Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 12/11/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS December 11, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Bill Heim, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Trudy Knox, Greg Sharkey, Members Absent: Eric Stewart (Chair) Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Molly Butt, Dan Kielmeyer Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Molly Butt, 4051/2 West Maple Street - Rear Yard Setback

Ms. Butt explained that she wanted to replace the windows on the rear of the house with doors as a means of fire escape for her children. Dan Kielmeyer, contractor, said they also want to add a 12x8 upper and 12x16 lower deck with access stairs on each level. The house is on a very small lot and the back is the only place to add a deck. They have almost no storage room, and the stairs will allow Ms. Butt to carry things to and from the attic easily. Ms. Butt said neighbors Bob Hartsock and Billie Weaver, her mother are in favor of the plan. On the other side, the neighbors just moved out. Mr. Dorman noted that Carl Oliverio had concerns about what effect the deck would have on property values but he didn’t come to the meeting tonight to voice his concerns to the Board. Ms. Butt said the outside staircase is to carry things up to the attic. The attic is not for living space right now, since the roofline is too low. She has 3 children and needs more room. Stairs to the second floor are on the side and stairs to the attic are on the deck. Mr. Heim asked if she had concerns about the building code and danger of fire, and Mr. Kielmeyer said they haven’t been to the Building Code yet. He added that they are going with 30’ solid posts, which would have to be installed with a large piece of equipment. The post will go all the way to the top. Mr. Dorman will check with the Building Code office. Ms. Knox asked if the basement door would be at the side and Ms. Butt replied no. There is a door there and it will remain. Mr. Herman asked if she was requesting a total of three doors and why would she want to enter from the deck, and Mr. Kielmeyer said in case of fire the kids could leave out the back. There will be 4 exterior doors on the back of the house, and they will all match, French doors and windows. Ms. Knox noted that French doors will take up a lot of space and Mr. Kielmeyer said they will be 3’ exterior doors with lattice, making them look like little windows. Mr. Sharkey asked on the first level, will it be 12’ extending out from the house and 16’ across and was told by Mr. Kielmeyer, yes, they need 16’ because they need one foot on east side of the window. On the second level, Mr. Sharkey asked if that would be 12’ x 8’ and was told it will be 12’ across the width and 8’ out. Mr. Sharkey asked if they thought about what it will look like, re materials, etc. Mr. Kielmeyer said it will be stained but we have not selected colors. It will be treated wood and they want a nice looking railing too. Mr. Sharkey noted the rear of the house is already in the setback 6’ or 7’ and the variance would be for another 12’. He is concerned about the massing effect although there are no other homes back there. Given your desire to ask for quite a big variance, how would you feel about building one level on your land with the doors out and foregoing the second way into to the attic? Ms. Butt said there are two bedrooms and only one closet for 3 kids. There is no storage, and the house was originally a chicken house. Mr. Kielmeyer said it’s almost like it’s necessary to make the house livable and safe. He thinks the appearance will enhance the house. They wanted the deck just wide enough to accommodate their objectives. The reason for the double decks is that Ms. Butt wants some kind of platform, and Mr. Kielmeyer thought with the stairs on the side it has more useable space than there would be with a big staircase going up the center. The post will be the main support post for the project. The steps would probably be at least 30’ from the former Roger Jones property. Steps are 3’ wide. Mr. Herman is not comfortable with the added access and is not sure punching a hole in the side is the only way to do it. The second floor makes more sense in terms of safety. It’s a tough house and they don’t have a lot to work with. If you want 12’ take 6’ on the first floor reduce second floor by half. Mr. Kielmeyer said, so you want a 6’ deck? Ms. Knox felt that for a deck to be used for so few months per year, would they be adding the top solid like a roof, then it would offer some other place for kids. Mr. Heim felt if they added only one deck they could pick up more useable space on the lower level by not having another floor Mr. Sharkey understands the problem of access and he would probably approve it if he had a clear idea of how it will look when it’s done. He’d like to see more specifications. Although it’s a two-story deck, Mr. Sharkey thought it could look nice if done right. He wondered what would happen with the first floor, which slopes away from the house and was told there will be a platform so you won’t roll down the hill. It is to be grassed. Mr. Kielmeyer said he could show more detailed drawings. It will have white painted door with lattice in the middle and on 4 doors that match and probably white deck. Windows would not be there any more. It will have the same siding as the house. Maybe someday Ms. Butt will put on new siding. The 6’ posts will be nice and sturdy, carriage bolted, and screwed. Mr. Heim said since there are property owners behind them who will see this, it will have an effect on other property owners. It either changes the use of the property behind or increases the value. It affects value whether it is vacant or not so we want to know it will not depreciate value. The drawings will include the railings. Mr. Kielmeyer asked to table the application and he will bring revised plans in for the February 13 meeting.

MR. HEIM MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 14: Minutes were postponed until the next meeting.

Finding of Fact: None

Next Meeting: Thursday, January 9 and February 13 Adjournment: 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 11/14/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS November 14, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Lon Herman (Vice Chair) Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Mindy Kshywonis, Jim Mack Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Mindy & Bob Kshywonis, 232 N. Granger Street – Side Yard Setback

Ms. Kshywonis stated that they wish to put a 8’x12’ garden shed 4’ from the school wall where they have a cement walk and gas line, in that little depression below that. The shed would be well screened and not visible from Granger Street. Mr. Sharkey asked whether they own the land and was told yes. The survey shows an easement, the applicant said, but it is a very old easement for cattle and wagons. There is an old foundation there, and she said no trees would have to be removed. Their driveway is in the easement. She said the shed has been started, but it’s on skids with no concrete floor. They have approval for the building and need variances for north setback. The shed would be 4’ from property line vs. 12’ minimum required. Mr. Heim asked for more information about the easement and wondered what would happen if a shed were built on someone else’s property. To the best of his knowledge, Mr. Dorman feels that the applicants own that land. If they were interfering with someone’s ingress and egress, they would have to move it, but that is not the case. Mr. Sharkey said such disputes are between property owners, not under the purview of this Board. He does not have a problem with granting the variance. The structure can be moved, and the owner knows of the easement so this board should not have any concerns. The easement was created many years ago, and the school Board does not have a problem with it. Mr. Dorman added that the Village vacated some land which the applicants picked up, and the shed will be at least 40’ from rear property line. 

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-129 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY, MOVEABLE SHED. MS. KNOX. SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey: The Board approves the variance application of Bob & Mindy Kshywonis for 232 North Granger Street. Applying the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The applicant would like to locate this rather unobtrusive shed in a screened place on their lot that is 4’ from the property line. Given the small size of the shed and its unimpressive height the Board feels that special circumstances do exist to locate it where it will be located. Also, its proposed location is where a concrete wall currently exists. There is no neighbor in the immediate area and that is another special circumstance that warrants the granting of the variance. 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. Granger Street has several properties including many that this Board has dealt with and we have where appropriate granted side and rear yard setback variances, where we felt the structure was not intrusive on other neighbors, and we certainly think this small structure fits the bill there.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. In fact, the special circumstances do result from actions of the applicant.

D. That the 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. Refer to (B); there are many other properties on Granger Street that have been granted this type of variance for small structures such as sheds.

E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. We heard no special evidence that this would be the case. Notice was given, and none of the neighbors have objected on the record. 

The structure is moveable and so we feel based on the survey which indicates that Bob and Mindy own the property where they intend to place this; and on the rather uncertain status and origin of the easement it is appropriate to grant the variance on that particular piece of ground.

