Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 12/8/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
December 8, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Don Dean (Vice Chair), Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell, Jim Jung 
Members Absent:  none
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Jullio Valenzuela,   Schilling, Julie Smith, Sharon Sellito
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Julio Valenzuela, 331 Spellman Street - Side Setback

 The applicant wishes to split the lot into two 37½'  lots.  This would need a variance for east side setback from 10' to 5'.  The house is on the property line, and a new house would be within 5' of the existing building.
 Mr. Schilling, father-in-law and business partner of the applicant, explained the historic renovations he has completed in German Village, Italian Village, Short North, and at 410 North Prospect.  The house at 331 Spellman has 7 bedrooms and was for sale for two years and did not sell because of the extensive structural damages.  Their plan was to divide the property and build a new house.  They want to fill in the street scape.  Julio has spoken with the neighbors with a majority of the people in agreement with their plans.  They say this property needs to be redone.
 Mr. Valenzuela said they found serious foundation problems.  There is a large piece of land next door and a new home could be built with a shared driveway.  He said a lot of yard space would remain at 352 Granger even with the new lot. The neighbors wanted on-site parking, and that will be the case.  The overall density would be less than on Summit and College Streets.
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether they would renovate or demolish the house, and Mr. Valenzuela said they are working with renovations and that is their priority with a new house on the new lot.  But they are still evaluating the condition of the house with its bad foundation.
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether the variance is just for the existing house, and Mr. Strayer said GPC can approve a lot split, and a new building would also be approved by GPC.  If it needs a variance, it will come to us before the GPC.
 Mr. Heim asked why they are bringing us a lot split before working on the house and was told they just wanted to see it.  There would be a lot of work, and the rear would have to be partially demolished.  The neighbors like what we are doing.
 Mr. Heim asked about the distance between the other houses, and Mr. Strayer said a majority of the homes are within setbacks, grandfathered in.  Mr. Heim asked, then would these two houses be closer than the pattern on the street, and Mr. Strayer said yes on Spellman but Summit and College have more homes.
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked about access by the Fire Department, and Mr. Valenzuela said the fire code comes into play when you work the site.  As long as you don't do any new work on the house or change windows or doors, you are grandfathered. The new garage would go in the rear.
 Mr. Heim said we try to accommodate where people have a great need for a change.  This would require unusual circumstances, and he does not know what is unusual here.  Mr. Valenzuela said the condition of the house  and the expense of renovating it are unusual circumstances.  Another party came in and tried to restore the house but failed and that is an unusual circumstance.
 Mr. Heim asked how many people would the new building accommodate and was told it has 3 bedrooms. 
 Mr. Jung said a variance needs to be approved before the house is started.  Another variance would be applied for, since the applicant will need a 3' side yard setback for the new house.
 Dan Bellman is not familiar with Urban Renovations but he knows they try to do good work, but none of that is relevant tonight.  What is relevant is the general criteria for approving higher density.  We are trying to limit growth here.  He also has concerns about run-off and drainage. Section 1147.03 is for a situation where everyone in the district gets something but because of the owner's actions, he does not get what everyone else gets.  None of 1147.03 applies here.  Under E, there will be more children for the schools.   They bought the house the way it is, and there is no hardship.  He doubts there will be enough off-street parking. 
 Mr. Valenzuela said they are providing a solution for an ongoing problem.  The adjacent owners are happy with what he is doing.  Left alone, this house might be a hazard for the neighbors.  They are experts at what they do.  As far as the school district is concerned, they are offering a solution-taking a single family with 7 bedrooms for 5 children and paying tax and creating two properties with 2-3 children and paying taxes.

MR. DEAN MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER DISCUSSION.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 After the next application, the discussion continued.
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. JUNG SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Dean reminded the group that we are only looking at the 5' variance application.  We have to decide whether we would consider a 5' setback.
 Mr. Heim did not think there should be anything else on the property since it is too narrow, and he does not like increasing the density.    He noted that GPC cannot move until a variance is granted.
 Mr. Ashbaugh said we can only approve 5' but they really want 3'. He noted that if we approve the 5', then they have everything else.  They should be asking for 3' because the lot is not split.
Mr. Strayer said the other lot will have 10' setbacks until he comes back to ask for anything else.   He added that we could approve 5' on the setback on the proposed lot line on the condition that if GPC does not approve, then the variance is vacated. 
Mr. Dean said they want to see how close they can build. 
Mr. Strayer had assumed the neighbors would all be up in arms about this, but they are not.  He does not have a problem with splitting the lot, but 37½'  is a very small lot.  We should not create new lots so narrow.  With 10' on each side you have only 17' for the house.
 Mr. Jung noted that in order to renovate, they must sell the future house.

