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.
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.
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