James & Denise Mack, 420 West Maple Street – Side Yard Setback

 Mr. Mack plans to put a storage shed in the back of the lot 8’ from back of the house along the property line. Sugarloaf is behind the yard. The people next door have given their permission. It’s 2 1/2’ from west property line. The boundary line is 6’ from west side of the house. The shed will be a little closer to the property line than the house is, maybe by 1’ or 2’. It will be set back maybe 1’ or 2’ from the house next door. Ms. Knox said there is a big hill and trees and bushes, so there is no other place for the shed, and Mr. Stewart added that there is also a patio back there. Mr. Mack will probably put in some small shrubs facing the street. There are some bushes there now, so it would not be visible in the summer. Mr. Sharkey stated that it’s definitely a small structure, and we like small structures, not too high. He is a little concerned, however, about the new neighbors’ concerns, but he understands the applicant’s wishes because of the hill and topography, but he thinks some landscaping should be done on the west side and maybe the south also. Mr. Heim brought up a concern with having lawnmower gasoline so close to the neighbors. The applicant said the paint on the shed is a primer, which is close to the color of the house.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-141 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE ADDITION OF SUITABLE LANDSCAPING ON A PORTION(S) OF THE SOUTH AND ALL OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey: The Board approves the application for variance for James and Denise Mack for 420 West Maple Street. Applying the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. In fact, here we have the unique topography of the property makes it necessary and more importantly sensible to locate the shed where the Macks are proposing to locate it. It is a small structure and the applicants have agreed to have it screened appropriately from the neighbor to the west.

 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. See response to (A); in fact the special circumstances really result from the unique topography of the property involved.

D. That the 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. In fact, the Board cannot think of any reason how this would confer undue privilege on the applicant, given the size of the structure and the topography of the property.

E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. This board has heard no such evidence that neighbors or others would be affected by this rather small and unimposing structure.

One final note is that the Board approves the variance with the condition that the applicant submit some type of landscaping plan to the Village Planner for final approval, for the entire west side and for a portion(s) of the south side. Also, this is a moveable structure.

 Ms. Knox had a question about the survey, since a local surveyor has spoken against using a mortgage survey for property lines. People are not to make decisions based on a mortgage survey. Mr. Dorman has had discussions with him, and we have approved variances based on mortgage survey, and he has had people build on the property line. They are less expensive. Such surveys might use a row of hedges where a real surveyor uses boundary pins. When a surveyor looks at a lot, he looks at the entire block. We ought to require a boundary survey. Mr. Heim noted that people should put sheds where they will not need a variance. Mr. Dorman said there was discussion of having a township survey done. Mr. Sharkey thought we could write something into the code saying if a boundary costs more than $xxx, a mortgage survey would do. Mr. Dorman will ask the Law Director about this and also try to find out what other communities require. There are a lot of erroneous property lines in Granville, and Mr. Heim thought it would be more expensive to the rest of the community to get one wrong.

Closing Comments: Ms. Knox asked whether it would be possible to limit the number of new homes built in Granville. Mr. Dorman said that would be a Residential Growth Ordinance and Hudson had one but it was held up. Village Council would ultimately decide on such a decision. Ms. Knox also wondered about affordable senior housing, which would solve a problem seniors have. The Recchies had a proposal but are moving too slowly. Mr. Dorman said it depends on where it is located. Multi-unit structures have limitations.

Minutes of August 27: 

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. HEIM MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE KSHYWONIS AND MACK APPLICATIONS AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002. MS KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11 Adjournment: 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 8/27/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS August 27, 2002 Special Meeting Minutes

Members Present, Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Greg Sharkey Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Kitty Consolo Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place – Setback Variance

Ms. Consolo wishes to enclose an existing deck that faces woods and road with a 12’x16’ all-season wood addition with windows, roof, and door. Two skylights will be added, and a deck will be next to the addition. She brought photographs of the current house and explained the view from the neighbors. All neighbors she spoke with are in agreement with the project. One neighbor, Jim Martin, would be able to see the addition from his deck; others would not see it through the woods. Ms. Consolo owns the lot to the north which would be most affected by the addition. The current A.C./heater can be accessed to serve the addition. She is not changing the footprint. The code requires a minimum 50’ setback, whereas the deck would be extended 16’ to the east, and the north setback would remain at 16’. Mr. Heim asked about ownership of the lot next door, and Ms. Consolo said she bought it from her father, although the deed says it is in trust, which it was for awhile until the matter was settled. She has been talking with the Licking Land Trust about a possible donation of one of her lots. There are two other parcels, and all three are in her name. Ms. Knox walked the property and found it very secluded. The shape of the lot is small and there is really no other way to add to the house. As long as the neighbor does not object, then there should be no problem. Mr. Stewart stated that BZBA likes to consider any future owners of the lands and avoid setting precedents.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-106 AS PRESENTED. MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the application for a rear setback variance:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The footprint of the structure is as it has always been in what is being suggested and what is approved. The applicant is merely enclosing the existing deck. 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. Not applicable, given the existing deck that is already on the property. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This is merely an addition above an existing deck and porch and the condition in terms of infringing upon the rear setback is not caused by the applicant and there’s no other reasonable way to create a deck. D. That the 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 many irregularly shaped lots on Samson Place. I would venture to guess that there are at least 2 and maybe 3 just in looking at the property that may need a rear yard setback. 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. This appears to be true.

Minutes of July 31: Page 1, next to last line, change “They” to He. Page 2, first word add, “project. Mr. Reed suggested that….” Page 3, 9th paragraph: “Mr. Stewart asked if the size is fixed, and Mr. Reed said it is not really fixed, but….”

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JULY 31, 2002 AS CORRECTED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION (MR. HEIM, WHO WAS NOT A MEMBER AT THE LAST MEETING).

Finding of Fact: MR. HEIM MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE CONSOLO APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BZBA, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF AUGUST 23, 2002. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Next Meeting: October 10 Adjournment: 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 7/31/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS July 31, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Tim Riffle, Dan Rogers, Ned Roberts, Shirley Maxwell, Sarah & Larry Scheiderer, Jim R. Cooper, Amy Brunn, Marge Hendy, Jodi Schmidt, Wendy & Roger Flowers, Troy and Carla Reed Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Side and Rear Yard Setback Variances

 The application was tabled pending reports of an agreement with the Schmidts on landscaping plans. At the last meeting of the BZBA, Bernadita Llanos agreed with landscape plans on her side. Attorney Jim Cooper reported that there is an agreement with the Schmidts, neighbors on the east side (former home of Mr. and Mrs. Coombs). Ms. Schmidt said the original landscape plan went from the corner of their house to the end of the Rogers’ garage, and they figured enough trees and shrubs to fill that space. Dan has paid the Schmidts the money to complete the landscaping. Six-foot arborvitae will be used for the hedge, and 6-8’ pine trees will be added. They are not going to do anything right away but will wait until spring and until the garage is finished.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO REMOVE THE APPLICATION FROM THE TABLE. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES BE APPROVED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Minor changes to the existing Finding of Fact drafted after the May 9th meeting were agreed upon for use as the Finding of Fact for this decision, and Mr. Dorman will make those revisions.