MR. DEAN MOVED TO DENY  APPLICATION 05-183.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mitchell 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.  False.  No special conditions exist on the land or structure.  
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.  False.  It would not deprive applicants of rights that others have.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False.  They do result from 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.  False.  It would grant undue privilege.
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 proposed variance.  True.  The variance will not adversely affect health, safety or general welfare of any persons.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPLICATION.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julie Smith, 332 W. Elm Street - Side Setback

 The applicant wishes a variance from 10' to 7' to construct a new 8'x8' shed.
 Ms. Smith said they want it in that spot because there is a slight slope and that is the only place where the lot is level.  There is a brick patio near the house, a picket fence, a flower garden, and trees.  It will not be visible to the neighbors.  They don't have a garage or carport and need a storage shed for tools.  The shed will look like a Victorian toy house.
 Mr. Heim asked whether it is moveable and was told Yes
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked why can't they move it over next to the patio, and Ms. Smith said because there is a cellar door there and because they like to use the patio..  There is a roof over the patio.
 Mr. Dean asked whether there were other sheds in the AROD and was told, Yes, within the setback.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (Dean, Mitchell, Heim  - Yes; Ashbaugh, Jung - No).

Ms. Mitchell 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.  True, due to the location of the existing patio and the landscaping in place, they had no choice but to put it in that location..  
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.  True, other properties in Granville or that area have small sheds and commonly enjoy this type of structure on their properties.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True. They do not result from 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.  True, approval would not grant undue privilege.
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 proposed variance.  True.  The variance will not adversely affect health, safety or general welfare.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPLICATION.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 10:   On Page 3, change MR. JUMP to MR. JUNG in the motion.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10 AS AMENDED.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Next Meetings:   January 12 (Mr. Dean will be absent) and February 9
Adjournment:   8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 11/10/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
November 10, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell, Jim Jung 
Members Absent:  Don Dean (Vice Chair)
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Mr. and Mrs. Edward Meurer
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Edward Meurer, 2402 Newark-Granville Road - Addition

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a variance from the TCOD setback, which is 100'.  Currently the house sits 98' back and the proposal would create an 83' setback, an additional 15' into the setback.  The building is only coming forward 6½', but due to the angle of the road, it cuts down to 15'.  The application has already been approved by GPC, pending BZBA approval.

 Mr. Meurer said when he made measurements it was within the minimum from the road.  They were trying to blend the old with the new plans. The architects came up with the idea of a porch, which ties the old and the new, but the new plan comes out 6½' from the house and brings it closer to the road.  They are farther back from the road than 95% of the houses along Newark-Granville.  None are back 100' and there did not seem to be any clear way to do it without encroaching more into the setback.  He added that the house was built in 1931 and when they cut down a tree, the counted rings suggested the tree was planted at the same time the house was built. 

 Mr. Ashbaugh wanted some clarification about the one-time plans to build a road through there to Rt. 79, and apparently that plan is no longer active.

 Mr. Strayer checked and found that there were four houses within the setback, and three have a 40' setback, far more than this plan.  On the west 75% of the structures are within the 100' setback because the TCOD 100' minimum was set up after the area was built up.  All condos on Newark-Granville are within the setback. 

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 05-167.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Jung 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.  True.  The angle of the road is not parallel with the house, thus reducing the amount of buildable space on the property and hindering the ability to build uniform additions.  
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.  True.  There are existing properties in the TCOC that have extended into the 100' setback through variance and grandfathering.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True.  The location of the roadway and its angle to the existing house were not caused by 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.  True because there are other properties in the TCOD that have extended into the 100' setback through variance and grandfathering.
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 proposed variance.  True.  The variance will not adversely affect health, safety or general welfare of any persons.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPLICATION.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of October 13:   On Page 3, change Ms. Knox to Ms. Mitchell on the third line up, and correct two typos above.

Next Meetings:  December 8 and January 12

Adjournment:   7:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 10/13/05

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
Minutes
October 13, 2005 7:00 p.m.

