Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 8/14/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 14, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:  Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Tim Tyler (Vice
Chair)
Members Absent:  Don Dean,  Lon Herman (Chair)
Also Present:  Tom Mitchell, Village Planner
Visitors Present:   Rod Butt, Robert. Kent, Herb Murphy,
Janna and A.L. Bessin,  Tom Linzell, David Graham
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing in: The Vice Chair swore in all those who wished
to speak during the evening.

Minutes of July 10:  MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
DISTRIBUTED; MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Minutes of May 8:  Postponed until next meeting.

New Business:

Rodney Butt, 40 Pinehurst – Rear Yard Setback

Mr. Mitchell said the applicant wishes to amend his
previous approval, extending  depth of deck at farthest
point an additional 8’.  
Mr. Butt explained further details on the map provided. He
said the floor plan will not change, but he would like
another 4’, 12’ extending off one area and 16’ off the
other area.  It will be 18’ from lot line.
 When asked by Mr. Heim why he needed to come back again
for further amendment, Mr. Butt explained that he wanted
more room to be able to enjoy the outside.  He is ready to
begin building.
Mr. Heim asked if the neighbors are in agreement with the
proposal and the answer was yes.  Three letters of
approval have been provided, two in our packets, and
another from neighbor Jim McKivergin, read by the Village
Planner, expressing his approval, saying it will be of
benefit to Mr. Butt to do the project.
Ms. Knox noted that there is a lot of vacant land nearby

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE APPLICATION #03-073 FOR
REAR  SETBACK.  MR. TYLER. SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS  
APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. HEIM VOTED NO).

Mr. Tyler 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. Mr. Butt was requesting a
variance for a larger deck closer to the lot line, and
because the lot is long and narrow, it has a peculiar
shape which is different from most of the other lots in
the area.
    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. It
would deprive the applicant because of the other people
who have decks in the setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  .That is
correct since the applicant did not create the irregular
lot area.
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 will not because we are not giving him
anything we would not give anyone else.
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
posed variance.    .We have heard no testimony that it
would.

St. Edwards Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road –
Parking spaces
    Mr. Mitchell said the requested variance is to
reduce the parking space dimensions and change the layout.
    The project manager introduced others with him
tonight and said they want to address BZBA’s concerns.  
There really are two points they are trying to
communicate:  (1) We have a unique situation with the
church and it’s different from other commercial
establishments and institutional users.   The lot will
usually only be utilized about 5 hours per week, compared
to other commercial lots.  There are few times when the
lot is completely full.  Our parishioners are familiar
with the lot; it’s not for visitors.  The code requires 1
space for 5 seats, and the only way to accommodate that
would be a variance to decrease the size of each space.
Aisles are to be 22’ but we are requesting 24’ with single-
striping, vs. double-striping in the code. We are
requesting 60’ corridors, vs. 62’ in the code. (2) The
storm water management is the other unique situation on-
site. The site has some dynamic natural aspects, such as
trees and the golf course, which were a challenge when
looking at the storm water management.  The situation is
dynamic because on the north there is a hill with about
50’ of grade and the water ends up in a “bathtub.”  
Desiring to be a good neighbor, we have started replacing
the pump.  We feel it’s important to maintain permeability
and to keep as much green space as possible.  These are
the two important keys for your consideration.  
    Ms. Knox asked what variances are being requested
that have to do with water run-off.  The manager said the
size of the parking spaces.  If they are held to a larger
parking space size, it reduces the permeability and
aggravates storm water management.
    Mr. Heim asked whether they have thought about how
much green space would be taken with smaller spaces
compared to larger spaces, and the answer was No, but they
have a plan, and he explained for the members how it would
work.  The code requires 10’x20’ spaces with an aisle of
22’, and we are increasing this to 24’.
    Ms. Knox was concerned about car doors bumping the
next cars.  Village Council and GPC set standards, and
that is what we go by.  Other people have excellent
reasons why it should be what they want it to be, but it’s
irrelevant what other people do.  Here she sees a large
mass of pavement for the few occasions when it will be
needed.
    Mr. Heim asked how many spaces are there now
compared to the number requested and was told there are
172 now and would be 195 after rebuilding.  Mr. Heim
thought it would appear they are requesting 23 more
spaces, but the Manger said no, they are requesting a
variance based on the two items he mentioned above.
    Atty. David Graham said the reason the applicant
is here is that the GPC made a determination that we would
need a certain number of spaces, and according to your
code, we could use the existing pavement to get to that
number.  In addition, we tried to reduce the storm water
problem.
    Ms. Knox asked whether they discussed with GPC the
number of spaces they would need and was told they said it
was depending upon the variance.  The requirements are
based on the Ohio Building Code with fixed seating
requirement of 1 space for 5 seats.
    Ms. Knox asked how much more asphalt they would
need and was told it has not been calculated but the
members can see it on the map. It’s about 5 sq.yards.  She
asked when will all the spaces be filled because she would
hate to see all that asphalt, but was told that’s an
imponderable point.

MR TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-075 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY
MAJORITY (MS. KNOX ABSTAINED).

Mr. Tyler 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. The special circumstances in
this case are to comply with the amount of spaces they
need.  They are limited by property boundaries.
    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.  
This is the only church in the area.  To add parking space
would deprive the property of desired green space.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant
did not create the circumstances.
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 would not confer undue privilege.  Many
parking lots have 9’x18’ spaces.
     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 heard no
testimony by neighbors to this effect. Less paved area is
beneficial to drainage.

New Business:

Janna and A.L. Bessin, 111 Chapin Place - side and rear
setbacks

Mr. Mitchell explained that the applicants have received
GPC approval for erection of a 10’x12’ gable shed with 18”
overhang, with materials to match the house.   They want a
variance to put it a little closer to the lot line to fill
a gap in the view and back it up to the Stukus shed.   
Ms Bessin said they have talked to the neighbors, and Ms.
Fletcher would prefer it to be in the proposed new
location as opposed to going by the book.  The Stukuses
wrote a letter saying they have no objection.  She added
that they will replace the old fence.  
Mr. Heim asked where it would show, looking from the
street, and Ms. Bessin said it would be partially hidden,
and she intends to plant gardening around the shed to
enhance it.
The property next door belongs to Denison, and Ms. Knox
asked what happened if they wished to utilize their ROW.  
Would your shed be moveable?  Ms. Bessin said Yes. Bit
there is a 60’ Reserve and she hopes a street would never
go in there. Mr. Mitchell noted that Denison was notified
of this hearing and we received no objections from them.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE  03-096    MR HEIM SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Tyler 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. The applicants want to locate
the shed farther back and closer to the neighbor’s shed,
and we agreed it’s a better solution.  Also they need to
work around large trees.  The house is on an angle, making
it difficult to place the shed in an approved location. An
approved location would place it in the middle of the
yard.      
    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.  
It would deprive them of rights since we have approved a
lot of sheds in the setback.  
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  .They did not
create the circumstances.
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. This is true since we would not deprive anyone
else.  We have granted a lot of this type of approval.
     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 the effect that it would.  It would be
more aesthetically pleasing in the proposed location.

Minutes of May 8, 2003:  Postponed until the next meeting.

Finding of Fact:  CONSENSUS APPROVED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS
FOR THE BUTT, CHURCH, BESSIN APPLICATIONS AS THE OFFICIAL
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH
THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED
ORDINANCES .   THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
 
Next Meeting:  September 11, 2003
Adjournment:   8:07 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.