Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 6/24/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

June 24,1999

MINUTES

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

Members Absent: Greg Sharkey

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

Visitors: Scott Harmon,Ben and Nadine Rader,Ben Spencer,Bill Stevenson,James Harris(D?an)i,el

Ramsey,Bob Kent,James Fry,Kirk Combe,Peter Schreiber,Jerry Van Offren,Don E. Rife,Yod Delaviz,

Patrick Windley,Sue Barton,Eleanor Cohen,Jim Porter,Ray Titley

Minutes of May 27 1999: Page 2,fifth paragraph,change "leads"to lends.

Paragraph (A), add It was a verv small variance that was granted and the structure was a onestory

house.

setback.

Page 3, delete " a room"at end of seventh paragraph and add an enclosed addition., :

Add after Paragraph (C.): The house was built prior to the zoning ordinance.

Add after Paragraph ( D):Other structures in the district have existing encroachments into the

MR.ESSMAN MOVED THAT THE 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:

Benjamin and Nadine Rader,311 East College Street -Side yard setback

Don Rife,from JBA Architects,stated that they need a variance for the side yard setback for the

new three- car,two-story garage to replace the old structure. It would be built on the same site and have

storage space upstairs with access from the front. It would reduce the setback to 1. 2' from property line,

as surveyed by Scott Harmon. To move the garage farther west would destroy an old tree. A breezeway

would connect garage to the house. He added that other garages in the neighborhood are within the

setback. They don't want to put the garage closer to the house because it would eliminate a lot of the small

back yard.

Ms. Wimberger stated that the Granville Inn next door encroaches onto Raders'property by 6',

but the property line is 10 feet from the proposed garage.

Ms. Caravana was concerned about the size of the garage and closeness to the side yard property

line and suggested putting it in another location without requiring a variance.

Mr. Rife said they discussed that,and they do not think it would ever affect the Granville Inn

because the Inn's wall is so tall. They have also considered lowering the upper floor by 3' if necessary.

The Raders expressed their need for a three- car garage, rather than a two-car garage.

Ben Spencer,neighbor to the east,never realized this would be of such a magnitude, as he had

not reviewed the plans prior to the meeting. His concern is about the nice shade tree(s)on the NW and

SW ends of his garage which might be affected by the construction and location of the proposed garage..

The footings would probably compress the root systems of the trees. He is also concerned about the

setback of the garage in relation to his property. He added that the drawing does not appear to be drawn to

scale with respect to the exact location of the Inn on his property and his garage size.

Bob Kent,from Granville Inn is concerned about the 5' distance between the garage wall and two

of the Inn's sleeping rooms and would like the building to be set back farther and the roofline to be lower.

4

BZBA Minutes June 24, 1999

Mr. Rife foresaw these questions and concerns,and lowering the eave would lower the overall height of

the structure, but Mr. Kent disagrees. Mr.Rife also noted that the second level could be reduced in height

so that it would not be a full second floor wall. The roof could be sloped so that the walls would be part of the roof instead of complete walls and a full ceiling. Mr. Rife and Mr. Kent disagreed on where the

proposed garage roof would meet the second level of the Inn. Mr. Kent thought the highest point would

come up to about 3 feet into the view of the window. Lowering the roofby 5' would lower the impact for

the sleeping rooms but would still impact the bakery on the first floor.

Ms. Caravana summarized the concerns: 1( )w:here the neighbor's trees are on the plan; 2()

getting an arborist's opinion about how close they could go without harming the trees;3 ()lowering the

height to 1 1/2 stories ( 4)the scale is not good,nor is building any structure that big so close to the lot

line;and (5)making it a two-car, rather than a three-car garage. As proposed,the plan does not fit the

criteria and might set a bad precedent.

Mr. Rife thought they could move it over and line it up with the house .

Mr. Essman asked about accessibility for fire vehicles, and Mr. Rife said that is not considered a

fire lane because it is not paved. They will provide a fire wall in the 'garage.

Mrs. Rader asked to table application.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Maple Grove Cemetery,East Maple Street -Conditional Use

Jim Havens,Township Trustee, introduced the application for expanding the cemetery. There

was a land swap between the Village and the Township in order to gain more land to improve access.and

eliminate Driscoll Lane a few years ago. They will have gravel roads and it will be self- maintained. A

special levy will pay for improvements, and there will be a landscaped buffer/ screening with fencing.

They will move the existing 6' chainlink barbed wire fence to surround the cemetery to protect against

vandalism. Northern neighbors are uphill and the fence will not impact their view,unless they look down

toward the bike path.

The architect said the fence would be inside the screening and would be painted (green).

Sue Barton,northern neighbor,does not like the idea of a chainlink fence with barbed wire in

her back yard,but Mr. Havens said it must be on all four sides.