Members Present:  Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Don Dean (Vice Chair).
Member's Absent: None.
Visitor's Present: Brian and Dana Kreig
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in those who planned to speak.


New Business:
Brian and Dana Kreig, 226 East Maple St. #05-150
Side and Rear Yard Setback

Mr. Heim asked if Mr. and Mrs. Kreig have been working with the Planning Commission in regards to their proposed project.  Mr. Kreig stated that they have had several work sessions with the Planning Commission, but they were unable to provide any formal comments until the application is officially submitted.  Mr. Kreig stated that the Planning Commission did recommend to duplicate the arch on the east side to make it the same as the one on the west side of the home. 

Mr. Ashbaugh inquired if the addition will provide an additional 2 ½ feet.  Mr. Kreig stated yes if you take into consideration the bay window.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the drawings show it as though it would be more than 2 ½ feet.  Mr. Kreig stated that he may be looking at the existing setback.  Mrs. Kreig stated that the only additional space - that is varying is the upper bay window.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he saw no objections to the application.  Mrs. Kreig stated that a neighbor on that side of the addition was going to attend the BZBA meeting to speak on their behalf, but she was unable to make it.  Mr. Strayer added that he has received no comments from any neighbors.  Mr. Heim asked if the existing structure will need to be torn down.  Mrs. Kreig explained that they have been told by the contractor that the existing structure is not structurally sound enough to withstand the new above addition.  Mr. Dean stated that his home has a similar setup as the Kreig's and he would suggest additional insulation due to cold air coming in from underneath the bay window.  The committee agreed that there were no further questions or concerns in regards to Application #05-150. 

Mr. Jung moved to accept application #05-150 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Dean. 

Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Jung (yes), Dean (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mr. Heim (yes).  Motion carried (5-0).

 


Finding of Fact

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for 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 districts.  There are no special circumstances or conditions.  (False)
(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 that have received variances for side yard setbacks for less than this request. (True)
(c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  It does result from the actions of the applicant.  (False)
(d) That the granting of the variances 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 other properties that have received variances for side yard setbacks for less than this request. (True) 
(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 variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of any persons in the area. (True)

Mr. Dean made a motion to accept the Finding of Facts for Application #05-150.  Second by Mr. Jung. 

Roll Call: Dean (yes), Jung (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried (5-0)

 

 

 

Review and Approval of Minutes

July 14, 2005
Ms. Mitchell moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.
Roll Call: Jung (abstain), Dean (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).
Motion carried (4 -1).

Ms. Mitchell inquired on the application submitted by Mr. Rogers in regards to a hot tub.  She asked if the application was approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Strayer explained that there may be a need for a fence since the hot sub will be in the ground. 

Mr. Heim asked if Mr. Strayer was able to check on the storm sewer  referred to in the July 14th minutes.  Mr. Strayer stated that the drain pipe was found to not be collecting anything.  Mr. Strayer stated that he can not see any of the drainage being allowed to go to the wastewater treatment plant.  Mr. Ashbaugh suggested that the wastewater treatment manager be made aware of this situation.  Mr. Strayer stated that this would be done at the time of approval.  Mr. Heim asked if the applicant will need to increase the size of their fence.  It was stated that a fence is likely needed for an in-ground hot tub for insurance purposes, and the committee was unclear as to what the State regulations are in regards to having a fence for an in-ground hot tub. 

Mr. Dean inquired as to why the July 14th minutes were tabled.  Mr. Strayer explained that the last case was not included in the first version of the minutes. 

September 22, 2005
Mr. Jung moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Ms. Mitchell.
Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Dean (yes), Jung (yes), Ashbaugh (abstain), Heim (yes).
Motion carried (4-1).


Meeting Announcements

November 10, 2005
December 8, 2005


Mr. Dean moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Mitchell. 

The BZBA meeting adjourned at 7:57 pm.

Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

BZBA 9/22/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 22, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Don Dean (Vice Chair),  Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell, Jim Jung 
Members Absent: 
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Jim and Jodi Schmidt, C.K. Barsky, Bernardetto Llanos, Ned Roberts
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Jim Schmidt, 218 East Maple Street - Side and Rear Setbacks

 {Mr. Ashbaugh recused himself from this application.}
 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a variance to go from 4' on the side to 1' on the side and 6' on the rear lot line to 2' to build a new garage. They will take down the old garage .GPC approved this pending BZBA approval.  Mr. Strayer had a question about the side lot line.   
 Mr. Heim complimented applicants on their good plans. 
 Mr. Schmidt explained that they used the original survey when they purchased the property and there are spikes there.  The rear of the lot is on an access alleyway, and neighboring garages are within 2' of the lot lines of the alley. They wish to gain easier access to the garage nfor their cars.
 Mr. Heim asked how close to the blacktop will the new garage be, and the answer was 2', which is consistent with other garages in the area. 
 Mr. Strayer took measurements and found Bernadetta Llanos' shed is 3' from the alley.  Other are within the setback also.
 Mr. Heim said the two older structures used as precedent will probably be gone sometime.  He asked whether the garage could be set back just enough to gain 3 ½', and the applicant thought this could be done. 
 The addition of a window depends upon the design, and they could either put in a window or rose bushes or trellises or window boxes, noted Mrs. Schmidt.  Mr. Heim noted that according to state regulations, if they put in windows, they may have to be 3' from the lot line.
 Mr. Jung noted they have done a great job on this project.
 Constance Barsky wanted to know what the setback would be, and she is pleased they are comfortable with moving it to 3 ½' to be aligned with the others on the asphalt.
 Dan Rogers has absolutely no problem with windows, closeness, or height or width.   His garage might be 23'.  He thinks it is fabulous they are spending money to improve the neighborhood.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE GARAGE IS 3 ½'  FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTIION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mitchell 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.  False.  There are no special circumstances.  
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.  True.  There are other properties that have variances for less than this one.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False.  They do.
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.  True because there are other properties that received variances with less than this request.
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 proposed variance

 Windows are determined by GPC.  The Licking County applies regulations in their building code.

Minutes of July 14:  Minutes will be considered at the next meeting.

Next Meetings:  October 22 and November 10

Closing Comments:  With regard to the Rogers Spa, Mr. Strayer said we don't allow spa water to be dumped into the public storm sewer.  But we probably would allow them to put it in their own regular sewer because of the chemical process that we use to clean the waste water.  They would have to get special approval from the storm sewer people.

Adjournment:   7:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 7/14/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 14, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Don Dean (Vice Chair),  Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell 
Members Absent:  Jim Jung
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Roman Steciw, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Dottie and Richard Mann, C.K. Barsky, Sharon Sellito, Jodi and Jim Schmidt, Grey Brock, Richard and Nancy Gallagher
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street - Lot Coverage
 
 The application is to seek a variance to increase lot coverage from 50% to 67% in order to install a hot tub and brick paver patio.  It was announced tonight that Mr. Rogers has reduced the size of the patio plan to 14'x14' instead of 24'x30, thus reducing the lot coverage to 56%.
 Mr. Rogers said the driveway is crushed gravel, thus permeable.  He has a lot of greenspace, and the reason he wants the variance is to soften the entire area.  Mr. Strayer received a report from the Law Director that said crushed gravel is included in the impermeable area because it is not greenspace. 
Mr. Dean asked about the fence and was told it is solid boards 1" apart. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked about water drainage and Mr. Rogers said from the alley to the street it's a 6' drop, and east to west it's pretty flat.  He has retaining walls and his site drainage is put underground to the corner and into the storm sewer.  None of his water goes into anyone else's property, despite what a neighbor believes.  Other people's water drains into his lot .  Mr. Strayer wants to be assured that this is the truth. 
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether he would get the spa even if he did not get the variance, and Mr. Strayer said the plan has been reduced just enough for the applicants to soak their feet in the 2' area around the hot tub.
 Sharon Sellito thinks the plan is a "terrible idea," and she wanted to know when he got the variance for the garage (about three years ago).  She said there's no privacy for her tenants, and there has been a lot of conflict between her tenants and Mr. Rogers. 
Neighbor Bernardetto Llanos is out of the country, but she is upset also, and feels this is a quality of life issue.  Mr. Rogers is already over 50% coverage, and BZBA should not violate their own rules.  She does not know about the drainage, but the land on that side of the yard is eroded.  He built the drain on her property.  When she informed the village, she was told nothing goes through it, but it should not be on her property.  She feels the hot tub will be too close to her property line and there will be noise concerns.
 Jim Schmidt said he moved here two years ago and they are impressed with what Mr. Rogers has done.  He's trying to make the lot even more pleasing. The patio will be next door, and he has no issues with the application.  One problem here is that the big shade tree which provided a lot of shade and privacy was removed.
 Constance Barsky's concern is water and chemicals from the spa draining into the village sewer system.  She thought that if the garage had been built correctly in the first place, there would be no need for a variance now.
 Barbara Franks said of course the spa will not drain into the village sewer.  Also, Bernadetto's property runs next to hers and Ms. Franks would love to add more to shield because "Bernardetto's property sits higher than ours and she would see us in the hot tub, but, unfortunately, they are not talking." The drainage pipe that Ms. Sellito complains about was put in at Ms. Llanos's request, but it is not as good a quality pipe than the original and has holes in it.
 Ms. Mitchell said that although we sympathize with neighborhood feuds, our concern tonight is lot coverage
 
MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE LOT COVERAGE FROM 50% TO 56%.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Ashbaugh. applied the application to the criteria for lot coverage 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. There are no special circumstances. 
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.  No other properties in the VRD have 67% coverage, but that is debatable.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  They do.
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.  Apparently there are other properties with 67% coverage.
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 proposed variance. It will not affect health or safety, but general welfare of the neighborhood would be affected
 

Roman Steciw, Denison Drive, Lot 4 -  private facilities

The application is for private sanitary facilities on a vacant lot  split off four years ago from a  Newark-Granville Road lot because extending water and sewer lines would be a great expense for the Village.  Everyone else on Denison Drive is on septic and well and there is ample room for a leachbed. 

.   The Village has no plans to extend services to Denison Drive.   It will drain into the leachbed and drains to the southeast corner toward the driveway.  The applicant has received permission from the County Board of Health, based on types of soil, drainage, topography, etc. 
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 05-100 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND 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.   Based on lots in that area, there are others that have to have the same drainage system.  Also, the Village does not want to provide service lines out there.
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.  N/A
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  No, we cannot feasibly get facilities to them at a reasonable and fair price.
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.  N/A
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 proposed variance. Based on the County Board of Health report, this is true.

Richard Gallagher, 261 Burg Street, Side Yard Setback

 As can be seen by the topography, there is a severe drop on the lot upon which the owner wishes to build a house.  He is asking for a variance from side setback to 8' from 14'.  The garage would be 6' into the setback.
 Mr. Gallagher said if they set the garage back farther, they would not even be aboveground.  Neighbor Mollie Roth was shown by stakes where it would be located and she had no objections to the variance.  He explained the layout of Ms. Roth's the land and where the proposed house would be located.
 Mr. Heim asked whether the setback would be in line with the neighbors' and was told Ms. Roth's house will be well forward of ours.  The Vockel home will probably be forward  too, but she's quite a ways away.
 Mr. Ashbaugh thought they had pushed the house as far back as they could.  It appears to be on the property line. 

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 05-103 FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY (Mr. Dean voted Nae)

Ms. Mitchell applied the application to the criteria for side yard setback:

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..  Ms. Mitchell always has a problem with this criteria because special conditions do exist, but they are not applicable to other structures in the same area.  They do exist, but other properties have them.  But A. refers to this lot rather than surrounding properties.  So this is true.
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 true because there are other properties that violate the setback regulations. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   .False; they do.
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.
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. True, it will not adversely affect others.

Minutes of April 14:  MR  DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE; MS.MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of June 30:  MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE; MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  August 14 and September 8

Adjournment:   8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 6/30/05

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
Minutes
June 30, 2005 7:00 p.m.

Members Present:  Amber Mitchell, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Don Dean (Vice Chair).
Member's Absent: Jim Jung
Visitor's Present: Pat Moller, Mike Frazier, Ruth Frazier, Nancy Recchie, Bob Recchie.
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair, Mr. Heim, swore in those who planned to speak.  Mr. Heim stated that this was a meeting open to the public, but not a public hearing.  He stated that the BZBA Board makes its decisions based on Section 1139.05 of the Granville Zoning Code. 

New Business:
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
A) Granville Public Library, 122 South Prospect Street, #05-087
Zoning: VBD, AROD
Conditional Use

 RELEVANT SECTIONS:
1159.02 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES,
 The uses are subject to the site plan requirements of this chapter and the architectural review requirements of Chapter 1161, as well as the general provisions of this Zoning Ordinance.
 b) Conditional Uses.
  2)  Village Business District
   A. Parking Lots
   B. Mortuaries
   C. Gas Stations
   D. Banks (including drive in banks), finance and utility.
   E. Single family residential

Mr. Ashbaugh wished to recuse himself from voting/discussion. 

