Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 04/24/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 24,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier, Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld,Vice
Chair
Members Absent:Bernie Lukco
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Candi Moore,Steve Mershon,Bob Karaffa,Rob Montgomery,Vanessa Taphouse Fuson, Joe
Sinsabaugh,Perry Watson
Citizens'Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of April 10,2000:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
RobertC &hristine Montgomery,452 West Broadway A- ir Conditioner
Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicants wish to locate the AC unit on the side, which will require a
variance,as it is to be 4'from west property line. The house is in the Heritage Overlay District,100'from the
ROW. Mr. Montgomery added that it is 29"tall x 242!/"a,nd will sit on a platform 1' from the house. There
will be shrubbery around the unit and will sit in an ivy bed. He cannot put it behind the house because it's a
small area right below the dining room window.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PROVIDING THAT BZBA APPROVES THE
VARIANCE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Tim Tyler,233 South Pearl Street - Air Conditioner and poured concrete
Ms. Wimberger noted that the applicant may modify the application later to add a picket fence. Mr.
Montgomery said there is a lot of space for the unit on the north side,and landscaping will be added later. The
unit will sit in an alcove and will not be visible from the street.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS: (1)THAT THE VILLAGE
PLANNER EXAMINE THE EXACT LOCATIONFOR AC AND (2)THAT IT BE SUFFICIENTLY
SCREENED FROM PEARL STREET. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Members discussed the fence which will be applied for later. It will go around the property. Mr. Salvage thinks
a modification can be brought in with photos or drawings showing the pickets and gate. Mr. Montgomery said
he wanted vinyl, but GPC discouraged him from this idea.
Mr. Montgomery added.that the 10'x30' poured concrete floor is part ofthe application
MR. SALVAGE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD THE POURED CONCRETE FLOOR,AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
GPC Minutes,April 24,2000, 2
Bob and Tracee Karajfa,311 NorthPearlStreet S-hed and Retaining Wall
Ms.Wimberger saidthe 8'x8'storage shed will be 4'from property line. The stone 3Vz'retainingwall fof
parking space will be 1' from property line,and BZBA will hearthe variances on Thursday.
Mr.Karaffa added thatthe shed will rest on a concrete pad and be made ofrough- cutwood.
MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONWITH CONDITIONS:1 ()THAT THE COLOR OF
THE SHED BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE PLANNER AND ( 2)PENDING APPROVAL OF BZBA. MR.
BURR-ISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ann & Perry Watson,127 W.Maple Street -Remodel roofand change siding
Ms.Wimberger said they want to change the shed roofinto a hip roofstyle.They will change existing siding
to.matchthat onthe new addition and change shingles on bay window. Mr.Watson explained thatthe project
will fit in with the architecture ofthe rest ofthe street. They will use dimensional slate gray shingles to match
those on the back ofthe house.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SHINGLES ON
REVISED ROOF WILL MATCH STYLE OF THOSE ON THE ADDITION. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Michael FusonV a&nessa Taphouse Fuson,103 ShepardsonCourt p-orch,etc. 2-o D
Ms.Wimberger said the application is in the HeritsgrObae-y* ct,within 100'ofthe ROW. They wish
to remodel porches,convert part ofthe garage into a porch,and also to rebuild porches and add balustrades.
Garage siding and trim will be replaced and match wood siding and trim on house.
Ms. Fuson said they will remove vinyl siding from garage and have it match the rest ofthe house. Both
porches will be rebuilt and will be screened.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Sharon Sinsabaugh,329 West Elm Street - Roof
The applicant said the roof is in poor condition,and he would like to replace it with asphalt dimensional
shingles,which will look more authentic. It needs new gutters and they are thinking about copper material. The
proposed copper on the cupola cannot be seen from the street. The roofover the sunroom will continue to be
standing seam,dark gray and will not be changed.
Mr. Salvage summarized that there will be copper on cupola,dimensional on the rest ofthe roof.Sunroom will
be painted seam.
MR.WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR ROOFING BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED,WITH THE OPTION OF USING COPPER ON FLAT SURFACE AND COPPER FOR
DOWNSPOUTS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
StevenMershonC &andada Moore,405 East College Street
Mr. Burriss recused himself from consideration of this application}
Ms. Wimberger said this is for a new single-family dwelling. She would advise the group not to take final
action yet,there is a copy ofa letter from legal counsel to be considered. She thinks the question ofthe
easement has been answered, but questions remain. This is for discussion and tabling and possible modification
to the lot split.
Mr. Mershon said he received Attorney Erhard's letter this afternoon but he does not know quite whether he is
C
GPC Minutes,April 24,2000, 3
being an advocate or making ajudicial decision. Mr. Erhard accessed. This says an easement is the only way lots can be was a surprise to applicants,but they disagree with Mr. Erhard in saying there is no access on College Street. The School Board gave three deeds for three lots.
Mr. Salvage said GPC favored the easement. He had recommended studying the ad for the real estate auction
at which the property was sold. We did not require the school to sell as three lots. If there were only two lots, there would be no need for shared access. Mr. Myers said that consensus was for two lots but the School Board wanted three.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said a total of two lots with shared access was preferred because the lots were so small that driveways would cause traffic problems. This would make it easier to meet code requirements.
Mr. Mershon said that every house in the area is on a small lot and these three are consistent or even wider. He explained the location of the driveway was to make traffic smoother on Granger Street.and thinks he could plan
shared access for his other two lots. He does not know what they will do with the other two lots at this time,but
ifthere are to be two houses,there would be a shared driveway.
Mr. Myers summarized so far: 1( )The lot split with shared access was GPC's preference. 1( )In order to
change, a modification is needed to the lot split;there is no easement on the application. 3 ( )The general idea