Troy & Carla Reed, 123 Wildwood Drive - Side and Rear Yard Setback Variances

 {Ms. Knox recused herself from this hearing.}

 At the last meeting, since Mr. Reed was not present, the BZBA tabled the application, but allowed the neighbors to comment on the application. The proposal is for a shed building with portico that would be used at first as a playhouse for the applicants’ children. A 10’ variance on south side and 6.5’ variance in the rear would be required. Troy Reed said something should be said about the last meeting. He did not think it was right for the BZBA to take testimony when they were not present. Mr. Reed suggested that assumptions were made about the project. They feel that the BZBA heard all of these negative comments and have already formed opinions on the proposal based on that. They listened to the tape of the meeting, and it seemed people were making up their minds prematurely. A lot of the comments had nothing to do with this plan. They put the drain in three years ago to stop water from going onto the neighbor’s property. They did not do anything improperly. The Hendys complain that this plan will make the long-term erosion worse. The Sauers brought up an expired covenant and suggested I might use the playhouse as an office. Mr. Reed said a shed is a permitted use, but in this case variances are needed. In the proposed location they would not have to cut down the buckeye tree or Rose of Sharon. The shed will be open underneath so water will roll down the hill and have no effect on erosion. The drain tile along the fence is left over from his project three years ago because he did not know what to do with it. Nothing is planned with tile at this time. He could have put the shed in without permission. If he did not need a variance, he could have put it in without consulting them. They tried to be considerate about where to put it so it would be concealed. He said Diane Trucker complained, but she has a shed on her property. The Reeds heard negative comments on the tape from people who don’t even know them. They considered putting up a privacy fence, but didn’t really want to do that. They planed to screen it from the street with plantings. He spoke with Rick Watts and Troy Brunn and they didn’t seem opposed to the plan. At the meeting Ms. Watts complained about losing her view, but her view is close everywhere, and in about two years, the hemlock tree will shield it anyway. He concluded by saying this is a nice neighborhood and this project will be nice too. Mr. Sharkey asked whether he has spoken with the neighbors, specifically about the view before or after you went away. Mr. Reed told him he spoke to Troy Brunn and Rick Watts after he returned. Mr. Stewart asked whether Mr. Reed anticipated negative comments, and Mr. Reed said the neighbors don’t like him. He did not think it would be worth it to talk to them. Ms. Reed noted that they want their privacy and to be able to sit outdoors. So they put up screening and the neighbors were offended by that. Mr. Stewart said, speaking about the view, some of the neighbors thought that while this location is good for the Reeds, it is not great for those neighbors. Mr. Reed noted that the person who made that comment has never been in his house and looked out toward the yard. Mrs. Reed noted that they will indeed be able to see the shed. Screening from the neighbor’s property will be done. It is not sitting out in the open. On the Brunn side, they have big trees behind there, and the Scheiderers have shrubbery too. They did not put in the proposal that they are going to put in bushes, but they are planning to do so. If they cut down the trees and locate it in a location that meets the code, everyone will see the shed. They did not want to disrupt everything in the yard. The best location is where they decided to put it. It balanced the lot on the slope. It’s a nice building. They will stain it the same color as the house trim. Sally Scheiderer said she came to the last meeting because they were notified and they made comments. Nobody told them landscaping would be done. Comments were not made negatively; they were just voicing their opinions. She does not think the neighborhood can accommodate a building of that size and fears it would set a precedent. Although they do have the right to put it in there, she would not like to see it where it is drawn on the plan. Mr. Reed said they were on vacation and there was a miscommunication between him and Mr. Dorman as to whether he needed to be there. Amy Brunn thought the previous meeting was not negative, but things said tonight were negative. The shed would be on a slope, with the front 9 ½’ high and the back 3’ or so higher. Mrs. Reed said there are huge pine trees there to screen it. Mrs. Brunn said Mr. Brunn went to talk to Mr. Reed, who said if the fire department has a problem, we need to deal with it, but this is about the shed. The neighbors want to keep the area nice looking. Sally Scheiderer said the drain was brought up because the pipe has lain there 2-3 years but she has a problem with their yard eroding away and it would be worse with a drain. There was nothing in the site plan about a drainpipe. But that is not a concern for this meeting. Mr. Stewart is hearing that the objections are that it is either too large or too high a structure to put within the setback and that even if the Reeds screen it to the hilt as they are suggesting tonight, it is still a problem, we need to be clear about the objections. Sally Scheiderer added the concern about setting a precedent and about location. Mr. Stewart asked about other sheds in the area, and Amy Brunn said the outside homes of Wildwood loop have woods behind them and a shed would be less visible, but those on the inside butt up against each other and a shed is much more visible. Mr. Dorman said the Reeds are requesting a 10’ variance on the south versus the minimum of 14’ and a 6.5’ variance on the rear versus the 50’ minimum. Mr. Stewart said it’s a tough decision for the BZBA when the neighbors are opposed because that is one of the conditions we look at when considering variances. The applicant prefers to have it in that spot, with good reasons, but the standard for variance is tough and if the Reeds could move it so it would not need a variance that would be simpler. If there were something about the lot precluding a different location, that would be different, but we see no hardship. Mr. Reed thought that sometimes folks get what they ask for, and nothing we can say can satisfy these neighbors. This was the most concealed place to put it. If we put it in an approved place, people would complain even more. Amy Brunn thought a more discreet spot could be found so when people drive up Wildwood, they won’t see it. Mr. Reed said if they put it where it would be approved, they would not have to plant shrubbery and you could not do anything about it. Mr. Stewart said we are not putting blame on the neighbors. That is just one criterion we look at. “I hope you would not do that to the neighbors, but that is your prerogative. We weigh all comments.” Mr. Herman said one of the criteria is whether or not the applicant has created the need for the variances. In this case, there are other alternatives. The issue relative to other options makes it tough for us. Mr. Stewart asked if the size is fixed, and Mr. Reed said not really, but he would like to have the front porch. Given our discussion this evening:

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REED’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.

Mr. Sharkey applied the criteria for variance to the application for side and rear yard setbacks:

This is the Reed application for variance to place a shed/ clubhouse structure in their side and rear yards. 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 Board finds that special conditions or circumstances do not exist, which are peculiar to the land or structure involved, in fact the Board finds and the applicants acknowledge that they have many different options as to where to place the structure. None of the other options even require a variance. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. We heard no testimony that the denial of these variances would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by their neighbors. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Not applicable, we find there are no special conditions or circumstances. D. That the 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. Not applicable, we have denied the variance. 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. On balance, the great weight of testimony from neighbors was that placing this structure where the Reeds intended to put it was problematic, primarily for two (2) reasons: 1) The size and height of the structure, and 2) its visibility from surrounding properties. 

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street – Side Yard Setback Variance MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

At the last meeting Mr. Riffle was asked to scale down the massing. Tonight Mr. Riffle presented new drawings and photographs with a lower roofline, and he is putting in shed dormers. Roger Flower, from next door, said he has been aware of Mr. Riffle’s plans to do this for awhile and is in support of both the old and new plans. Neither the old nor the new plans would impact the use of his property in any way. He is at the bottom of the hill and they sit on their back screen porch looking toward the garden, rather than to the north. The two neighbors have worked together on issues of their adjacent lots. Mr. Stewart thinks the new plans make a big difference. Mr. Riffle said he would lose space he needs but is willing to make the changes. 

MS KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS AMENDED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria to the application for the side yard setback variance:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Given the topography, the steep pitch of his entire property, yes these circumstances and conditions do exist which left him really only one flat place to build. 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. Not applicable. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. No, probably more from the actions of a glacier. D. That the 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. That is the case; it 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. The applicant has addressed the proposal with neighbors and we have heard testimony and have no sense that there will be any problem in this area. Minutes of May 23, June 13, and July 11, 2002: On the July 11 minutes, Visitors Present, change Judi Walter to Judi Watts. On page 2, start third paragraph with Mr. Sharkey. Page 2, last paragraph, delete second sentence and continue “He encourages Dan to do everything possible to make an agreement satisfactory to his neighbors.”

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 23RD, JUNE 13TH, AND AMENDED VERSION OF JULY 11TH MINUTES. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE REED, RIFFLE, AND ROGERS APPLICATIONS AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BZBA, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 26, 2002. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Next Meeting: August 27, 2002. Adjournment: 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 7/11/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS July 11, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present, Ashlin Caravana, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Tim Riffle, Dan Rogers, Ned Roberts, Scott Harmon, Shirley Maxwell, Ralph D. Baker, Bill Heim, Sally & Larry Scheiderer, Mike Flood, Lesley Torello, Jim R. Cooper, Bob Morris, Bernadita Llanos, C. K. Barsky, Amy & Troy Brunn, Cal Prine, Bruce Westall, Rich Watts, Judi Watts, Barbara Lucier, Lee Davis, Sharon Sellitto, Marge Hendy Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

The Chair suggested that since we have 4 new applications and one tabled one, we would like to move the latter up to the front if nobody has any objections. 

