO VILLAGE COUNCIL DECISION. MR.
STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
7/
ly
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:
BZBA Minutes, October 27, 1999
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 lay ofthe land would require an extensive amount of
excavation on the neighbor's driveway and kill a lot of trees if applicant adhered to the
code. This is the only other way to get to the back for the garage, and the driveway
would have to go all the way to the end of the property. .
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 criterion does not apply.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. Special conditions relate to the topography of the lot.
D. Granting 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 does not appear it would confer undue privileges.
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. We do not believe the health,safety,or general
welfare would be affected by this variance.
Daniel M.Rogers,210 East Maple Street
The applicant is seeking approval for setback variances on east side t(o 1 2- 'a)nd
rear ( to 3')for his garage.
Ms. Caravana recused herself from considering this project,as she is a close
neighbor. }
Ned Roberts provided history ofthe project,saying the original saltbox design was
changed in midstream resulting in a completely new plan being erected. Mr. Roberts said
Mr. Rogers felt the new design with the lower hip roof was more practical and would
reduce the massing. The second floor would now be utilized. They extended the garage
4' to add more room for vehicles.
Scott Harmon surveyed the lot,and they placed the slab in relation to the survey.
A neighbor thought the project was 1' from her property line.
Mr. Herman wanted clarification as to how this happened,and Mr. Roberts
explained that GPC did not like the massing so Mr. Rogers worked on the drawings. GPC
did not approve them,so they resubmitted Mr. Roberts'drawings. Since these changes
were substantial,GPC wanted BZBA to reconsider the variances.
2
BZBA Minutes,October 27, 1999
Barbara Franks admitted this was not the right way to go although they thought
they had artistic rights. The representative from the Village,Reza Reyazi,had visited
several times and said nothing about the change in plans. Upon questioning,Mr. Reyazi
did not recall the situation but wanted it surveyed. 4:>U-n4* 71*p*6ge.*.*,
i
Mr. Herman stated that it seems the applicant would like us to give some weight to
actions taken by a former Village official that did in some way support what has been
done,but the footprint is quite a bit larger now in order to use the upstairs. Ms Franks
said they had permission to build the garage 2' higher than it is now. The roofline matches
the house. She knows this was not done correctly and this has put a lot of people on the
spot. She wants the extra space for light and height-for-her-erafks-and as a rumpus room
for the kids. The garage will be beautiful,she stated,and will improve property values of
other homes on the block. The plans were on the drawing boardbefore she decided to
open Footloose.
Mr. Roberts said there are a lot ofprecedenotsr /changed plans and nothing was
done. Mr. Sharkey recognizes that things may hay6 occurred in the past that were a little
loose,but now BZBA must determine setbackvance»s. BZBA considers massing in
conjunction with setbacks. Generally BZBA d965 not allow such a large structur>
although as submitted,it was acceptable. Thdnew structure runs the entire width and
Aen- aiists higher. The original plan had a peak and descended quite a bit. PuoT
Mr. Herman added that the criteriajnclude special circumstances,p€sulting from
actions of applicant;undue privilege,etcA.,nd the applicant fails these tests.
4+-
Neighbor Steve Katz felt the structure Iis extremely massive as a two-story building
with hip roof He does not think BZBA would have approved it in its current state. It's
almost as big as the house. Constance Barsky was concerned about prior notification.
Carmen Maclean agrees that it's too big.
Ms Caravana reminded the group that the most important thing for theBoard to
consider is not to judge whether the applicant has done the right thing or the wrong thing.
We are not a punishing body,but we have to look at the garage and pretend it is not even
built and decide whether we could approve it. She does not think we should hold it
against Mr. Rogers because is is already built.
Mr. Herman is concerned about setting precedents This would undermine the
legitimacy ofthe work BZBA is doing,and he does not see any way around that.
Mr. Stewart stated that had this application been brought to us at first,he could
not have supported it. He is uncomfortable with other appfevedill-a-g¥e structureslyl' 1 Us- tee-crowded- and- imposespn- the-neighboTs.
V X. r-
6-W»irC41 r-C1.4£, .c,«uk.4U-3 e»--
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AS IT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. MR.
STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ( with
3
the previously noted recuse).
BZBA Minutes,October 27,1999
The applicant may appeal to Village Council if he chooses- PreTiuorprecedentda
e-not,applrhere:
Mr. Herman applied the criteria for variance:
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. We have received no evidence that there are special circumstances
which are peculiar in this case.
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 in fact this was approved,it
would have deprived others who have chosen to conform with provisions of the code.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. It is clear that im* special circumstances do result from actions of the
applicant. . a/77
D. Granting 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.
Ifthis was approved, it would confer privilege thatB-lfeaetivelrwas not applied to other
structures.
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.Not applicable
Finding of Fact: MR SHARKEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8: 10 p.m.
PLEASE NOTE: Next Meetings are all at irregular times:
November 18, Thursday
December 16,Thursday
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1
4

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.