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.
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