Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 5/8/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May 8, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean, Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Lon
Herman (Chair), Tym Tyler (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:   None
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Fred Porcheddu, Vince Engel, John
Noblick, Kristi Pfau, Alan Miller, John Minsker, Miles
Waggoner
Election of Officers:  MR. HEIM NOMINATED LON HERMAN TO BE
CHAIR; MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MS. KNOX NOMINATED TYM TYLER AS VICE CHAIR; MR. DEAN
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.
Citizens’ Comments: None

New Business:

Alan Miller, 334 Summit Street – Side and Rear Yard
Setback Variances

Mr. Miller said he wants to build a garden shed, with a 4’
wide portico, in the back yard 5’ from both the side and
rear lot lines.  He added that it will look like a 19th
century smokehouse with barn siding in connection with the
time the home was built.  There are other sheds in the
neighborhood.  The reason for the variance request is that
the back yard is extremely small and 10’ from the lot line
would put it right in the middle of the yard.  The shed
will enhance the property.
Ms. Knox asked whether there are lots of trees, and Mr.
Miller said there are a few.  He said he has consulted
with the neighbors and they have no objections.
Mr. Heim wondered about lot coverage since this will be
8’x10’ with a porch.  Mr. Miller said it will be placed on
gravel.  Mr. Dorman said this does not exceed the maximum
lot coverage.
Mr. Herman asked about similar structures in the
neighborhood and Mr. Miller said there are others closer
than 10’; there is a garage two lots down with the same
type of material.  It will be about 13’ tall.

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-032.  MR. DEAN.
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the 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.  Yes.
    
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.  There
are other properties in the area that have similarly
situated structures and to deny this application would be
to deny the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
property owners.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  They do not,
the lot sizes have been established and were so prior to
the current zoning code.

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.  See response to (b).
 
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 have received no
testimony to suggest that could be the case, and do not
see that as a possibility either.

Brad & Kristi Pfau, 1125 Newark-Granville Road – Side Yard
Setback Variances

    Ms. Pfau said they wanted a sunroom and kitchen
addition to the back of the house.  The yard is very
irregular as it was formed as a result of a family plot
that was parceled off.  The existing structure is closer
to the property line than the new structure proposed.  The
neighbors with whom they share a driveway are in favor of
the plan.  The Planning Commission has approved the plan.
The architect explained that the windows will match the
existing ones, and they will get rid of the second window
and try to move it to the Newark-Granville Road façade.  
The upper level has board and batten.

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-034.  MR. TYLER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Tyler applied the criteria to the 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.  Yes, we have a very irregularly
shaped lot, and the size of the lot is peculiar and
existed before the current zoning ordinance.  Relocating
the kitchen to an area that does not require a variance,
given the existing location of the house, is not practical.
    
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.  There
are other structures, typically older buildings, on other
properties in the same zoning district that do not comply
with the standards of the current zoning ordinance.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No, the
building was there and the lot size had already been
established.

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.  After review it would not, there are other
structures on other properties that are similarly situated.
 
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.  It would not based on
having no issues raised from any of the neighbors.

Fred Porcheddu, 136 Shepardson Court – Rear Yard Setback
Variance

The applicant explained that he wishes to have a storage
shed in a corner of the yard which has not been touched
for forty years.  The structure would be located 12’ from
the rear property line.  It’s a very small house with a
smaller basement/garage, and he needs a place for yard
implements.  This would be behind the trees and painted to
match the house.  It would be a barn shape, and there is a
similar one in a neighboring yard.    
Mr. Tyler asked whether it is permanent, and Mr. Porcheddu
said it’s not attached to the ground, and in a few years
they may replace it with a garage.  It will probably have
electricity but no plumbing and will be 9’5” tall.  It
will be completely above ground with pea gravel beneath.  
The reason to offset it from the neighbor’s shed is a tree
in the way.
Mr. Herman stated that one of his concerns is height, and
Mr. Porcheddu said it will be a little smaller than the
neighbor’s shed, and oriented toward the house.  The shed
will be roofed with shingles to match the house.  

MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-036.  MR. TYLER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean applied the criteria to the 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.  From the pictures submitted it
shows that there is a shed that is very similar to the one
the applicant is building to the house right next door to
him.  The natural terraces on the lot make it impractical
to get it closer to the house.  He has a good size lot,
but it is about the only level spot on the lot because of
the terraces.
    