was to eliminate curbcuts. 4( )We are going to have to follow legal counsel's advice. The next step is to go back
to Mr. Erhard and ask him to outline the steps to be taken
Mr. Salvage had talked to the school officials and they said there was supposed to be an easement. ( 1)These
two could share an access;2 ()they would want deed restrictions;3 ()there is a parking problem on Granger,and
parking should be allowed instead of striping; 4 ()they want to be sure the driveway makes sense. 5 ()Mr.
Salvage likes the house plans.
Ms. Lucier said the Village Council voted on the lot split with the understanding that there was an easement as
part of it. Mr. Myers said a subdivision without plat does not go to Village Council.
Mr. Mershon then described the plans for the two-story Queen Ann style house,and showed where changes to
the plans were made. Mr. Salvage said the School Board has no problem,but ifthe Village has other access
plans they want to know about it. Setbacks will not be a problem with the school
Members discussed the wide sidewalks still present and consensus agreed that the school should replace the
tree lawn and gutters, rather than the applicants.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING INFORMATION FROM LEGAL
COUNSEL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ALL APPLICATIONS,A THROUGH F
UNDER NEW BUSINESS,ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED
IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Next Meetings: May 8 (Ms. Lucier to be absent)and 22
Sign Code: May 9, 7:30 p.m.
Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 04/10/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 10,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage
Members Absent:Keith Myers,Chair,Carl Wilkenfeld,Vice Chair
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Betty Morrison,Marcia Gleaves, Beth Yaekle, Scott Hickey,Gary Coyle,Rich Cherry,Ray Paprocki,Monique Pinkerton
Citizens'Comments: None
Mr.Salvage chaired the meeting and swore in all those who planned to speak)
Minutes of March 27,2000:
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Marcia Gleaves,221 West Broadway -IFence
Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicant wishes to establish a garden area,and is applying for a 6'
stockade- type wood privacy fence with latticg atop,18"inside the driveway. There would be an arched arbor at the
curve which will have hold climbing planftd¢t!841 had some uncertainties as to design,and Mr. Lukco informed her GPC cannot approve something indefinite. Ms. Gleaves then said she wants lattice,shadowbox,metal arbor. Mr.
Luikco said the fence should be painted if it is to be treated material,but if it is cedar,that will not be necessary.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT APPLICATION # 00-032 FOR FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITION
THAT 1( )FENCE BE 6'HIGH INCLUDING LATTICE ON TOP,2 ()MADE OF EITHER CEDAR
WHICH WILL WEATHER)OR TREATED MATERIAL (WHICH SHOULD BE STAINED OR
PAINTED).MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Antique Show, Betty Morrison -Signs
The group wishes temporary informational signs in the village,some of which are in public right of way. Ms. Morrison
stated that signs have been displayed in these locations for 20 years and that they have the necessary permissions..Ms.
Wimberger added that the only community service sign permitted is at the flagpole. Ms. Morrison said signs would be
put up at the entrances to the village about four days before the 4-day sale and removed promptly thereafter. Mr. Lukco
questioned the necessity ofthe sign at Bennett's G( oodyear)a,nd she said she could eliminate it. The benefit is for
Granville Academic Boosters.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AND THAT THE SIGNS BE PUT UP
WHEN THE APPLICANT FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE. SIGNS MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN A DAY
AFTER THE SHOW CLOSES. MR. BURRISS-SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Granville Volunteer Fire Department, 133 North Prospect -Generator
The Fire Department wishes to add a generator for emergencies at the rear ofthe property,in a concrete area within a
fence. The property is owned by the village,and the Village Manager has expressed approval. Mr. Greg Coyle
GPC Minutes.April 10,2000 ,2
explained the dimensions of the unit,the color and appearance,and security features,and that by using natural gas,it
will be quiet.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A GENERATOR FOR THE GRANVILLE
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
in and Rich Cherry,223 South Main Street -Fences
The application is for air conditioner and two fences: ( 1)privacy fence in back because it is a very small lot and (2)a
picket fence surrounding the front of the property. One area of the picket fence would be on village right ofway,and
ifthe village needed to service the property,any charges involved shall be the responsibility ofthe owner. ( 3) Since
they needed to replace the furnace,they wanted to add an air conditioner,and to conserve space,they chose the south
side. An existing chainlink fence would be removed. Flowers and landscaping would be added. Mr. Cherry heard
earlier this evening that a treated fence must be painted,and he asked ifhe could let it weather for a year before
painting. He was told that the project must be completed within two years. The Village Planner can approve the color
selection.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
1)PICKET FENCE IN FRONT AS SHOWN ON DIAGRAM WILL BE LESS THAN 42"2; )(STOCKADE
FENCE AROUND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN WILL BE NO MORE THAN 6'HIGH;
3)TREATED MATERIALS MUST BE STAINED;4 ()COLORWILL BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE
PLANNER ( APPLICANT HAS TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF APPROVAL TO COMPLETE PROJECT);
5)PLACEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONER ON PLAN IS ALSO APPROVED. ( 6)BZBA MUJST GRANT
APPROVAL. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Scott Hickey,Village Baker,212 South Main Street -Signs
The application is for 2 signs: ( 1)33"x22"wall sign on the building and (2)a sandwich board with plexiglass at the
entrance to the complex inside the sidewalk in the right of way. Mr. Hickey described the signs: black lettering on
white background on stained wood. GPC members preferred that the two signs be consistent in color and design.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR SANDWICH BOARD AND SIGN FOR THE
BUILDING FOR THE VILLAGE BAKER BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: (1)NAME OF THE
VILLAGE BAKER SHALL BE SAME COLOR AND SAME FONT ON BOTH SIGNS;2 ()SANDWICH
BOARD SHALL ONLY BE PRESENT WHEN BUSINESS IS OPEN AND SHOULD BE REMOVED
EACH DAY. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
d Business:
onique Pinkerton,117 East Elm -Change of Use
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Ms. Pinkerton

