Granville Community Calendar

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 

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.