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.  There
are already several other garages and sheds in the area.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No, he has a
pretty good size lot and his is keeping plenty of space
around the shed so he can maintain the building and lawn
around it; and the applicant is trying to preserve the
trees left on the lot.

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 several other garages and sheds in
the area.  I don’t think this is really any different than
the others.
 
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.  Nobody came to testify
that had any concerns, so the proposed location should not
have any adverse effects.

Centenary United Methodist Church, 102 East Broadway -
Variance from Landscape Requirements

    Miles Waggoner said that following their
appearance a year ago, the chairman of the Tree and
Landscape Commission called to his attention that they did
not have the proper variances for landscaping in the
parking lot island.  They want to request that the BZBA
reconsider the landscaping requirements.  He understands
that the requirement is for four large trees.  Instead,
they would like to plant six smaller trees as recommended
by Mr. Siegel of the Tree and Landscape Commission.  This
would allow for more parking spaces as well as sufficient
room for tree roots.  Other parking lots in the area do
not have large trees.  It will enhance the appearance by
helping to screen the dumpster and define the parking lot
entrance better.  The Tree and Landscape Commission
recommended three Aristocrat Pears and three Ivory Silk
Lilac trees be used.    
    Mr. Heim thought pear trees would be slow to
provide screening, but Ms. Knox, in considering
Granville’s new street trees, said that they would grow
fairly fast.
    Mr. Dorman said the trees would be supplemental to
what the church is planning for the dumpster enclosure.  
These trees would be less than 30’ tall.  One large tree
for every 3,000 square feet is required; they have 12,000
square feet for the lot, so they would need four large
trees.  In lieu of the four large trees they are
requesting six smaller trees.  The variance then is to
waive requirements for large trees.  Mr. Siegel feels the
area is too small to allow 4 large trees to have
sufficient room to grow properly.  They would choke each
other off.  Mr. Siegel said pears will reach 15-18’’ and
lilacs, 20-25’.  These would be fairly mature trees. To
provide enough space for four would mean sacrificing
several parking spaces.
    Mr. Herman does not want tiny trees.  
    Mr. Minsker said they will go with whatever size
trees Mr. Siegel recommends.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-038 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION:  (1) THAT THE CHAIR OF THE TREE &
LANDSCAPE COMMISSION WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THE
LARGEST DIAMETER TREES, AS IS PRACITCAL, BE PLANTED IN
BOTH AREAS.

    Mr. Waggoner noted that they are delaying
completion of the parking lot paving until the village
installs fire hydrants in the loop around Linden Place.

Mr. Tyler applied the criteria to the 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.  Yes, we are granting this
variance based on recommendations of the Tree & Landscape
Commission Chair that 4 large trees would not work in the
planting areas and in their place 6 small trees will be
planted.

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.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No.

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.  It’s a unique circumstance; there really is no
other comparable situation where privilege could or could
not be conferred.

     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, we have
received no testimony to that effect.

Finding of Facts:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING
OF FACTS FOR THE MILLER, PFAU, PORCHEDDU, AND CENTENARY
UMC 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 MAY 2, 2003.  MR. DEAN SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Minutes of February 13:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS APPROVED WITH 4 AYE VOTES AND 1 ABSTENTION (MR.
TYLER).  {Ms. Knox recommended that minutes be studied at
home rather than at the meeting.}

Minutes of April 10:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS APPROVED WITH 3 AYE VOTES AND 2 ABSTENTIONS (MS. KNOX
AND MR. HEIM)  

Closing comments:  Ms. Knox noted that at one time we
talked about requiring boundary surveys, and Mr. Dorman
said he and the Law Director discussed adding survey
requirements to the code.  Mortgage surveys are not
acceptable for us.  People must use boundary surveys.  
Scott Harmon, Surveyor, has made his case, and a number of
structures are on the line or over it.  Village Council
would have to approve this.  Some areas of the town should
be re-platted, but we have started to lay the groundwork
by installing monuments at several intersections.  Ms.
Knox asked whether there might be a grant to pay Scott
Harmon to do the re-platting.

    Mr. Heim thanked Mr. Dorman for the thorough job
he does in property descriptions and preparing for these
meetings.  

    Ms. Knox recommended that Joe Hickman write in his
column about the necessity of getting approval for sheds
and also of looking at other outstanding examples of
stylish sheds, i.e., one in Alexandria.

Next Meeting:  June 12, possible work session with the Law
Director
Adjournment:   8:20 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.