BZBA 09/28/00

AGENDA
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING
APPEALS
September 28,2000; 7:00 p.m.
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
4) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 24, 2000
5) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
6) NEW BUSINESS
Administrative Actions
A)Dale and Barbara McCoy: 338 North Granger Street
SRD-B, AROD # 00-122
Variance Application-Side Setback and Lot Coverage
7) OLD BUSINESS
None
8) FINDING OF FACT Approval
9)MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday, October 26, 2000, 7:00 p.m.,in Village Council Chambers.
B) Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,November 23, 2000, 7: 00 p.iii.,in Village Council
Chambers.
10)ADJOURNMENT

BZBA 09/28/00

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 28,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana Vice Chair)B,ob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey C( hair)
Members Absent: Eric Stewart
Also Present: Seth Dorman,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Dale and Barbara McCoy
Citizens'Comments: None
The Chairman swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.)
New Business:
Dale and Barbara McCov,338 N.Granger Street - Side Setbackand Lot Coverage
Mr. McCoy described the location for the proposed 24x28' three-car garage including space
in back for his convertible to be stored sideways over the winter. He wants to attach the new garage
to the existing one,which will be used as a shop. All siding and trim,roof,and color will match the
house. This plan would require variances for side yard setback ( 2' instead of 12') and lot coverage
24.4%rather than 20%).
Mr. Sharkey asked for details about the distances and fencing, and Mr. McCoy described the
existing fencing. The shed is 2' from the fence,which is 6"inside property line. The Robertsons next
door have approved plans for structure and changes in fencing.
Ms. Caravana has more of a problem with the lot coverage than with the 2' setback,and
members discussed how the structure could be situated so as to not need a variance. It is not typical
for three-car garages on the narrow lots in this neighborhood,and BZBA has to be careful about
setting a precedent. Mr. Herman also thought the garage plus shed was inappropriate for the area.
Mr. McCoy said the GPC wanted him to combine the old building and the new rather than have two
separate buildings in order to save space. Originally he was uncertain whether he would need the
shed,but GPC wanted to know specifically whether it would be torn down so he decided to combine
them. Ms. Caravana asked about a two-story building,but he rejected his original idea of a two-story
building because ofthe size.
Mr. Sharkey is concerned about exceeding lot coverage and setting precedents and asked if
there was anything,the applicant could do without,in order to stay within the code,such as tearing
down the shed. Mr. McCoy said that originally he planned to tear down the shed.
Mr. McCoy asked to table application so he could look at it further.
MS CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 00-122. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of August 24,2000: Page 1, 17th line up,change to "ba.s.e.d on concrete facts, not speculation. In the past some applicants have not wanted to calculate lot coverages."Page 2, 19th
line down, change to "O.th.e.r lot coverages are not known at this time. The applicant did not meet
BZBA,September 28,2000, 1
criteria. Other circumstances....."
MS CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. HERMAN
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Other Business: There was discussion about the replacement tree planted by the Presbyterian
Church to fulfill the condition of approval,and members wondered whether the little tree would fulfill
the request. They decided to go over and look at the tree.
Members asked Mr. Dorman to find the Resolution the BZBA passed to see exactly what it
says. They also want to examine the Minutes and Finding ofFact.
Finding of Fact:None,application was tabled.
Next Meeting:October 26,7 p.m. and November 16 ( date changed because of the holiday).
Adjournment: 8:15 p.m.
BZBA,September 28, 2000,2
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 11/16/00

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
November 16,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Greg Sharkey C( hair)L,on Herman,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Bob Essman,Ashlin Caravana Vice Chair}
Also Present: Seth Dorman,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Ken and Katie Richards
Citizens'Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during,the evening.
New Business:
DRAFT
Ken and Katie Richards, 1034 West Broadway,Rear Yard Setback
Mr. Sharkey introduced the application by stating that Ken and Katie Richards are
requesting a rear yard setback variance. He then asked the Richards to tell the group a little bit
about their project,specifically why you would like to place the garage at the proposed location.
Mr.Richards explained that the old shed as shown in the photos Mr. Dorman supplied the
BZBA does not go with the home or the recent addition. The original plan was to build a garage with an eastw-est orientation,just over 100 feet offBroadway,but that required removing a black walnut tree and another large old tree. This plan would not need a variance,but the
applicants' neighbor ( Mr. SawyeO to the north is attached to our home because his grandparents built it and he did not want to see the trees come down. To compromise,we chose to decrease the size of the garage from a 3-car to a 2-car,switch the orientation from east- west to north- south,and place it back further,thus requiring the rear yard setback variance. Mr. Sawyer's home angles to the west,so he will not be looking down on it,and with the excavating the garage will be built more into the hill and that will help it to look smaller for the neighbor and from Beechwood Drive. Ms. Richards said Mr. Sawyer planted some additional evergreens today to help with screening.
Mr. Sharkey asked the Richards to discuss why they want to make the garage the size they propose. Mr. Richards said he does a lot ofhis own work on the home and he does not have
a workshop. So the proposed size is to allow for two cars,a workshop area and room for the kids to play in the garage ifthey want.
Mr. Herman asked ifthis has been through Planning Commission. Mr. Dorman explained that it will not need to go through Planning Commission,because the way the code reads,is that only land within 100 feet ofthe righto- fw-ay line ofthe roads covered by the TCOD are subject to the additional requirements. Mr. Dorman said he confirmed this interpretation of the code with the Law Director.
Mr. Sharkey asked what type ofmaterials would be used. Mr.Richards said the garage would be sided to match the house,and would have two white vinyl insulated doors,one side entrance door and a side window. Ms. Richards said that we want this to look nice for ourselves, and we will add some landscaping around it. In addition,Mr. Richards said eventually we are cgoonindguctoivebuild a home on the west lot,so we do not want to build something that will not be to the home that is there.
1A fS** BZBA.November 16,2000, 2
Mr. Sharkey asked how tall the trees are. Mr. Richards said the black walnut is probably 80' tall and the other in front ofthat is 50' tall.
V Mr. Sharkey asked the Richards to discuss how they arrived at 10' from the property line, Bfaunrrodthawedrhwebatahycekarswitpeowstahssoibupleog.shstOibthbleevitoloeussssllyindoitittiicsfoenarwobtalear,dsacnsldoomsee.toMosu.rRhiocmhaerdasndsaisidlewssecwoannvteednieitnats,bfuatrtohfef be as it is being built into the hill some it will not as visible for Mr. Sawyer. Coming closer to the home with the garage would require removing at least the black walnut so the driveway would work,and you would lose some yard
space for landscaping. Mr. Richards reiterated that the proposed position ofthe garage opens up the yard and saves the trees, all ofwhich would help with the resale value.
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE BE APPROVED AS PROPOSED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the application:
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. Special circumstances include the unusually sized lot,which includes some unusual terrain, and in addition to that some trees worthy of saving that could not be saved ifthe
structure was in conformance with the existing code.
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. No, the lot coverage and other aspects are in
conformance with other similar structures in the district.
C.That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. No, the applicant built neither the trees nor the terrain.
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. No.
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. No,the garage will be situated in such a way as it is well shielded from the
neighbor, and should be pleasant in appearance from both Broadway and Beechwood.
Finding of Fact:MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT AS THE
FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of September 28: MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
OCTOBER 26, 2000 MEETING AS MODIFIED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
BZBA. November 16,2000, 3
Next Meeting: Thursday,December 21, 2000
Thursday,January 25, 2001
Adjournment: 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Seth Dorman