Old Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Side and Rear Yard Setback Variances

 The Chair summarized that at the May meeting the application was tabled, pending agreement by the neighbors on a landscaping plan to lessen the impact of the building, and he asked for a report. Attorney Jim Cooper believes they have an agreement with Bernadita Llanos and Dan Rogers. Some of the details and timing need to be worked out as to the fence and the trees for the neighbor on the north. {On the east side there has been no further discussion.} Mr. Cooper did not have opportunity to be a part of the discussion, so he cannot speak to what occurred, but was presented with a plan from Ms. Coombs. The discussion broke down. As he understands it, the problem is with the expense and extent of it. There’s a willingness to do something. Mr. Stewart said that we have an agreement on one side but not the other. The original price was $7500. Mr. Sharkey asked what was the last price offered, and Ms. Coombs said $4400, as she was willing to take off some. The Rogers apparently never heard this, but they were told this at the time. Mr. Rogers said the last meeting it was $7500 and landscaping from Fackler’s. He knew of no other figure. Ned Roberts agreed on this understanding, but Mr. Stewart heard $4400 and that was for the east side. {There was a long pause while the principals convened around the table for private conversation.} Attorney Cooper said the agreement with Ms. Llanos was to construct a 6’ solid wood fence of treated lumber with a minimum of 5 trees, 8’ to 10’ in height, probably hemlocks. Albyn’s will probably do the landscaping. Mr. Sharkey thought we were close to an agreement on the north side but there is no agreement for purposes of this board settling this evening. Mr. Stewart said that while we do the other 4 applications, the principals can work on this some more. Attorney Cooper does not want to give up and would like to see what the cost would be with the revised plan for the east side. Sharon Sellitto, who owns the property to the west, asked if a fence would be going in between the properties, and what kind of timeline is proposed. If a fence continues, it should be written into the agreement. There’s no fence there now. In l997 when she agreed to this, Dan Rogers said he would put up a fence. Mr. Rogers said he was planning to screen with fence sections. Constance Barsky said when the garage was first proposed, the neighbors did not have concerns about it. “Everybody agreed to it but what was built was not what was planned. Dan thwarted community values, and it is sad that people have to hire lawyers to resolve this.” She hoped in the future this can be avoided and hoped the neighbors are not being hurt. Mr. Sharkey wants to go on record with what Ms. Coombs proposes now is a significant down grade and is entirely reasonable; Dan created the problem and he’s got to fix it. Even if it costs money. He does not have a figure on cost but he thinks her proposal to screen the garage is reasonable. Ms. Knox said the agreement was a maximum of 5 trees and there is a minimum. Mr. Stewart believes they were going to work on the final details. There was discussion about where the lot line was and how far the eave overhung it. Bruce Westall spoke about the encroachment situation. He agrees with Constance Barsky that it’s too bad we are to the point we have to hire lawyers to figure out disputes. “This is not really an issue about Dan Rogers’ building a garage but it has become a neighborhood issue, about relationships among each other. He said Mr. Rogers has not done a good job in this area. You have done a tremendous job on the building. We have seen you work hard and spend lots of money improving the property, but from the beginning you took advantage of the system and for whatever reason you fell through the cracks. Equally responsible was the Village because they did not direct you soon enough to correct the situation. One option is tearing the whole thing down, and I don’t think that should be done in a community that values its history. The Village has to find some way to keep better track of projects under construction. People violate zoning every day. Maybe Dan is the example of how that can go very badly. I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s your job to mediate it in a way that we don’t have to take sides.” Ned Roberts said that from the very beginning he did get permission for a two-story garage and the garage would have been more acceptable, but the saltbox was different. Dan did think he had artistic license and did not think it would be a problem. Mr. Roberts tried to help him, and said the project was not done with evil intent. They worked on drawings to cut the roof down to the original saltbox style, but the Planning Commission advised them not to cut it down. Ms. Caravana stated that what they proposed was something in-between. Ned Roberts saw no reason to tear it down and make it unusable. The Planning Commission said to stay with the design we have. The variance was 12” from the lot line. He is 2.2’ from Bernadita and 1’ from the Coombs, he is very close. It’s even hard to know where the line is. The overhang could be cut but it adds to the style. Mr. Sharkey said we have to consider how it impacts neighbors. Ms. Caravana stated that the Planning Commission didn’t consider the impact from Ms. Llanos and Ms. Coombs; they consider what’s on paper. Bernadita Llanos disputed the artistic license issue. The structure is massive and huge and for that reason it needs to be screened. Anyone that close would feel the view is completely destroyed. She can’t believe artistic license is at issue—it’s a selfish thing. They are not considering the neighbors. Mr. Sharkey agreed that size is the issue. If this were a new application tonight, this Board would deny the variances. He encourages Dan to do everything possible to make an agreement satisfactory to his neighbors. {At this point, Mr. Stewart broke up the meeting so that the principals could try to come to agreement.} Scott Harmon, Surveyor, repeated his claim that Granville has boundary problems. He again requested that Granville change the zoning code Setbacks are destroyed, and Mr. Dorman can do nothing because the proper controls are not legislated. Until you take that position you will have trouble.

New Business:

Michael & Lesley Torello, 1 Sheppard Place – Front Yard and Driveway Setback Variances

 Ms. Torello is requesting variances for the front yard and driveway setbacks to build a two-car garage on the south side. There is no garage now. The garage would be 29’ from the front lot line and 30’ is the minimum. The shed will be attached, and materials will match the existing house. This would require a 1’ variation from the front yard setback and 0.5’ variation from the driveway setback to allow a safe turnaround for cars. The house is on a ravine and they are limited as to where the garage can be sited. Richard Downs, contractor, was present and explained the exact location of the structure. He said the layout from paper to reality is not always achievable, but relative to safety, it might be a good idea to widen the drive from 10’ to 12’. If anything can be done to improve the turning range, he would be happy to hear it. They don’t want to lose the tree. Cal Prine, neighbor, stated he and his wife have reviewed the plans and have no objections. MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-073 AS PRESENTED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey stated that BZBA approves the Torellos’ request for a variance in accordance with the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Special circumstances exist in that this house is built on a hill, it’s fairly close to the road, there is no immediate neighbor on the side affected, and there is a very real public safety issue in switching the location of the driveway. It’s pretty much the only place that they can make these changes given the topography and the nature of the property’s location. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. We didn’t really address this issue and it probably would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. As mentioned in response to Criterion A, this lot given the topography and its unique location are what drive the necessity for placing these changes where they are being placed. D. That the 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. We have no evidence, either direct or indirect to think that this granting of the variance will confer on the applicant any 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. There is no neighbor on the side directly affected, we heard no objection from any of the other neighbors, in fact, Mr. Prine the one neighbor who did speak up was supportive of the applicant and in short there is no evidence that this will adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.

Troy and Carla Reed, 123 Wildwood Drive – Side and Rear Yard Setbacks

 {Ms. Knox recused herself from this hearing.} Mr. Dorman said in his memo that the lot is 14,810 square feet compared to the code minimum of 20,000. Side yard setbacks should be 14’, and the plan is for a 4’ setback on the south. The minimum rear setback is 50’, and this would be 43.5’, with the proposed location of the shed building with portico. Mr. Stewart said the applicants are not here tonight, but since several neighbors are, we will hear their concerns. The application is for a 10’x12’x 9 ½’ high shed building with 4’ portico to be used at first as a playhouse and then as a tool shed. Variances would be needed on the south side for 10’ and a 6.5’ variation on the rear. Mr. Reed feels it will be largely obstructed and shielded from neighbors by trees. The neighbors disagree. He does not want the structure in the middle of the yard. Troy Brunn said the neighbors here have concerns since the proposed playhouse is such a large structure. There appear to be some drainage tiles ready for the north and south drains. Neighbors to the south are upset that this will cause further soil erosion due to the natural grade. Apparently the Reeds never spoke to the neighbors about this before they left for vacation. Sally Scheiderer has concerns about the size. The neighbors will all be able to see the structure, but the Reeds will not see it well from their own home because of vegetation shielding it from their second-story deck. All the neighbors’ yards open up and there is little fencing, and the openness is nice. A letter from the Sauers questions the applicant’s violating the Wildwood covenants, but Mr. Dorman said they are no longer in effect and the applicable authority is the Granville Zoning Code. Bob and Sue Sauers are not in favor of the application. An unidentified woman lives directly to the west, and according to the letter, we are screened by evergreen trees. But from our patio to the future structure, that is a line from me to you. It will change the flow of the neighborhood. If he just wants a shed, he should put it where we don’t have to look at it. We don’t want to see them set a precedent. Ms. Caravana thought it might have a negative impact. Rick Watts would hope that consideration for granting variances would be mutual agreement of everyone impacted. Mr. Stewart noted that we always want to hear from neighbors and take their comments into consideration. A woman said Troy Reed didn’t say a word and she did not know why he had the stakes in the ground. Amy Brunn started seeing things—he cut down a tree already. He has cut down limbs and she called Mr. Dorman to see if a permit was granted. He has flat ground on the property, so why would he build on a slope? The proposed shed is 9 ½’ tall but from the rear where the slope is the shed will be taller. Water gushes down there in storms. He is obviously going to be putting in more drain tile. Marge Hendy said they have always gotten water. Since he put in the drain tile, it’s gotten worse. He did not inform us the first time, and I don’t think it’s in the plan. Mr. Stewart asked if this were in the north end of the property, would that fit more favorably. Mr. Brunn said if they put it on the north and concealed it that would be great. I wish I could talk to him. He does a nice job with his yard, but this needs shielding. A woman said if it were on the north, people would not see it. Ms. Scheiderer would rather not see it at all. To build a 13x12 thing that started out as a playhouse, that is unnecessary. She does not think a storage shed is that crucial. A man said granting a variance from the north side would be more favorable but would still be negative in setting a precedent. Mr. Dorman said the applicant has requested tabling. Citizens here tonight will be re-notified officially. Mr. Herman said people came here and are on record. Mr. Dorman will tell Mr. Reed that we feel a lot of concerns were legitimate. As far as the drain tile, Mr. Dorman said generally we would treat these things as issues between neighbors, but it is incumbent on the property owner not to create drainage problems. 

