Granville Community Calendar

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.

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.