BZBA 02/24/00

AGENDA
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
February 24,2000;7:00 p.m.
1) CALL TO ORDER
2)ROLL CALL
3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A)January 27,2000
4) SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
5) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
6)NEW BUSINESS
Administrative Actions
A)Tod Darfus, 233 East Broadway
VRD,AROD 00-010
Variance application -Side yard setback
7)FINDING OF FACT Approvals
8)MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday,March 23, 2000, 7:00 p.m.,in Village Council Chambers.
B)Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,April 27, 2000,7:00 p.m.,in Village Council Chambers.
9)ADJOURNMENT

02/24/00

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
February 24,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Bob Essman
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Tod Darfus
Citizens Comments: None
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
New Business:
Tod Darfus,233 East Broadway
DRAFT
The applicant seeks a variance for a 6.5' setback from east side in lieu of the required 10' for an air
conditioning unit. The Planning Commission has approved the proposal subject to BZBA approval. No objections
from neighbors have been received.
Mr. Datfus stated that they placed the unit on the side to accommodate the furnace upstairs. He said it is a
small unit on a small pad,and they plan to screen it with a natural and aesthetic sound barrier. The planting will
extend back along the length of the side property. The trees will spread and make a dense area. Mr. Darfus will keep
the growth under control,but these are very slow growing trees. He-wem-orfSEiSISIil that the upstairs-windorr---
mightlook dowlronto- tilroMrl'hey have another A/C unit on the other side.
Ms. Caravana wondered whether the A/C could be placed behind the porch and eliminate necessity for a
variance,but she is glad it is back 85' from the sidewalk. Mr. Darfus said it would be too close to the screen porch or
the patio. He added that the unit will not be as loud as cars on the street. When they placed the unit in its present
location,they were not aware that this would require a variance.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR 233 E.BROADWAY FOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AIR CONDITIONER AS SUBMITrED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE UNIT
BE HIDDEN BY LANDSCAPING AS DESCRIBED BY THE APPUCANT AND REFLECTED IN THE
MINUTES. MR.HERMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria to the application:
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. Special circumstances are with the size of
the structure; the A.C/needs to be in its present location as most practical for the furnace operation. Putting the unit
behind the building would be putting it in the patio,which would be undesirable.
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. N/A.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Although the
condition does result from the applicant's actions, we did not think it an unreasonable request.
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. BZBA has granted similar variances with similar restrictions within the same zoning district and does not think this constitutes 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. It appears there will be no negative
impact on health,safety or general welfare with adequate landscaping.
Minutes of January 27,2000: Page 1,just before the motion,add and beforeb "e more attractive."
MR.STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.
SHARKEY SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 7:45 p. m
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen ( transcribed from tape)
2

08/24/00

Agenda
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 24,2000;7:00 p.m.
1) CALL TO ORDER
2)ROLL CALL
3) SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
4) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
5)NEW BUSINESS
Administrative Actions
A)Dick Wills Construction.Inc.;116 Donegal Drive
PUD 0 #0-111
Variance- Lot Coverage
6)OLD BUSINESS
None
7)FINDING OF FACT Approval
8)REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A)July 27,2000
9)MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday, September 28,2000,7:00 p.m.,in Village Council
Chambers.
B)Following BZBA meeting -Thursday, October 26, 2000,7:00 p.m.,in Village Council
Chambers.
10)ADJOURNMENT

