Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 5/27/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 27,1999

MINUTES

Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsey Mason,Intern

Visitors: Jim Cooper,Frank Murphy,Sharon Wells,Joe Hickman,Darryl Payne,Martha Matesich

Minutes of April 22,1999: Page 1: Add at end of second full paragraph: A percentage of her sales are

telephone orders.

Page 2, Add at end of Line 9, This is a difficult standard for the applicant to meet.

Page 4,add at end of first b( ): T h e"re will be less vehicular conflicts on East College Street as a

result of placing the driveway on Granger Street.

Change a( ): in"cr.e.as e.the burden on public facilities by increasing traffic and need for

parkingin.c.re.a.se in pedestrian traffic under the new proposal there would be more tenants occupying

the property than at the current time."

tdMR.rES#S7MA1N4MOV8E'DUTHA T T'HE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizen's comments: None '

New Business:

Sharon Wills, 116 Bantry Street-Variancefor Lot Coverage

Ms. Wills wishes to have a house built in the Village Green,which does not specify maximum lot

coverage in its covenants. The PUD permits 20 per cent coverage. Her request,while within setback

lines,would be 21. 55 per cent coverage. If there is a discrepancy, the ordinance prevails. Jim Cooper,

legal counsel, said that in 1993 the GPC and the engineers approved specifications for the Village Green

but neglected to clarify total lot coverage. The restrictive covenants set forth in the plat call for a minimal

building area of 1800 sq.ft for two stories and 1400 sq.ft for one story of living area. Ms. Wills' building

plan, stated Mr. Cooper,appears reasonable and consistent.

Frank B. Murphy, developer of the Village Green said he went back and found all two-story

houses are within the 20 per cent,and the Wills house would be 1850 sq.ft. or 2300 with garage. He was

not aware of this 20 per cent until recently. There are four other homes over the coverage allowed,and

there are six lots left. Ms. Wimberger thought that there were seven houses over the maximum 20 per cent,ranging from 20.4 sq.ft to 31. 18.

Darryl Payne asked about setbacks and was told that all are within setbacks. He added that most lots are quite small and they like it that way.

Ms. Matesich stated she lives next door to Ms. Wills property and wondered if Ms. Wills could redesign her house to fit within the lot coverage. She feels the 1 12/ per cent over the 20 sq.ft. maximum is significant and will severely impact her space and view.

Mr. Stewart asked what options have been explored that would not require a variance, and Mr. Will said that when they bought the lot,they assumed they could put it as the setback decreed. They spent a lot of money on the plans and nobody said anything about the restriction. They were told it's too big even though within setbacks They could change things and move the house farther back. The house is

li

f 4

4

BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999

wheelchair-accessible The next-door neighbor stated that the actual house is the issue,rather than the

setbacks.

Although Mr. Sharkey takes neighbors' concerns seriously,in this case there are several other

homes exceeding the maximum lot coverage. The Wills could move the house farther back,and he feels it

appropriate to grant the variance. The next-door neighbor felt that just because there have been other

variances allowed,that is insufficient reason to do it again. Mr. Sharkey said they did not come before

this body for variances..

Ms. Caravana stated that she was opposed to the last variance the BZBA granted test it set a

precedent.These matters should be written in the covenant rather than granting variances all the time.

She thought Ms. Wills could shave a couple of feet off the garage. She does not see hardship or special

circumstances.

Darryl Payne feels it appropriate to grant the 1 1/2 per cent over the maximum20%than to build

a two-story because most of the houses are one story on this side ofBantry Street. It would be better to

have a one-story house fit in with the other homes. He doubts that anyone could detect aesthetically the 1

1/2 per cent overage.

Mr.Herman wondered whether the neighbor's concern would be remedied by not granting the

variance and did not think it would be There is precedent in this area and to deny the variance would

deprive her of rights enjoyed by others. , e , -

Mr. Stewart felt that since other houses exceed the coveragele.alls this credence to Ms.Wills

assertion that nobody knew about this and it would be unfair to impose that kit?d ofrestriction. That it's

one story makes it less imposing on the street.

Ms. Caravana stated that the other houses were built over the maximum through an oversight on

the part of the Village,and in this case a variance should be granted. But we should take this into

consideration when the other seven houses are built.

Ms. Wills said that three years ago they selected their lot and wanted to be sure it was in

accordance with the neighborhood and feels this plan will fit in well. The overage is not very much.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. ESSMAN

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman 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. N/A .

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 received testimony in terms ofother lot coverages exceeding 20

per cent;there are seven in this area.

C)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

N/A

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. There are seven others who exceed

the maximum lot coverage.

2

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. It

would not affect health,safety or general welfare. It would be consistent with the other homes.

Joseph and Karen Hickman,326 North Granger Street - Variances

The applicants wish to construct an 8'x18' a(pproximately)front porch within the front and side

yard setbacks. It would extend 3'-4' closer to Granger Street. It would line up with other houses on the

street, and several houses in this area .have front porches within the front setback The variances are for

front and side setbacks and lot coverage. The house already exceeds the lot coverage at 23 per cent,and

the plan would increase it to 24.9 per cent.

Mr.Hickman stated that his family requests a front porch p"rimarily because everybody should

have a front porch."It's a relatively small house and there is no other place for a porch. The Hickmans

believe that a front porch would be a good aesthetic addition to the house. It would have a wooden floor

with a shed type roof and a railing with wood spindles. He thought the improvement would enhance the

neighborhood.

Mr. Sharkey adduced about the location compared to others,and Mr. Hickman said the fourth

house down is closer to the road than this would be. He would like a variance from the code in order to

make the porch large enough to put chairs and a swing on the porch.

A neighbor across the street thought " it would be terrific for Joe to have a front porch."

Ms. Wimberger stated that Mr. Hickman included the pavement in his calculations but it does

not need to be, so it's 23.6 per cent and with the ;proposed porch,it would be 24.9 per cent instead of 37

per cent. There have been variances for other houses in the area. Other houses exceed building lot

coverage of 20 per cent.

Ms. Caravana said the pool is temporary and included in the calculations but could be removed.

The porch is open so would be less imposing than aF-een*.41- a -·,4--*·4* 1-AZ*2S.€'

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:

A)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures( ) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The structure is an open porch and less imposing on the neighbors. The applicant has a temporary pool, which is included in the coverage but could be removed.

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 properties in the district have slight lot coverage overages. A literal interpretation would deprive him of the privilege of sitting on his front porch. CD That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. TDhe)BGoraarndtisnegesthneo pvarorbialenmcewwitihll tnhoist ccroitnefreiar. r )f C r- iE />j 1/ r,u,1>,Lr/ *\ Ordinance to other lands on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this privilege would be granted boyr sthtrisucvtaurriaenscien the same zoning district. The Board feels that no undue

r L1/-

3 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999

4 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999 F i

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

variance would not adversely affect and might even enhance the area.

Finding of Fact:Consensus of the group adopted the decisions of the Board for the two applications as

formal findings of the Board.

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.

Next Meetings: June 24 and July 22

Adjournment: 8:50

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.