BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Lon Herman, Eric Stewart
Members Absent:Greg Sharkey
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors: Walter Krause,Sara Lee
Minutes of July 22,1999: MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PROVIDED. MS.
CARAVANA SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MIL those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Vice-Chair}
Sara Lee, 124 South Cherry Street -Setback and Lot coverage Variances
The applicant wishes to build an addition to her home,which would require side and rear
variances and a variance for lot coverage 5( 4%in lieu of50%S)h.e had previously received approval
in 1997)to build a different design and garage,but she lacked the finances at the time and is now
shifting the orientation of the plan to enter through the dining room rather than the entry. The proposed
addition would not be closer to the neighboring properties and will not be visible from Cherry Street. It,
would sit farther from the rear lot line than the garage does and would be the same distance from the
south lot line as the house. The original application was for 151.67 sq. ft,and this one is for 154.87 sq. ft.
The A.C. would be behind the new addition.
Ms. Lee said the plan would not impact the neighbors' view nor impair vision of Broadway. The
back yard is almost useless and might better be utilized for enhancing the house. She stated the plan
would add value to the house and add privacy. She would like to have a bedroom on the first floor.
Ms. Caravana said that although it's rare that a person requests three variances, in this case (1)
there was a former approval; 2( )the smallness of the lot makes construction nearly impossible without
variances. Additionally, the back yard cannot be used for a garden due to the damp moss-like conditions.
The yard is so small that she has been told by real estate agents that it is not considered an asset;3 ()there
is not room downstairs for another bedroom;4 ()the entire neighborhood is tight. The neighbors are
agreeable to the plan, and Ms. Caravana recommended that the applicant's window not face directly into
the neighbor's. In this case,although green space is at a premium,Ms. Lee is asking for a reasonable
Mr. Essman said it would be hard to deny the application because it is so similar to what was
approved earlier. Also, the new plan is even more preferable in its orientation.
MR HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
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 a very tight
and unusual small area to work with, and one of the peculiarities is that an application had already been approved for 99 per cent of the area.
Granville BZBA Minutes,August 26,1999
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 know of numerous instances of additions going beyond 50 per cent. She is not increasing
the square footage above what had already been approved previously. Having a bedroom on the first floor
is something others in the area have.
C: That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. In square
footage and footprint,the plan is not appreciably over what was previously approved.
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.
Other additions exist which encroach into the setbacks.
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 heard to evidence that the health, safety or general welfare would be affected.
Finding of Fact for Decision for Bank First National on July 22:
MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECISION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE DRIVETHROUGH
AND ATM REACHED AT OUR LAST MEETING. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,AND
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact for Tonight: MR.HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
THIS EVENING AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 7:30 p.m.
Next Meeting: September 23