08/24/00

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 24,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana M( ee ChairB),ob Essman,Lon Herman,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Greg Sharkey Chair)
Also Present: Seth Dorman,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Keith Wills,Jeane and John Brown,Mike Gottschalk,Bill and Barbara Parker,Lois Rose,
Mr. and Mrs. Lin (112 Donegal Dr)
The Vice Chair opened the meeting in the absence of the Chair.
Citizens'Comments: None
The Chairman swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.)
New Business:
Dick Wills Construction,116 Doneal -Lot Coverafre Variance
Mr.Wills stated that he purchased the rest ofthe Village Green lots from Mr.Murphy in January 1999.
Mr.Murphy made Mr. Wills aware of the 20 per cent lot coverage maximum,which in the past had not been
enforced. They built five homes within the code and the proposed sixth one with the garage would exceed
coverage by 5 per cent. Mr. Wills reminded the Board oftwo variances they had approved in the past,one at
213 Kildare 2( 5%and)the other at 116 Bantry 2(1.57%Mr)..Wills also mentioned that other homes inthe area
apparently violate the maximum lot coverage,and he is asking that his variance request receive the same
consideration.
Mr.Herman stated that the only variance of maximum lot coverage for a new-build (116 Bantry)was
for 21.57%percent,and the variance for 25%was for an addition whereby the applicant had a medical
condition and needed more space on the first floor.
Mr.Herman told the applicant that one of the criteria in which the Board evaluates variance requests is
do the special conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant,and he said in his opinion
they do. Mr. Wills stated that he has a request to build this house and the lot is much smaller than other lots.
Mr, Herman asked whether there was anything that indicated Mr.Wills could exceed the maximum,and Mr.
Wills repeated that other homes violate the maximum and he assumed it was not being enforced. Mr.Herman
asked the applicant that because the code might not have been enforced in the past,is that any reason to violate
the code now?And Mr. Wills had no reply.
Ms. Caravana stated that the lot next to the proposed one is smaller and other homes are smaller. It
makes sense that you should not be able to build such a large house on such a smalllot. In reply to the
examples Mr. Wills presented,Ms. Caravana stated that the house at 213 Kildare was one story on a corner lot
with no space upstairs and appeared less massive than this one would. In addition,the new build was a very
small variance. Further, she said that we do not know about the lot coverage in every situation in the Village
Green,we have to make decisions based on concrete facts, not omi:md-statements. People do not want their lot
coverages measured lest they get cited for overages. Ms. Caravana asked Mr. Wills if there was anyway he
could decrease the size to make the lot coverage closer to 20%and, he replied that he wanted to find a design
that fit the needs of the homeowner and said he forgot about the required lot coverage maximum. They talked
about making the garage smaller but the owners felt that if the garage were any smaller it would be impractical
for holding cars and lawn equipment. Jeane Brown ( home buyer)said they wanted a two-story house for a
spare bedroom upstairs
Bill Parker, 119 Bantry, objected to the variance and provided for the Board a well-prepared
presentation listing the causes for objecting: 1()The ratio of Lot 20 to the purposed footprint is 25.42%wh,ich
when compared to the 20%lot coverage maximum is a code variance of 27.1%or an excess of about 500
square feet. 2 ()At 20 percent,the house would be a nice aesthetic balance for the neighborhood. 3 ()A
variance was granted last year for 116 Bantry and although still under construction,the house is oversized for
the lot and is a detriment to the visual neighborhood balance and appeal. 4 ( )Adversely affecting neighborhood
visual balance and appeal adversely affects property values. 5( )The variance request should be denied for lack
of merit and the affect it would have on the visual balance and property values within the neighborhood.
Mr. Parker cited three other letters of objection: 1 ()Tom and Stephanie Cliff,115 Bantry: The owner
feared lessening of aesthetics, and feels the neighborhood should maintain a similar style. He hoped the Board
r -
13 N
r
would deny the application. 2 ()William F.Moore, 111 Bantry: Supports Mr.Parker's statement and objects
to the variance. 3 ()Ruth and Willis Troy, 109 Wicklow: Said it's important to keep the greenspace around the
homes. The proposed home is too large,and the requirements should be adhered to. Mr. Lin,from 112
Donegal was in the audience and spoke against the application and added objections from neighbors at 107
Donegal and 120 Wicklow. His understanding is that there are reasons for the code,so if there is no very
convincing reason,the Board should not allow it to be broken. Different values meet people's different needs.
The occupants of the Village Green chose it because they liked small houses. A person could go elsewhere to
find a lot that fits there needs. He stated that when he bought his lot he was told there were conditions to be
adhered to,so he sacrificed some of his wants in order to meet the code. A house on a corner such as 116
Donegal is eye-catching and should be proportional.
Lois Rose, 103 Bantry,was one of the first to build in Village Green and described how tlie lots were
originally to be laid out. Empty nesters were the target purchasers,but Mr. Murphy did not want to be the
builder and individual contractors were used. The Roses wanted a three-car garage but a hydrant was in the
way, and later they moved the hydrant. The sidewalks were to be diagonal. The composition of the
neighborhood deviates from the original plan, now there are mostly families with children instead of empty
nesters. Mr. Herman wondered how that applied to the current situation, and she stated that she just wanted to
explain some of the history of the subdivision and how the original concept has not been followed.
Ms. Caravana is having a hard time because Mr. Wills wants to accommodate the owners, but she has .1, - +.·
not seen a clear need for extra lot coverage. Other lot coverages areno1t*I=nt this time. «Sheeenseae * 16/-
justificNtiont-of-ulfH: t-he-critei:a: Other circumstances are often in place but she does not see any here. She also
feels that listening to the neighbors is important because those people have to live there and know how this
variance will affect them. Even a 1 or 2 percent lot coverage variance makes the house look bigger. Proportion
and balance is a justified argument.
Mr. Herman pointed out that in his opinion three of the five variance criteria are not met in this case.
He wondered whether the applicant could have designed a house within requirements
Mr. Stewart sees no preexisting conditions or nothing particularly restrictive about the lot size.
Mr. Essman stated that several neighbors have expressed an objection to having too large a house on
that lot and it would detract from property values. Mr. Essman also noted that a larger home creates greater
water runoff,and that the Village Green has no storm water retention,and in no time at all the water would
runoff into Raccoon Creek.
John Brown ( home buyer)said the original idea was for empty nesters and they want to live on one
floor with second floor for guests. There would be a bedroom,study,dining room and breakfast nook on the
first floor. The original size of the garage was too narrow. Even if they changed the length of the garage, it
would still not be within the lot coverage requirement.
MR HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria {1147.03 }to the application:
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 land lacks any
peculiar circumstances except for the size being smaller than others,and the proposed house is to be larger than
others.
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. The two points of evidence brought before us were two previous approvals by BZBA for (1)
expansion of a porch and (2)a new build beyond the 20 percent,but less than 1/3 of what is requested in this
application.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. They do.
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. Evidence before us and testimony
suggests that would be the case.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no other man manner adversely affect the health,safety and
general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The health
and safety are not specifically an issue except for the water runoff issue. More to the point is the general
BZBA,August 24,2000,2
welfare of the neighbors' property and economic values.
Mr. Herman suggested that with lot coverage of around 20-21%with neighbor support, the applicant would
have justification for the variance.
Minutes of July 27,2000: MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVES MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR.
STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:MR.HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FACTS AS STATED TONIGHT AS
PERTAINING TO THE USES AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO AS OFFICIAL
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD. MR. STEWART SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Next Meeting:September 28,7 p.

