Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 4/10/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 10, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Tym
Tyler
Members Absent:   Bill Heim, Trudy Knox
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Barbara Hammond, Mary and Mark
Milligan, Tim Riffle, Jon and Dagmar Farris
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing In:  The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening
Election of Officers:  Postponed until the full membership
is present.

New Business:

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway – Side Yard Setback

Ms. Hammond said their storage is currently in a truck and
they wish to replace the truck with a 10’x20’ salt box
type pre-fabbed wooden storage building, painted to match
the building.  It would have two windows and a double
entry door on the east and will take up the exact space
that the truck now occupies. It will sit on pre-treated
lumber. They will give up one parking space. The shed is
manufactured in Mt. Vernon and Comfrey Corner (in Newark)
has one just like it.  
Mr. Herman asked about parking spaces, and Ms. Hammond
said they have nine spaces available and are only using
five.  She has heard no negative comments from her
neighbors, and PNB, according to Mr. Dorman, said it’s ok
as long as it isn’t right up against the building.
Mr. Herman asked whether the shed is permanent, and Mr.
Dorman said it’s temporary.  The Law Director felt we
should consider the side yard setback, although it’s would
be hard for any business in this vicinity to meet the 10’
side yard setback requirement.
Mr. Herman also asked whether there is any way the shed
could be sited so that it falls within code, and Ms.
Hammond said she wished there were somewhere in the
Village where she could rent space, but could find none.  
For ease of accessibility and safety, there is no other
location in close proximity to the store.  It will look
better than the truck.

MR.  DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-019 FOR A SIDE
YARD SETBACK.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean applied the criteria in Section 1147.03 to the
application:

a)  Do 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?  We discussed the downtown
properties all go side to side anyway, there isn’t any
division between the buildings, and this structure will be
similarly located about 1’ from the Park National Bank
building.

b)  Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicants of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the provisions of this Ordinance?  A
literal interpretation would not allow them to have
storage which is already in fact in place at this site.  
If the statute is followed exactly they would be deprived
of a right that they currently enjoy.

c)  Do the special conditions and circumstances result
from the actions of the applicant?  They are not
requesting anything out of the ordinary; given the truck
that is there now the building will look better.

d)  Would the grant of the variance confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands and structures in the same zoning
district?  All buildings downtown are on the line as far
as setbacks go.

e)  Would the granting of the variance in any other manner
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance?  The applicant is locating the building
on a spot in the back near the Park National Bank building
where it is completely out of the way of the general
public; the only people that could possibly get into it is
the applicants’ employees and it will much safer for them
than the truck that currently serves as storage for them.

Old Business:

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Rear Yard Setback

    MR. DEAN MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION #03-005 OFF THE
TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

    Mr. Herman stated that this is our second hearing,
and there had been some concern about the massing and size
and how it will relate to the other structures in the
area.  We need to make sure there is no undue privilege.
    Mr. Riffle, Architect, produced revised drawings
and explained his changes to reduce the massing.  He said
there are some comparable garages in size.  One on College
and Pearl is almost the exact replica of this.  
    Mr. Milligan added that the garage has gone from
28’ to 26’, and the building has been moved to 3’ from
property line rather than 2’.  
    Mr. Tyler asked how close it would be to the next
house, and Mr. Milligan said they wanted a variance to
move it further to the north, toward the Library, to give
more room for the neighbor.  
    Neighbor Jon Farris thinks the garage is a great
idea.
    Mr. Herman wanted to save the tree, but Mr.
Milligan had been told by the landscaper that the tree “is
not long for this world.”

MR. DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-005, INCLUDING
THE REVISION AS SUBMITTED FOR THE APRIL 10TH MEETING.  MR.
TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria in Section 1147.03 to the
application:

a)  Do 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 size of the lots in that area
are peculiar to the existing ordinance, in that other
properties do enjoy setbacks that are at odds with the
current code and this one has the same peculiarity.

b)  Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicants of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the provisions of this Ordinance?  There
are many other garages in that area, of the 2-car variety,
and the applicants are requesting something that is
similar to other garages in the area.

c)  Do the special conditions and circumstances result
from the actions of the applicant?  The lot size as well
as the ordinance governing the area was neither set by the
applicant; again the applicant is attempting to build a
garage.

d)  Would the grant of the variance confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands and structures in the same zoning
district?  Upon review and receiving testimony there are
other garages in the area that are similar in size and in
fact a few that are somewhat larger.  With the revisions
in the application that has been brought before us on
April 10th, with reductions in the size and length,
massing has been addressed which is a key concern of this
Board.

e)  Would the granting of the variance in any other manner
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance?  We’ve received no testimony that would
suggest that building the garage would in anyway affect
the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing
or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance.

Minutes of February 13 are deferred until a quorum of
members that attended that meeting can vote on them.

Finding of Fact:  MR. DEAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF
FACTS FOR THE HAMMOND AND MILLIGAN 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 APRIL 4, 2003.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Next Meeting:  May 8, 2003
Adjournment:   7:40 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.