Mr. Crates, neighbor,echoed her concerns but realized that with fencing on three sides,vandals

would have to enter through his property. His assumption is that the landscaping would hide the fence.

He also expressed concern about flooding in the southwest corner of the lot. Mr. Havens said they would

address the flooding issue when the time comes.

Brian Davis, neighbor,has had a lot of experience with vandalism elsewhere,and they can get

through a very small space. Barbed wire fencing is necessary.

Scott Harmon,Surveyor for the Township Trustees, stated that Old Colony is not enclosed by a

fence and a lot of damage has been done by malicious vandalism.

Ms. Caravana reminded the group that the fence is not part of tonight's Conditional Use

application.

Mr. Herman thought the group could include in the Finding of Fact language such as: I"f the

conditional use is granted, strong consideration should be given by the GPC to appropriate screening

which takes into account security as well as aesthetic concerns."

The architect stated that this client ( Township Trustees)is probably one of the most sensitive

clients he has ever worked with, and will work with this group to resolve any problems.

Eleanor Cohen wondered about burying in the flood plain ( if it is in the flood plain)and was

reminded that the applicants would have to go through GPC to address those matters.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED WITH

CONDITION THAT THE GPC TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOTE NEIGHBORS'

CONCERNS RELATIVE TO ADEQUATE SCREENING AS WELL AS CONSIDERATION

OF SECURITY CONCERNS WITH THE BALANCE OF THE CEMETERY. WE

2

1/S '4

BZBA Minutes June 24, 1999

ENCOURAGE THE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO COME

UP WITH A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL PLAN. MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria:

A)The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicabe development

standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The application is a conditional use for this district.

B)The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with

the existing land use. All standards are met by the proposal,and the plan is in accordance with plans for

the area. It is an extension of the current land use.

C)The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as

streets,utilities,schools,and refuse disposal. It would not create an undue burden,and no additional

public services would be required.

D)The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses,and will not

entail a use,structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons

or property. It would not be detrimental to existing structures and would not create problems as long as

neighbors' concerns are taken into consideration.

Grace Haven AcademyS (pring Hills Baptist Church)1,820 NewarkG- ranville Road -Setback variance

Bill Stevenson stated that the applicants wish to construct a playground at the southeast side of

the church, which will require a variance from the 50' setback for a swingset and toss- ball equipment,and

they will add a fence if necessary. It would be contiguous to the Village Green,and they want to do the

right thing, as far as being a good neighbor. They would do mounding,fencing,or whatever is required.

Ms. Caravana asked whether there are other areas on the property where the equipment could be,

and Mr. Stevenson said yes,but that would bein the front yard near the road, and other areas are wooded.

Neighbor Kirk Combe opposed the variance and feels the application does not meet the criteria.

He and other neighbors wrote a letter in strong opposition to the variance expressing their many

concernsA.(ttachment.4).

Mr. Herman reminded the group that originally BZBA requested parking in the rear but the

church would not do that.

Bill Troy said they have had difficulties with the church in the past, and the privacy bank/ berm

has not helped much. Balls land on their property,and floodlights are on at night Kids come into the

yard often and use the Village Green yards as short-cuts.

Paul Swenson agrees and wonders why the church should be allowed to make it worse. Keep to

the required variances.

Jim Fry also fears setting a precedent. The school has plenty of space for a playground.

Mr. Stevenson said they are "testing the waters"at this point to find out the concerns of the

neighbors,and Mr. Herman asked them to do their homework and come back later. Ms. Caravana

suggested a meeting with the neighbors and consider other locations. Make a compromise.

Peter Schreiber is both a neighbor and a member of the church and noted the probable security

issues with the playground so far from the church. The church has thought this through. Mr. Schreiber

has noticed kids are still playing at 11 p.m. on the property and there's potential for vandalism as well as privacy and safety issues. He believes they can put the playground somewhere else.

Yod Delaviz said they try to be good neighbors but are concerned about the security,noise,and safety and agrees with his neighbors.

Ms. Caravana said that approval would constitute undue hardship for the neighbors even with a fence,which would not decrease noise and lights.

Mr. Stevenson requested tabling the application.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

r

3

BZBA Minutes June 24,1999

Debra Lewellyn,415 East Broadway -Variance application

Ms. Lewellyn was not present,and Ray Titley,deed holder,and the Board had many questions

about the proposed deck with lattice,which could not be answered to the Board's satisfaction. The

drawing was unclear and therefore they would like to see a betterc/learer drawing or at least the applicant

of builder attend the next meeting to answer their questions.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR.STEWART SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLHY APPROVED.

Fred Abraham,460 and 472 South Main Street -Tabled variance

Mr. Abraham is not present this evening.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO CONTINUE TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR-STEWART

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR.HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR

THE CEMETERY AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED..

Adjournment: 9:15 p.m.

Next Meetings: July 22 ( Mr. Stewart will be absent)and August 26

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.