Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 11/18/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
NOVEMBER 18,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric
Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors:Rodger Asmlis,Peter Cea, Sharon Arps,Julie Hopson,Eleanor Cohen,Brad &
Karen Pfau,Jeffrey S. Jalbert,Muffy Chyne,Laura Main
1
Minutes of October 27,1999:
Page 3,Paragraph 1: c"h.a.n.ge in plans,according to Ms. Franks."
Page 3, Paragraph 2,line 1:: give some weight to alleged actions..."
Same paragraph,go down 5 lines and deletef o"r her crafts."
Page 3,Paragraph 3, line 4: s"u.c.h.a large structure that close to the property
line,although as originally submitted,it was acceptable. The roofline ofthe new
structure.M...r. Herman added that the criteria for approval include special circumstances
not resulting from...."
Page 3, last paragraph: w "ith other large structures which have been approved
within the central area of the village.
Page 4, line 3, deleteP "revious precedents do not apply here."
Page 4,ParagraphA: w"h.i.c.h are peculiar to the land in this case."
Page 4,Paragraph C: I"t is clear that any special circumstances..."
Page 4,Paragraph D: Delete r"etroactively."
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
Citizens' Comments: none
New Business:
BradK &risti Pfau,1125 NewarkG-ranville Road d-etached garage
The applicants wish to construct a one-story,two-car 24'x30' garage where a
previous garage foundation exists. This is in the Open Space District,and side and rear
yard setbacks will require variances,as they are required to be 50' from the property lines
Mr. Pfau explained why the location in the plan is the only feasible one for them.
It will be set back farther than the previous one so that they may have more frontage. The
eastw/est location will be the same. There is a hill, so adhering to the code would place
the garage below the house. Thick foliage creates a natural buffer from the neighbors.
Another location would be more obvious to the street and less aesthetically pleasing.
There would be direct access offthe ROW without the addition of more concrete. They
plan to match exterior materials of the house,and they used the Monomoy garage as a
model. The previous garage was demolished,prior to their ownership,because it was
dilapidated. The trees next to the slab will remain,but the one behind the house will be
removed. The neighbors are pleased about the plans,for there would be more on-site
parking and the kids'toys will be put inside.
Mr. Sharkey stated that this is a largu property and placing the garage as shown
would make a lot of sense. It is not close to any other structures and doesn't encroach or
infringe and is not unduly large. The topography is fairly open.
Ms. Caravana thought the primary rationale for a garage being built as shown is
that there was a previous garage there. The neighbor's garage is also within 50' ofthe
line.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE PLACED AS CLOSE AS 4'
FROM THE EASEMENT ON THE WEST AND 4'FROM THE PROPERTY
LINE ON THE REAR. 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 topography and shape ofthe property precludes another
location. The lot is large and the proposed location is sensible and appropriate.
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 is not enough room to
build a garage according to the code except in the front yard. Other garages are located
within the setbacks..
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The former garage was demolished before the Pfaus purchased the
property. There would be special problems without a shared driveway.
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.
This is an Open Space District so not applicable here.
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. Actually,the plan would alleviate the problem of
parking,so this would enhance the health,safety, or general welfare ofthe immediate
area.
2
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
Sprint,Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway -Height variance
Peter Cea explained the necessity for a telecommunications antenna 6' high to be
attached to the steeple ofthe church, replacing the existing finial. This would require a 3'
height variance,since the surrounding hills preclude acceptable reception. The new white
flashing would match the existing white color. 4-be steep18s* hottwee»uldb-e-semove1dandf-
efabriea4-fei:t-hes-igna140p-enetrate. The microcell unit is for local,downtown
coverage 4( -5 square blocks)a,nd since it is low power,it has to be close to its
destination. Strict adherence to the code would not allow radiation power beyond the
very immediate area of the church. Mr. Cea said that if Sprint abandoned the site,they
would restore the steeple to its original condition.
Mr. Cea answered questions about wider coverage and explained in detail how a
telecommunications antenna works.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS
SUBMITTED FOR A 3' HIGH VARIANCE FOR THE ANTENNA ON TOP OF
THE STEEPLE. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart 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. Requirements for an antenna boil down to the location on the
church steeple as the only possible location in the downtown area. The appearance ofthe
plan allows the antenna to become an integral part of the church. Foliage on-site demands
an antenna tall enough to clear the trees now and in the future.
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. Since the company cannot
piggyback onto another antenna,we are allowing them the right to compete with other
companies with antennae in the area.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. The hills were already here.
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.
This privilege has been extended to other companies
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 see no way the health,safety, and general welfare
would be affected by approval.
3
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
James and Julie Hopson,123 South Pearl Street - side and rear setbacks
Ms. Hopson explained that they wish to build a two-car garage 2'5"from the
north lot line and 3.0'from west line where the old too-small garage is located. The door
would be on the west side,and there would be a 5'woodshed on the north. This would
allow them to use off-street parking. They wish it set back far enough for visitors' cars to
park in the driveway. Mr. Hopson has spoken to all the neighbors,and no one has a
problem with the plan. The second floor,accessible via interior stairway, is for storage,
and there will be no utilities.
Ms. Caravana thought the structure would be less imposink if the gable did not
face the street. She also suggested cutting the angle ofthe point ofthe roof,and Ms.
Hopson will discuss this with her husband. She also asked about the fence and its
ownership,which needs to be surveyed. There needs to be sufficient space behind the
garage for service,and she suggested 3' as a minimum. Ms. Hopson will speak to the
Darfuses about this.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED
TO ALLOW 2'.5"FROM NORTH BOUNDARY AND 3' FROM THE WEST
BOUNDARY FOR THE WALL. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana 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. An existing structure presently encroaches on the north side and
somewhat on the west. The driveway exists,and granting variance would allow applicant
to use existing pavement without pouring more pavement.
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. Other garages in the area
encroach into the setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant. Applicants purchased the small garage with the house.
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.
We do not see how it would 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. Approval would not affect the health,safety,and
general welfare.
BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999
Finding of Fact: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Concluding Comments: Mr. Sharkey asked whether others agreed that approval for the
Presbyterian Church addition stipulated leaving the big evergreen on the east side. If so,
the builders are required to replace that tree with one ofthe same size.on4he same Spot. - /
Others agreed,and Ms. Wimberger will notify thetridde,FE' S 1 /1.2- y*..
Adjournment: 8:46 p.m:
PLEASE NOTE: Next Meeting is at irregular time: December 16,Thursday
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.