MS CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-086. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lee and Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street- Lot Coverage Variance

Mike Flood, landscaping contractor, said that while installing brick paver patios and a fence, they widened the driveway without a permit. The widening is for 18” to the west and 4.5’ to the east. They need more room to park a second car in the driveway. Lot coverage is 58% and without the widened portion, lot coverage is 54%. So the home was already over the maximum coverage. Mr. Bellman, owner of the property to the east, is in favor of the plans, and they are working out an easement situation. Mr. Dorman said the lot is 0.8 acres. The apron is between the two driveways; originally there was a 4.5’ buffer. Mr. Sharkey thought this a pretty minimal increase in lot coverage, and we are dealing with a very small lot. He does not see any real problem. Mr. Stewart thought any time you can get a car off the street, you are ahead, and Mr. Herman thought this was squarely in the center of what we have granted in the past. Mr. Dorman said there is documentation that lot coverage was not an issue when they came before BZBA for the garage, but it probably was. Ms. Caravana would have concerns if the neighbor was not in agreement. Neighbor’s pavement goes 18” on the applicant’s property. If it tends to benefit both properties, she would be inclined to be in favor of it, although she doesn’t like 45’ wide curb cuts. It’s an extremely small lot and this is the only way to get more parking in.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-088 AS PRESENTED. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Herman applied the application to the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The land and structures that have existed since the mid-nineteenth century and are very small in size. In terms of the lay of the land there are limited opportunities to move cars off the street and put them in a safe position. 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 applicant has presented an expansion of their driveway, to extend it to allow two cars to be on the driveway concurrently, which is a right that others in the district do in fact enjoy. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The lot is unusually small in size and as such presents limited opportunities for driveways and ways to get cars off the street safely. D. That the 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. The amount of variance is consistent with other variances that have been approved by this Board. 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. By getting cars off the street, this may present a safer environment for persons living and working in that area.

 Mr. Flood said the applicant wanted the pavers mid- stream so we never thought of the lot coverage. Going through this process, contractors learn about restrictions.

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street – Side Yard Setback Variance

 Mr. Dorman said in his memo that the applicant wants a garage addition and the existing garage is too close to the property line. The south side setback would be 2-3’ versus the code minimum of 12’. Mr. Riffle has a two-car garage now and wants more room for a workshop. He will have electricity but no gas. He said the eave overhangs in the back. Both neighbors are in favor of the plan, and the closest neighbor is 40-50’ away. Ms. Knox thinks the site lends itself to the project and follows the land. It’s unique and the lot goes in so it’s wider in the front. Mr. Stewart said if the new structure were built onto the north side instead of the east, would there be a need for a variance? Mr. Riffle said it would be impossible without removing a tremendous amount of dirt. It’s sloping 8’, so he can only add on to the front and there would be a greater variance problem in the back. Ms Caravana wishes that she had time to view the site, especially considering its being attached to another garage. It looks to have a good deal of trees. But dealing with massing, it is a two-story structure 2 ½-3’ from the property line in the back of the structure and 8- 10’ in the front. She is concerned about having that high a structure on the property line. We have allowed one- story garages, but she is thinking about the neighbor to the south. Mr. Riffle has talked to them and they have no problem She wondered if he could pull it in a little bit, but the applicant said he does not have a lot of headroom inside and he wants to be able to get in and out without whacking his head on the rafters. She thought the natural lay of the land may be able to accommodate the project but wants to view it more closely. Mr. Sharkey thought the slope helps a lot, but he still has problems with the size of the structure. He did not get out to see it either. Ms. Knox viewed the property and doesn’t see how he mows it. Mr. Riffle wants to get busy and finish the project before his helper goes in for an operation. He showed where the site would be and where the house next door is. The trees are fairly mature and will screen a lot of the garage. Ms. Caravana said the lay of the land requires the garage to be put there. But we don’t want to set precedents. Mr. Stewart thought we could do a site inspection and then vote. THE SITE INSPECTION WILL BE TUESDAY, JULY 16, 6 P.M. AT THE RIFFLE HOME WITH MEETING CONTINUING AT THE VILLAGE AT 6:30 P.M.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-089 UNTIL TUESDAY AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

[Back to Rogers’ Garage}

 Mr. Stewart said we are not concerned with details so much as the fact that all parties agree. What has been worked out? Attorney Morris said there has been an agreement. The details include a timeframe for Dan to file an application for a fence, given that it is 6’ high, he may need variances. The number of trees and location of trees have been agreed upon. Ms. Sellitto has agreed. The location of fence has been agreed on too. Default time frame has been included. Attorney Cooper said the agreement is between Dan, Bernadita Llanos, and Ms. Sellitto. The agreement reads as follows:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN B. LLANOS, S. SELLITTO, AND DAN ROGERS, DATED 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2002  5 Canadian hemlock trees, 8-10’ in height, to be planted by 10/30/02. Dan and Barb to be responsible for cost.  Trees to be planted by landscaper, preferably Albyns.  Trees currently to north of Dan’s garage shall remain  Dan to install temporary wood fence by 8/15/02. Must submit applications to Architects, Zoning, Planning and any and all other review boards by 8/15/02  Fence to be 6’ in height, style as indicated on attached sheet. Fence to run from corner of Llanos property to corner of garage. Same fence style for Sellitto property to west. All fence to be at Dan’s cost  In the event the above agreement is not completely fulfilled by 6/1/03, Dan Rogers agrees to pay B. Llanos the sum of $3,000.00. Extension of time to be granted in event Dan Rogers’ physical health prohibits completion.

{Signed by three principal parties.}

 Attorney Cooper said the third agreement is not complete. Jim Schmidt, new owner of the Coombs house, is going to submit a proposal. He will discuss it with Dan and then we will respond. Mr. Stewart would like to bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible. We can discuss this after our other application Tuesday evening. Mr. Schmidt thinks he can have his work done by then. Attorney Morris said Dan can do nothing until this issue is resolved. There are other neighbors that are being held hostage by someone who may or may not come to a reasonable plan. Dan Rogers asked to table. MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-056. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE TORELLO AND DAVIS APPLICATIONS AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 5, 2002. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of May 23 and June 11: Postponed until the next meeting Next Meeting: July 16 – SPECIAL HEARING, August 8, regular meeting. Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 6/13/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS June 13, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Trudy Knox, Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Greg Sharkey, Lon Herman (Vice Chair) Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Jim Gorry Citizens’ Comments: None. Swearing In of Witnesses: Not necessary as there are no applicants or anyone to speak to them

Informal Discussion:

Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code

 Jim Gorry started by answering some general questions. The BZBA is allowed to do research on their own on questionable cases. Bring it in and put into the record. The Law Director can help in questionable cases. Ms. Caravana asked whether we are quasi-judicial and was told we are because of our procedures and our powers. “You are not sovereign authority and you are not legislative. Village Council delegates authority and you then apply your statutory criteria.” She asked whether we have a written set of procedures and Mr. Dorman said there’s nothing written out, but you can make your own rules. Mr. Gorry said, “You should have general rules of procedure. If you make an error and violate your own rules, then the decision can be void. You are a micro-court and there are certain procedures you should follow.” Ms. Caravana said such written rules should be reexamined once a year.

