Granville Community Calendar

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 

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.