Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 10/27/1999

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

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.