 Conditional Uses: Mr. Herman wrote some questions in advance: (1) He asked for other examples of conditional use criterion, and Mr. Gorry will get these. (2) Are the criteria for conditional use the only ones? Should there be language saying these are not exclusive? Mr. Gorry said, “No, there are binding criteria for the BZBA and you use them to grant conditional uses or variances respectively. The applicant needs to know what he needs to prove and have that ready. The courts will reverse any decision and send it back if others are added. Make them broad, but people need to know what the ultimate tests are.” (3) What is UNDUE BURDEN? Is it different from BURDEN? Mr. Gorry said the definition depends on the context, so you can’t define them. You have to maximize your flexibility. Ms. Caravana thought that exacerbating an already burdensome traffic intersection will create Undue Burden of traffic congestion. (4) What are PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? Mr. Gorry said you have no authority to grant Use Variances, so you don’t need a definition. You only grant Area Variances— development regulation types of variances. However there are 8 tests to determine practical difficulty. (5) We generally ask applicants what they have attempted to do to avoid the necessity of getting a variance. Should that be a criterion for approval? Mr. Gorry said you cannot deny a variance because there was some other way for the owner to accomplish a variance without it. If he cannot meet criteria, he should not get a variance. He has to show practical difficulties. Mr. Stewart wanted the practical difficulty tests added to the packet the zoning inspector gives to the applicant. Mr. Dorman said applicants currently have to submit statements about how they address the variance criteria. (6) What’s the definition of UNREASONABLE? Mr. Gorry said you can’t really define it. Everyone moving into the village adds to the congestion. Ms. Caravana asked whether we are required to modify the request and add conditions and was told: “Yes, you are entitled to do so, but not required to. It maximizes your flexibility. You are only required to say that based on the information provided, this does not meet criteria.” You cannot be forced to impose conditions. Applicants go to the Planning Commission first then to the BZBA. If the BZBA imposes a minor change, it may be approved by the Zoning Inspector. The Site Development Plan gets approved first then the conditional use. Mr. Sharkey had asked a question earlier about SUBSTANTIAL changes, practical difficulties, and unnecessary hardship and Mr. Gorry said he has to show a need for both. You don’t have definitions because the Supreme Court keeps changing things. Every time they change something, you have to change your code, and it’s better to be flexible. Ms. Caravana asked whether an applicant has to meet ALL criteria or can he meet some of them. Mr. Gorry said that he does not have to meet all of them. Relative to nonconforming uses you want to phase them out, we don’t want these uses expanded. You must answer “Is it in the public interest? Will it improve the structure and improve the community?” With the recent changes to the PUD language, the BZBA is no longer involved in approving a development plan in this zoning district. Some PUDs were approved without getting approval for the site plan, but now they can’t do that because there are strict regulations. They are now called GUIDELINES, rather than STANDARDS. This adds flexibility. Mr. Gorry would not allow a PUD in a residential development. Ms. Knox asked what about a person who built something and came in for a permit after the fact? Mr. Gorry said if he does not gain approval, he must tear it down, but there are remedies including injunction and Cease and Desist. Look at it and see whether the BZBA would have approved it, or fine him for being in violation of zoning laws. Informal Discussion on Rogers Garage: Apparently the parties assigned to devise a landscape plan for a buffer as a condition of approval have been unable to agree on a plan. Because the building is on the property line, the screening has to be on the neighbors’ property. You can impose a deadline. If an agreement is not abided with, then what are you going to do? It’s hard to make two other parties agree on something. Mr. Gorry recommended the Board reconvenes to have a second hearing on this application and to make a determination on the variances. 

Minutes of May 23, 2002: Postponed until the next meeting.

Next Meeting: July 11th and August 8th, 2002 Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 5/23/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS May 23, 2002 – Special Hearing Minutes

Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Greg Sharkey Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Ben and Nadine Rader, Jerry Martin, Drew McFarland, Carlos Brown, Jim Dumbauld, Jim Gorry, Dudley Wright Citizens’ Comments: None. Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

Old Business:

Jerry Martin, 128 East Broadway – Side Yard Setback and Parking Variances

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 The application was tabled at the last meeting, pending further information. Mr. Martin wants to rebuild the kitchen at Brew’s to meet Building Code requirements. He needs to purchase some neighboring land, but there was a discrepancy in the survey, and the Law Director needed to give some answers on prescriptive easement. Mr. Martin will need to move the fire escape to the rear to adhere with fire codes. Fire escapes need to be a certain distance from each other. Concerns include the possibility of losing parking spaces and the turning radius required for trucks. Mr. Martin provided a revised drawing of the parking lot and alley. Minimum setbacks in this district are 10’ but these are 0.5’ on the west and 0’ on the east. Mr. Martin reported that Greg Ream is not concerned about the 1’ but is concerned about impeding the flow of traffic. Ms. Arant, neighbor to the west, feels the change could be good for both her and the applicant. Ms. Caravana asked whether the applicant has consulted with neighbors about a possible reconfiguration of the parking lot to allow a loading zone, but Mr. Martin did not know how that could be done. Nobody conforms to setback requirements in this area, so variances are in order. Parking quotas do not work in downtown Granville and Petunia Park Dudley Wright, Fire Chief, asked about the grease trap, and was told the tank will go into the ground outside the building, and he said this was OK. This would need an annual inspection. A 19’ fire lane is required but they are down to 16’ now and these plans would reduce it even further, so a couple of parking spaces would have to be lost. Attorney Jim Gorry spoke of the public versus private issues in the alley. There are most likely prescriptive easements or private agreements that allow each of the property owners the use of the alley. This body does not get involved in these concerns. There is no adverse possession, because there has been no change of title. Regarding the parking requirement variance, Mr. Martin said most of his customers arrive in the evening after daytime visitors have left, so parking is no problem. MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for variance to the side yard setback portion of this 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 not applicable because all buildings in the vicinity do have similar conditions. 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. Most properties in this district are built to the property lines and not setback and that’s what the applicant is proposing to do. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The buildings were built probably more than 100 years ago. D. That the 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. Because other buildings in the area are built similarly up to the property line, the granting of the variance would not confer any undue privilege on the applicant. 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.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for variance to the parking requirement portion of this 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 not applicable because all buildings in the vicinity have similar conditions. 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. As far as we know, none of the businesses in this vicinity have adequate parking as calculated by square footage. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The area has been developed in this way for probably more than 100 years. D. That the 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. Because other businesses in the area also do not have adequate parking and have not been required to increase parking as they increase in size, we are not granting any undue privilege on this applicant that has been denied others in the same zoning district. 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. Because the use of the additional square footage generally takes place at night, there is a lot more parking at that time.

Finding of Fact: MS. KNOX MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE MARTIN APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BZBA, AND THE BOARD FINDS IT CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 17, 2002. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of April 11, 2002: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 11TH AS CORRECTED. MS. KNOX SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of May 9, 2002: Page 2, 4th line from bottom: change to “He recommended that as a condition for approval, the Rogers be required to meet with neighbors….” Page 3, motion at top was approved by majority with one abstention (Ms. Caravana). MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 9TH AS CORRECTED. MS. KNOX SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Informal Discussion: 

Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code

 Attorney Jim Gorry stated that his objective was to look at this from a legal point of view by modernizing and simplifying to make the code easier to use. A number of issues have policy concerns. He described the difference between “Practical Difficulties” and “Unnecessary Hardships.” Unnecessary hardship applies to a USE variance. Practical difficulties apply to an AREA variance. Under Hardship, a person cannot buy a piece of property knowing he will need a variance. Under practical difficulties, he can get one. “You can’t create your own hardship.” BZBA can impose a requirement on an approval that is stronger than what the code requires. Discussion arose on several paragraphs of the draft, but members preferred to wait until the full membership was present. Mr. Gorry stated that BZBA can grant variances; the Village Planner grants approval. Members had a few questions under 1147.03, and Mr. Herman reminded the group that the Board has spent a lot of time working with the document, and he wondered what new members might be expected to know when they come on board. Mr. Herman asked whether all criteria for approval will be for USE, and Mr. Gorry said the ordinances should provide you with general standards and criteria that govern your decision. 