04/27/2000

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 27,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana Vice ChairaB)o,b Essman,Lon Herman,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Greg Sharkey ( Chair)
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present:Ann &Richard Cherry,Marcia & Tim Dennison,Robert Montgomery,Bob Karaffa,Steven
Mershon C&andada Moore,Laura Main,Marc Brockman,Robin Bartlett
Citizens Comments: None
The Vice Chairman swore all those who wished to speak during the evening. }
New Business:
Ann and Richard Cherry,223 South Main Street -Side setback
Mr. Cherry explained that the furnace gave up and they want to add an air conditioner with the new one.
The most logical spot is the side yard,but there is not enough room to keep within the 10' setback,so a variance is
necessary. It is a very smalllot,and an A.C. unit would interfere with use of the back yard
Ms. Caravana asked about the fence,which was approved by GPC conditional upon BZBA approval. Mr.
Cherry said it wilI not be right in front of the AC but there is a door there. There is a lot ofplanting in the proposed
area. The neighbor to the south has done a lot of planting there.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR.ESSMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the motion:
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 lot is irregularly
shaped,with a very small back yard. A variance would allow applicant to enjoy his yard.
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. A neighbor's garage is 5' away,and this will be 7'.The neighbor's house is 42' from the property line.
The air conditioner location should basically render it not objectionable.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances does not result from the actions of the applicant. A lot of
the applicant's property was bought offby others,making it very small.
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 other lots,especially the neighbor's, with an even closer structure.
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. Adverse effects would
not result from the variance.
Marcia and Timothy Dennison,102 Miller Avenue -Rear setback
Mr. Denison explained that he wishes to build a one-story 16'x22' family room on the south side. A
variance is required because one corner of the new room would come within the setback. No objections have been
received from the neighbors. They originally tried to avoid a variance by angling off one side of the room,but it would be more useable squared off,as in the application. This is a dead end and no one will see it. Architecturally
it will fit better because there is a dormer directly above and this room will mimic that dormer.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITIlED. MR.HERMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart applied the criteria to the application:.
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 lot has peculiar angles
and the existing house is set at an angle so that one corner of the house already sits within the setback.
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 homes are within the setback. The neighbor's house is nowhere near the proposed location.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The
applicants could not come up with a room architecturally which would fit in with the house and make sense with the
rest of the structure.
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. Granting of the amended application would
not grant 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. It would not adversely
affect anyone.
Christine and Robert Montgomery,452 West Broadway -Side yard setback
Mr. Montgomery explained that they would like to locate the air conditioner on the west side of the house
within the setback because of the narrow lot and the desire to keep the deck apart from the unit. Placing it next to
the deck would also require a variance. There is no other location which would be suitable;there is an asphalt drive
comprising the east side. The unit needs to be fairly near the furnace. No objections have been received from the
neighbors. There are two big yew bushes at the proposed site,which rests in an ivy bed, and one would not be able
to see the AC from the street.
Ms. Caravana asked about building a shield, and Mr. Montgomery thought it would look even more
conspicuous with a fence. Other AC units are not shielded. Ms. Caravana recommended adding another yew bush,
and Mr. Montgomery agreed,but he wants to avoid hiding the basement window.
MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT AN
ADDITIONAL PLANTING,PREFERABLY YEW,BE PLACED WHICH WOULD HELP SHIELD THE UNIT
FROM THE STREET. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr Essman applied the criteria to the application:
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. Special circumstances
involve the relatively small size and narrowness of the lot
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. Others in the zoning district have units within the setback.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The lot size
did not result from applicant's actions.
BZBA,April 27,2000; 2
BZBA,April 27,2000; 3
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 residences have AC units within the
setback.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,safety and general
welfare ofthe persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Approval would not
adversely affect,especially with additional shrubbery.
Bob and Tracee Karaffa,311 North Pearl Street - Setbacks
Mr. Karaffa stated that they want to take out a locust tree and add a turnaround and concrete with sandstone
inlay retaining wall 1' from the property line. They also want to add an 8'x8'shed for storage 4'from property line.
The wall would be roughly 3 2/' high and will be level with the alley behind the garage,elevated to eliminate the
slope for parking. The project will improve appearance from neighbors'viewpoint.
Ms. Caravana wondered whether there could be a fence to shield,and Ms. Wimberger said the neighbors'
back yard is their gravel parking area. Mr. Karaffa did not think the project would interfere with the neighbors'
view except that they might see the roof of the Karaffa car.
Mr. Stewart thought the turnaround would make it easier for cars to access the driveway. Ms. Caravana
wanted to add plantings at the base of the wall,but Mr. Stewart thought roots might damage the wall. Mr.Karaffa is
willing to add planting on top of the wall.
The shed will be on a pad and painted to match the house,and Mr. Karaffa showed the exact location,
which is hidden behind a fence and trees. The fence will be retained.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS AMENDED. THE RETAINING WALL IS
TO BE APPROPRIATELY SHIELDED FROM PUBLIC VIEW WITH SHRUBS OR TREES ON TOP
OF THE RETAINING WALL. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr Herman applied the criteria to the application:
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. Mr. Herman would have a
hard time finding a lot with a more peculiar topography as well as placement of existing buildings.
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. Others enjoy this right. The applicant proposes to create a space that would allow for safe turnaround
of cars as well as allow outdoor implements to be stored in shed safely.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant
was not responsible for topology nor did he place the structure in that location.
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 numerous encroachments in the
surrounding neighborhood properties relative to property lines; therefore, others have enjoyed similar
encroachments. In fact,someone built a sidewalk on the Karaffa property.
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. In fact,granting of the
variance may improve ingress and egress by cars,bikes,and motorcycles from the alley
Steve Mershon and Candada Moore,411 and 417 East College Street - Shared Driveway
Ms. Wimberger explained that the Village has received legal counsel regarding the shared driveway,which
BZBA did approve. The driveway was to serve all three of these lots off Granger Street. Now the applicants would
like to have one driveway for the corner lot from Granger and a shared drive for the other two lots off College
BZBA,April 27,2000; 4
Street. We are still awaiting legal counsel advice on-the process the applicants driveway need to eliminate the shared that was created by the GPC lot split approval. She said that one of the reasons for a shared alleyway was 1)traffic congestion on College;however,she thinks there is argument both ways. The school traffic is heavy. 2 () The group also wanted to reduce curb cuts;4 ()the lots are narrow and this would maximize the amount of space available for building. Mr.Mershon has looked at other properties and found them with about 50' frontage consistently,and his proposed lot is wider.
Mr. Mershon said they would like to change one item on the application: the house it is to be on the
southeast corner,not the northeast corner. They heard from the homeowners nearby that they did not want a back
alley. The school board has looked at the use they have made at their parking lot,and it is a very busy place. If you put the driveway on the lot line next to the parking lot,you are going to have a very congested area. Across the
street there are apartments and houses with more congestion. The proposed house would encroach into the 10'
easement. They have no plans for the other two lots at this time. In the shared driveway,each property would have a 5' drive,or 10' wide total. These lots are at the edge of the residential district,next to an institutional lot,and Mr.
