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.
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