1145.03 (e) Mr. Gorry will add more examples. He said you may let the Master Plan be a guide. The use requested must be in harmony with adjacent areas.

1133.03 (b) Village Council can reverse decisions of BZBA based on consideration of their decision. Village Council can file an appeal, and when they decide to review, it kicks in the appeal process. You can ask Village Council to review. Under the appellate process a review is an appeal. 

1137.01 In appeals, current law requires all parties to be notified who were notified in the hearing. Both the BZBA and the Planning Commission recommend approval of applications. We grant variances, the Village Planner grants approval. 

Next Meeting: June 13, 2002 – Proposed Zoning Code changes first on the agenda

Adjournment: 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen

BZBA 5/9/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS May 9, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Ashlin Caravana, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Attorney Jim Cooper, Ned Roberts, Judy Guenther, Fred Wolf, Bruce Westall, Carmen MacLean, Ben Rader, Cindy and Dave Farley, Jerry Martin, Drew McFarland, Carlos Brezina, Jim Dumbauld, Martha Welsh, Tym Tyler, James and Eileen Arant, Jean Coombs, Scott Harmon, Steve Huddle Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Dave and Cindy Farley, 228 Sunrise Street – Side and Front Yard Setbacks, Lot Coverage, and Building Height

 Ms. Farley said the home was destroyed by fire and will be demolished, and they want to build a full two- story home on generally the same footprint. One side is to be 13’ from the property line, but the lot coverage is 23.7%. The height is to be 32 ½’, versus the maximum of 30’ because the architect measured from the floor rather than the ground. She reported that three neighbors have nothing but good things to say. The house will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The neighbors next door are pleased because they are moving the structure farther away from their lot line. The 3.5’ front setback for the porch lines up with other houses on the street. Lot coverage is 3.7% over what is allowed. The north setback would be 6.5’, a variance of 5.5’ Ms. Knox said this house is on the end and has the appearance of having more space around it because of the golf course and the school next door. Mr. Sharkey wondered whether there is a real good reason for the excess height, and Ms. Caravana said although this house is larger than its neighbors, it would be of classic proportions. He thought we could approve variances for side and front setbacks and lot coverage, but work on the height some more. Ms. Farley said they only have 4 months to finish building.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-054 FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES, AND TO TABLE THE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE TIME BEING. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the application to the Criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. There is an existing structure which was damaged by fire, and the applicants are generally using the footprint of that existing structure, and the existing driveway. 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. Similar variances for slight increases in lot coverage and decreased setbacks have been granted in the immediate vicinity. With respect to the front setback, we think it’s desirable for the building to line up with other buildings that exist on the street and therefore a setback that’s closer to the road is more desirable. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions or circumstances would be the existing footprint of the house and the existing driveway are there and do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That the 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. We don’t feel the granting of the variance will confer on the applicant any undue privilege, because similar structures and lands in the same zoning district have been granted similar variances and enjoy similar uses. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. We can see no way that the granting of the variances will adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare, and in fact the setback of the new building is larger on the south side, which will be an improvement for the neighbor. Also, a new updated structure will enhance the area.

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Side and Rear Yard Setback Variances

 Attorney Cooper summed up the application for the garage over the past three years. The problem arose when Dan Rogers built a different and higher garage than what was originally approved in order to accommodate his business trucks. The one built was more massive. Tonight Dan Rogers is seeking essentially the same variances which BZBA approved originally. Mr. Rogers has attempted to reduce the massing effect by way of molding and trim details. These minutes will not attempt to revisit the history, since it is available in the files. Variances are required on the east and rear sides. Discussion ensued about the dimensions, height, and neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Sharkey wanted assurance that sufficient trees and bushes on the east and north sides would act as a buffer for the east and north neighbors. Carmen MacLean said landscaping would help screen the building from the neighbors and Bernadetta Llanos had agreed with her earlier. Bruce Westall thinks the best impact Dan could make on the neighborhood is just to finish the structure. Yes, it is big, but it is on an alley with other large structures and will make a positive impact when it’s done. Tym Tyler agreed with this, but Jean Coombs feels it is still too big. Mr. Dorman spoke to the enforcement situation and said it will be more efficiently monitored in the future. Mr. Sharkey is concerned about setting a precedent, and he feels a compromise is essential in this case. Although uncomfortable about compromise, he feels this application needs to be finished. He recommended that as a requirement of approval for the variances, the Rogers meet with neighbors and Mr. Dorman and come up with an agreement on landscaping on north and east sides.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-056, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1) THAT APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON A LANDSCAPING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ROGERS AND THE EAST AND NORTH NEIGHBORS AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED WITH 1 ABSTENTION.

BZBA members agreed that there should be a written finding of fact so people will understand how our decision was made. Height is a big issue. Mr. Sharkey volunteered to write the Finding of Fact.

Jerry Martin, 128 East Broadway – Side Yard Setback and Parking Requirement Variances

 Mr. Martin wants to rebuild the kitchen at Brew’s to meet building code requirements. He needs to purchase some neighboring land, but there is a discrepancy in the survey, and the Law Director needs to give us some answers on a possible prescriptive easement in Petunia Park. Mr. Martin will need to move the fire escape to the rear. Concerns include the possibility of losing parking spaces and the turning radius required for trucks. Neighbor Ben Rader is concerned about adverse possession Drew McFarland thought there is no adverse possession but might be a prescriptive easement, and did not think it up to BZBA to determine ownership. The group walked across the street for an on-site view of the situation, and Carlos Brezina explained where the changes would be. The stairway comes out 5’. The problem is distance between exits. Judy Guenther, representing the GBPA, is concerned about ownership of Petunia Park. She herself has put money into resurfacing and striping. The Village does not maintain it. If someone falls and is injured she does not know who is responsible, there are so many owners. She recommends a new, thorough, survey. She wonders what would happen in the future if another business wanted to extend into Petunia Park. Mr. Dumbauld has a problem with the applicant changing his footprint. Traffic will be affected, and the dumpster is in the way. Mr. Martin has asked the Village to do a survey. Logic would say we do not want to prohibit trucks, since we have the majority of the trucks coming through the alley. Ms. Knox recommended a weighted drop-down fire escape. This apparently is OK for residential zoning but not commercial. Ms. Caravana wants to see a sketch of the parking lot at Petunia Park. The more information we have, the easier would be our decision. Scott Harmon, Surveyor, spoke on adverse possession and statutes for public domain. There are ways to do it amicably. It could become a dedicated alleyway. Denison should sell the narrow strips of land they own there. He spoke of surveying in general and difficulties involved in this situation. The problem will never go away until a complete survey is made. Ms. Caravana is not asking for a complete survey. Mr. Herman suggested getting drawings of the existing property lines and the Law Director’s review and return in two weeks Mr. Sharkey also wanted a report from the Fire Department regarding access. Mr. Martin asked to table the application.

MR. HERMAN MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED AND RECONVENE MAY 23RD. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE FARLEY APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDIANNCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 3, 2002. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of April 11, 2002: Postponed until the next meeting.

Next Meeting: May 23, 2002 - MARTIN APPLICATION June 13, 2002 - Regular Meeting Adjournment: 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 4/11/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS April 11, 2002 Minutes

Members Present, Trudy Knox, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana {arrived at end of meeting}, Greg Sharkey Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Constance Barsky, Dan Rogers, Attorney Jim Cooper, Ned Roberts Citizens’ Comments: Constance Barsky wished to express her opposition to the Rogers garage. She takes issue with The Sentinel article, which gave the appearance that the application is OK with the neighbors, but that is not true in every case. She did not agree with an applicant being able to change his plans once the approval has been granted and come up with something inappropriate. A letter from an anonymous neighbor expressed much the same opinions, stating he feels the garage is too massive and that rules must be followed.

Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Kenneth & Patricia Dickerman, 321 North Pearl Street – Side Yard & Driveway Setback Variances

 In order to install an air conditioner and to widen the rear driveway, the applicants are requesting two variances for the application the Planning Commission approved on April 8th. Mr. Dorman explained the location of the fence, which does not require a variance. The air conditioner will be located between the house and the neighbor’s driveway retaining wall. It will be 1.5’ from the property line, versus the minimum side yard setback of 12’. The applicant presently backs his car into Pearl Street since there is an insufficient turning radius at the garage. The existing rear driveway encroaches into the driveway setback; therefore, an extension of the driveway further encroaches into the setback. Mr. Dickerman explained where the air conditioner would be, and the design of the driveway and retaining wall. He will make provisions for adequate drainage. He has an easement that allows him to use the driveway, and he would like to extend the retaining wall to the garage and remove the old section. He did not think the project would affect any trees. The northern neighbor’s house is more than 40’ from the side lot line and the retaining wall which will screen the unit. Ms. Knox said being able to head forward into the roadway obviously offers safety advantages over backing into the road. Mr. Stewart asked what other possibilities have been considered that would not require a variance, and Mr. Dickerman said on the other side the air conditioner might not require a variance, but it would have a greater impact on the south neighbor, than the proposed location has on the north neighbor. The back yard is his only living space in this small lot. The location he has chosen is out of the way. Ms. Knox agreed with the desire to retain the best living space for the family. 

MS. KNOX MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Herman applied the application to the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The land itself is shaped irregularly, the land is steep and access is difficult and peculiar.

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. Interpreting it literally, the applicant would have to impose burden on one neighbor to install the air conditioner, and in terms of having the right to be able to pull out of one’s driveway facing the road, others have the ability and opportunity to do so.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The land’s topography is peculiar and is not created by the applicant.

D. That the 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. As indicated in (b), that others have the right to enjoy their land in terms of having an air conditioner and being able to pull their car out facing the street.

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, the variance may improve it, in that a safer situation will develop for both cars on Pearl Street as well as the children in the yard.

Informal Discussion: Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Non-Compliant Garage Variances

 Dan Rogers received approval from the Planning Commission on March 11th. Mr. Dorman provided details of the window location, siding and trim, and decorative elements. The garage sits 1’ from the east property line and 2.2’ from the north property line. A demolished garage sat where the new one is located. Mr. Dorman provided particulars about the garage and the stormy history of the construction. Although the revised garage has a bigger footprint than the originally approved application, the variances are slightly less. The proposal is for a 9’ variance on the east side and 7.8’ variance on the north. Mr. Herman would like to review minutes from previous meetings at which concerns were noted to see whether they have been adequately addressed. Mr. Dorman will provide them for the next meeting, at which a formal application will appear. Ned Roberts, builder, clarified a survey report which said the garage rests on a neighbor’s property, but subsequent surveys showed this was not the case. He tried to tell neighbors that a saltbox has exactly the same mass as the current design. He explained how they planned to cut the roof and took into consideration other concerns the Planning Commission gave them. Attorney Cooper stated that Dan Rogers was very willing to incorporate the Planning Commission concerns and amend his plans, particularly the massing. Dan Rogers said there would be no plumbing in the garage. The upstairs is for relaxed time and building moldings and cabinetry as well as a place for a pool table. His entire approach has always been restoration and to match the house. He is not going to rent out the space. He reviewed several things that changed in-between the original drawing and the building as-built. The look on the outside of the building, except for the roof was always the same. He shrunk the size of the garage from the house by one foot, but when he pulled his car into the garage he realized there was insufficient space for the stairs so he enlarged it by 2 ½’, and the structure is not as high as the original. It seems more massive east to west because of the angle of the back of the garage to match the house. The roof angle was changed. The former Zoning Inspector liked the design, so Dan Rogers proceeded with his building. He said when he gets the siding on; the building will be beautiful, despite neighbors’ concerns. He can’t please everybody. Attorney Cooper asked whether they should be prepared at the hearing to revisit the architectural review and the work done with the Planning Commission, and the Board said yes. Mr. Stewart said people are concerned about two things: (1) not following the rules and (2) merits of the building itself. These should be separated out. Mr. Dorman suggested inviting a member of the Planning Commission to be present.

Finding of Fact: MR HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE DICKERMAN APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD FINDS THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF APRIL 4, 2002. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of February 14, 2002: Mr. Stewart asked to change the “we” in second line under Bussan to “applicant is.”

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Comments for the Good of the Order: Ashlin Caravana announced she is resigning from the BZBA as soon as a replacement can be found. She wants to pursue other interests now.

Next Meeting: May 9, 2002 Adjournment: 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 2/14/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS February 14, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present, Trudy Knox, Greg Sharkey, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Dave Bussan, Jerome Scott, Steve Mershon Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway – Side Yard Setback

 Jerome Scott, architect, explained that the proposed addition does not meet present zoning setback conditions. The triangle at the corner was sold off to the School Board in 1923 and the applicant is trying to renovate and upgrade the house to add needed functions. The only place for the addition is shown on the plan. They do not want the addition to encroach into the setback to a greater extent than do the existing structures. The Planning Commission approved the application with two stipulations: (1) That the applicant not do anything to exacerbate the water runoff situation; and (2) That the applicant plant a tree on the property to help screen it from one of the neighbor’s undeveloped lots. The drainage situation is not entirely on the Bussan property, but he will do nothing to make it worse. The water will hopefully be routed into the storm sewer rather than the yard. At the last meeting Mr. Stewart asked to see a drawing showing the relationship of the addition with neighboring structures, but there are no structures in a direct line of sight with the proposed addition. Mr. Bussan hopes the school board would install more landscaping, and he will approach them about that. Ms. Knox added that there is a lot of green space there to work with.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-004 AS PRESENTED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION 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. The lot is highly irregular and such irregularities are not applicable to neighboring lands and structures, thus rendering it peculiar. 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 in the area have had additions and/or expansions to their original footprint that also remained within the total square footage percent of buildable area and this one is no different. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant did not create the irregular lot; it was created in 1923 by the school board. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. It is important to note that the variance does not create additional encroachment; it merely continues one that is now standing. 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, this variance may improve it, in that the runoff from the house may be routed to the storm sewer on Broadway, rectifying a concern where the runoff currently goes into the back yard, creating a hazard.

Finding of Fact: MR SHARKEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE BUSSAN APPLICATION AS THE FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of January 10, 2001: MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting: March 14, 2002 Adjournment: 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

BZBA 1/10/02

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS January 10, 2002 Minutes

Members Present: Trudy Knox, Greg Sharkey, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Eric Stewart (Chair) Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: David Bussan, Jerome Scott Citizens’ Comments: None Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

Work Session:

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway – Side Yard Setback

 Mr. Bussan and architect Jerome Scott described the side yard setback variance required for the proposed rear addition to the Bussan house. Mr. Scott showed the survey, showing where a portion of the lot was sold to the School Board, which left them with very little area to work with. They will not get any closer to the property line than the house exists now. The proposed addition would be stepped back to lessen the massing effect. Mr. Sharkey asked what it will be used for, and Mr. Bussan said it is a two-story addition with a study on the first floor and a master bedroom above. They will raise the roof of the existing rear addition and get rid of the dormer window. The rooflines of the existing and proposed additions will match. The neighbors have no problem with the plans. Mr. Sharkey said it’s a substantial addition, but in terms of a need for a variance, this is a classic textbook case of why you would need a variance—because of the irregular shape of the lot. Given the irregular shape, Mr. Sharkey would be favorably inclined to grant a variance. Mr. Herman said whatever dimension you have, don’t go over that. We don’t want to add to a previous encroachment. Mr. Stewart agreed that because of the orientation of the house and the irregularly shaped lot, a variance would be appropriate. He would like to see a drawing showing the relationship of the addition with the neighboring structures. Minutes of December 13, 2001: MR.SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED BY MS. KNOX. MR HERMAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meeting: February 14, 2002 Adjournment: 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

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.