Mershon wanted to make the transition smoother. Ms. Moore added that eliminating the alley would increase green
space by reducing the amount of asphalt.
Robin Bartlett was concerned about lights shining into her home and would recommend garages at the
shared driveway placed to block the light.
Ms. Caravana stated that a shared driveway would have to be contingent upon GPC's approval of
Application No. 00-051
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT APPLICATION 000-057 SUBMITTED FOR 411 AND 417 EAST
COLLEGE STREET FOR SHARED DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED, CONTINGENT
UPON GPC APPROVAL,WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS MOTION NULL AND VOID. MR.HERMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria to the application:.
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 land has not yet been
developed,and we are trying to find the best way to use the land for everybody.
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.A literal interpretation would deprive applicants of rights. There are several shared driveways in the
district. It's not that unusual.
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. Granting a variance would not 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. No adverse effects
would be granted.
Steve Mershon and Candada Moore,405 East College Street -Rear setback and Height
Mr. Mershon said they tried to mimic other architectural styles of the neighborhood,and the 396!/' height
should not be an issue because there are no other houses adjacent. The garage should go into the rear setback
because 1( )it would create a private area on the east;2 ()it would shield the view of the parking lot;and 3( )it would
make the house look less massive. Other garages are closer to the lot lines. The plan is agreeable with Kathryn
Lowry,Superintendent.
Ms. Wimberger said that GPC has authority to regulate height according to Section 1161.05 (a),
Architectural Reviw Overlay District. The section notes that all new construction should be within 10 per cent of
the average height of the existing adjacent buildings, unless Planning Commission finds that it is not in the best
interest of the community that a common height be maintained. No letters of objection have been received.
Ms. Caravana added that there would be green space with trees and other foliage behind the garage. The
encroachment would not be into a neighboring yard,rather,a parking lot. Our approval would be contingent upon
GPC's agreement to eliminate the single driveway easement for the properties ( accessed from Granger Street).
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND REAR SETBACK,
CONTINGENT UPON GPC'S AGREEING TO VACATE THE ALLEY. MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart applied the criteria to the application:.
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. This is a vacant lot
usunrrreoausnodneadblbeyrevqaucaesntt.property. not reside7·s'o it does not encroacnhei@ghbors'residences. This is not an 3 0K
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.It would deprive applicants of rights because we have seen pictures of other houses close to the lot line
and there are houses that are higher.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances does 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. Granting a variance would not confer undue
privilege. The proportions of the house plans are appropriate.
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. No adverse effects
have been noted. .
Ocitu 166264
Ruth L*ous asked about drainage,and Roger McLain stated they need to make certain that drainage is
addressed when applications come in for the other houses.
Old Business:
First Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway-Variance approval modification requestfor tree replacement
Ms. Caravana stated that the Church is before the group because the tree that BZBA required to stay has
been cut down. Screening is necessary and BZBA now wants to know what landscape plans will be used. Laura
Main,from the Church's Properties Committee, stated that the tree was damaged by construction and diseased,so it
was removed. The disease was not noted until construction began. They did replant some trees to replace those
removed. but not in the exact spot of the big tree removed because of other trees in that location. They want to add flower gardens.
Mr. Herman stated that BZBA was very concerned about massing of this structure and what it would do to the historical portion of the building. When the church assured that the tree was going to provide adequate screening,BZBA felt OK,but the tree is gone and there are no plans to replace it. It was 203- 0' high. Marc Brockman said several smaller trees could be planted close to the spot; adding up to the diameter of the lost tree. They don't want to shoehorn trees where they will not grow. They would coordinate with Tree and Landscape Committee. Village trees should be pruned. He added that the agreement with Mr. Siegel was to replace trees in the etrneoeulgahwn,and they did that. Mr.Herman emphasized that any new trees should be evergreen yeara-round trees,tall to provide adequate screening
Marc Brockman described the landscaping plan and varieties of trees planned..
Ms. Caravana concluded that now that the church and Marc Brockman know what BZBA requires,they can work together with Tree and Landscape Committee to arrive at an appropriate solution.
BZBA,April 27,2000; 5
BZBA,April 27,2000; 6
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO MODIFY OUR APPROVAL OF 97090 TO REFLECT THAT THE COLORADO
BLUE SPRUCE WAS REMOVED DUE TO DAMAGE AND DISEASE AND THAT ANOTHER CONIFER OF
APPROPRIATE SPECIES TO BE DETERMINED BY TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITIEE AND
APPLICANT BE ADDED SO AS TO PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND SCREENING OF THE NEW ADDITION
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE AS IN ORIGINAL PLAN.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE NEW TREE WOULD BE SMALLER THAN THE ONE TAKEN OUT. MR.
STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLTY APPROVED.
, Minutes of April 6,2000: Page 2, second motion,last name is Mr. Stewart.
Page 3 of the minutes requires some clarification,and a new page is to be substituted for the original one.
The immediately following text should be replaced with the second paragraph of text,
The ordinances would force people to put garages in the middle of the yard. A minor variance
helps people preserve their yards as well as being fair.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
This criterion does not apply.
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. Granting of the amended
application is a fairly minor modification.
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.
With screening and increasing the setback, granting approval would not affect health, safety,and
general welfare. Location of the garage lessens impact of minor variance. The garage is set well
to the rear of the applicant's yard and will also be at the rear of the neighbor's yard in a fairly open
area."
A literal interpretation of the amended application would deprive the applicant of rights because
many garages built before ordinances. were enacted have been located substantially closer to
property lines than 10 feet. The ordinances would force people to put garages in the middle of the
yard. A minor variance helps people preserve their yards as well as being fair.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. This criterion does not apply.
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. Granting of the
amended application is a fairly minor modification.
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. With screening a' nd increasing the setback, granting approval would not
affect health, safety, and general welfare. Location of the garage lessens impact of minor
variance. The garage is set well to the rear of the applicant's yard and will also be at the rear of
Qthe neighbor's yard in a fairly open area." 1
HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact.MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD AS FORMAL
FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9:45 P.M.
Next Meeting: May 25
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
BZBA Minutes, pril 6,2000;
people to put garages in the middle of the yard. A minor variance helps people preserve their yards as well as being
fair.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicnt. This criterion does
not apply.
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. Granting of the amended application is a fairly minor modification.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely alTect the health,safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. With screening and increasing the setback,
granting approval would not affect health,safety,and general welfare. Location of the garage lessens impact of minor
variance. The garage is set well to the rear of the applicant's yard and will also be at the rear of the neighbor's yard in
a fairly open area.
Minutes of February 24,2000: Page 1, second paragraph, 4th line, change to " Mr. Stewart asked if the upstairs
window might look down on the air conditioning unit. Mr. Darfus thought the foliage would screen the unit."
MR STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.HERMAN SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:MR HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD AS FORDIAL FINDING
OF FACT. MR.STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8:40 P.M.
Next Meeting: April 27
Respectfully submitted,

04/06/2000

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 6,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Greg Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: JoAnn Morey,Ralph D,.Baker,Deborah Hibler,Pat Nugent,Gary Yaekle
Citizens Comments: None
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
New Business:
Deborah Hibler,318 East College Street - Side and Rear Setbacks
A /
464X/\"
Aj /v
Ms. Hibler showed pictures of the proposed two-car,two-story,21' high garage with office and storage as
well as a pool and fence with gate. She wants to tear down the old garage and build a new one consistent with her
home on the spot where the turnaround presently is. Ms. Wimberger stated that Section 1187.03 permits eaves to
project into the yard no more than 4'.
Mr. Sharkey asked why she needed such a big garage, and she replied that a two-story building would match
better architecturally. She wants space for pool equipment,for storage,for office,for stairs,and for a shower room.Pat
Nugent,Designer, added that this would only add 6'to the existing garage footprint It would remove a lot of asphalt
and add more greenspace. They need substantial size doors for SUVs and space for a staircase and storage,since there
is no basement nor attic in the house.
Ms. Hibler said her new survey showed that she has more space than she thought and that by going beyond the
tree line she would not have to take out the hardwood except for trimming of branches but she would need to take out
scraggly pines. She would be willing to replace any trees removed. With the new property line,a rear setback variance
is not needed
Ms. Caravana stated that screening would be needed for softening,and she wondered whether rear windows
were a possibility for appearance,maybe a closed- shutter window. Ms. Wimberger thought such a window would be a
minor modification to the plans GPC has already approved.
Mr. Baker,neighbor,asked about water runoff,and Ms. Hibler said it will go through the driveway. The pool
would never need to be drained.
The structure would have electricity,running water,and gas,and BZBA members were concerned that the
building might be turned into a residential rental.
Mr. Sharkey thought that in his memory the 24'x30'structure is probably the largest one to have been applied
for,and the Board has denied smaller plans. The burden on the applicant is to show some special circumstance about
the properly itself which necessitates granting of a variance. He is concerned about massing and thinks the building
could be smaller and moved back.
Mr. Herman is concerned with (1)the ease with which this project could be converted into a rental property
and (2)a possible home occupation. He asked why she couldn't build a basement under the garage,and Ms. Nugent
thought there would be too much weight on the floor and there might be moisture in the basement.
Ms. Caravana felt better about having the plumbing on the first floor and felt it less likely to be attractive to a
tenant,and there is no kitchen in the plan. She wanted to reduce the massing on the second floor.
Ms. Hibler thought a compromise might be possible
JoAnn Morey,neighbor,said that a building 2'from the property line would look like a big barn,and she did
not like the idea of water runoff going into her yard. She preferred adhering to the ordinances. Ms. Hibler said there
will be gutters and underground drains running to the driveway. Ms.Morey is willing to compromise,to at least a 5' setback,and she would prefer the fence going straight back..
Ms. Hibler thought the garage could be used as part of the fencing.
Mr. Stewart would prefer taking 5' offoverall so it could be moved farther from Ms.Morey's property. Pat Nugent said that space is for the stairs,and if the plans were reduced by 5',the proportions would be lost.
Mr. Sharkey thought this a wonderful project but too massive and to close to Ms.Morey's yard. Approval of this variance would be at the expense of the neighbors,and he is uncomfortable having the building 2'from the line.

04/06/2000

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 6,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,Greg Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: JoAnn Morey,Ralph D,.Baker,Deborah Hibler,Pat Nugent,Gary Yaekle
Citizens Comments: None
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
New Business:
Deborah Hibler,318 East College Street -Side and Rear Setbacks
DRAFT
Ms. Hibler showed pictures of the proposed two-car,two-story, 21' high garage with office and storage as
well as a pool and fence with gate. She wants to tear down the old garage and build a new one consistent with her
home on the spot where the turnaround presently is. Ms. Wimberger stated that Section 1187.03 permits eaves to
project into the yard no more than 4'.
Mr. Sharkey asked why she needed such a big garage,and she replied that a two-story building would
match better architecturally. She wants space for pool equipment,for storage,for office,for stairs,and for a shower
room. Pat Nugent.Designer,added that this would only add 6'to the existing garage footprint It would remove a lot
of asphalt and add more greenspace. They need substantial size doors for SUVs and space for a staircase and
storage, since there is no basement nor attic in the house.
Ms. Hibler said her new survey showed that she has more space than she thought and that by going beyond
the tree line she would not have to take out the hardwood except for trimming of branches but she would need to
take out scraggly pines. She would be willing to replace any trees removed. With the new property line.a rear setback variance is not needed
Ms. Caravana stated that screening would be needed for softening.and she wondered whether rear
windows were a possibility for appearance, maybe a closed-shutter window. Ms. Wimberger thought such a window would be a minor modification to the plans GPC has already approved.
Mr. Baker, neighbor. asked about water runoff,and Ms. Hibler said it will go through the driveway. The
pool would never need to be drained.
The structure would have electricity, running water,and gas,and BZBA members were concerned that the building might be turned into a residential rental.
Mr. Sharkey thought that in his memory tlie 24'x30' structure is probably the largest one to have been
applied for.and the Board has denied smaller plans. The burden on the applicant is to show some special
circumstance about the property itself which necessitates thinks granting of a variance. He is concerned about massing and the building could be smaller and moved back.
Mr. Herman is concerned with (1)the ease with which this project could be converted into a rental property and 2( )a possible home occupation. He asked why she couldn't build a basement under the garage,and Ms. Nugent thought there would be too much weight on the floor and there might be moisture in the basement.
Ms. Caravana felt better about having the plumbing on the first floor and felt it less likely to be attractive to a tenant. and there is no kitchen in the plan. She wanted to reduce the massing on the second floor. Ms. Hibler thought a compromise might be possible
JoAnn Morey,neighbor,said that a building 2' from the property line would look like a big barn,and she did not like the idea of water runoff going into her yard. She preferred adhering to the ordinances. Ms. Hibler said there will be gutters and underground drains running to the driveway. Ms. Morey is willing to compromise. to at least a 5' setback.and she would prefer the fence going straight back..
Ms. Hibler thought the garage could be used as part of the fencing.
Mr. Stewart would prefer taking 5' off overall so it could be moved farther from Ms. Morey's property. Pat Nugent said that space is for the stairs,and if the.plans were reduced by 5',the proportions would be lost. Mr. Sharkey thought this a wonderful project but too massive and to close to Ms. Morey's yard. Approval of this variance would be at the expense ofthe neighbors,and he is uncomfortable having the building 2' from the line. particularly with a neighbor voicing objection. He wants it to be 3-5' narrower and 10'from side lot line,but rMasth.eNrugent repeated that form follows function,and to accommodate all their needs,they need a twoc-ar garage. than a one-car grage
t.

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.