Mr. Strayer stated that the Pyle house would be demolished, and the Sinnett house would be put in its location.  He went on to say that the applicant has requested that the use be returned to Single Family Residential use. 

Nancy Recchie, 1125 Newark Granville Road, stated that she and her husband were part-time residents in Granville.  She stated that they would like to rent out the home if the requested conditional use is granted.  Ms. Recchie stated that they would be leasing land from the Library, and that she is happy to try and save the home for the historical nature.  She stated that this is a financial risk for her and her husband.  Mr. Heim inquired if Ms. Recchie would be renting the home as residential or office space.  Ms. Recchie stated that it would be her preference to have either option. 

Mike Frazier, North Pearl Street, stated that he is representing the Library and their attempts to make way for the future expansion.  He stated that they would also like to see that the house is saved due to its historic character.

Ms. Mitchell asked if the library was originally going to use the Sinnett House.  Mr. Frazier stated no.  He stated that the Library Board did try to work out some creative uses for the Sinnett House with the Village, but this did not work out. 

Mr. Heim suggested that the BZBA Board look at each Conditional Use Criteria and discuss if they agreed with the findings before they voted on the Ordinance.  Mr. Heim read aloud the following  (a, b, c, d) criteria.  Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Heim stated no objections to each of the following criteria:

Variance Criteria
The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals shall make the following determinations with respect to an application for a conditional use permit:
(a) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met.  The rest of the east side of the road is residential and the house is still technically a sing family residence. 
(b) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with the existing land use.  The use is consistent with the use for the property for the last several decades.  The use is in accordance
(c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  The use will not create undue burden. 
(d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.  The use is consistent with the use for the last several decades. 


Ms. Mitchell moved for the approval of the Finding of Fact, seconded by Mr. Dean. 

Roll Call Vote:  Mr. Dean (yes), Ms. Mitchell (yes), Mr. Heim (yes).  (3, 0).  The Finding of Fact for application #05-087 is approved.   

Ms. Recchie thanked the BZBA members for the special meeting and for accommodating her schedule.  Mr. Heim thanked Ms. Recchie and wished her luck. 

Meeting Announcements
July  14, 2005 7:00 p.m.
August 11, 2005 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Heim moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Dean. 

The BZBA meeting adjourned at 7:16 pm.

Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

BZBA 4/14/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 14, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Don Dean (Vice Chair),  Bill Heim (Chair), Trudy Knox, Amber Mitchell 
Members Absent:
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Mike Frazier, Debbie McPeek, Dagmar Farris, Jack Hedge
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Granville Public Library, 217 East Broadway - Side Yard Setbacks
 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to maintain the existing 4' west setback and 8' east setback for the addition.
 Mike Frazier, from the Library Board introduced Jack Hedge, Architect.
 Mr. Hedge said they want a variance for side yard to add a 4,000 sq.ft. footprint addition to the library.  They have had preliminary sessions with GPC.  They want to use the setback that the existing building has.  There are a couple of protrusions on the building that don't set back as far as the existing one does. They are within rear yard setbacks. 
Mr. Heim said this board acted on the house behind and moving the Sinnett House {S.H.}.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked about the walkway, and Mr. Hedge explained the walkway designed for delivery trucks to unload.  Mechanicals will be removed put on the roof. He talked about fire exits.
 Ms. Knox asked whether there is a window that opens to let fresh air in.  Mr. Hedge said yes there are looking into that.  When the heat is on, it would be good to have an exhaust fan.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED.

 Ms. Knox applied the application to the criteria for a 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.  Special circumstances are the property is going to be used for expansion and the only downtown property available, so other people would not be in a position to expand in that way.  Then it would be true.
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.   The Library is central to everyone in the community and a need for growth is well established.  To deny that would deny all Granville residents.  The setback goes along with the way the building is planned.  Setbacks are along a walkway 16' wide so it would not infringe upon a narrow path.  This would follow current setbacks and not encroach any more.  Many businesses in town benefit from side yard variances.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  They do and do not.  The extension of the building is an act of the Library Board, but they are following the original plan.  The building has protuberances that follow the design of the building already in existence so it is a special circumstance.  C, then, is false.   .
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, it would not  grant special privileges.  It is a unique request in the village.
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.  This is true.  Actually it will enhance the lives of the village residents.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mitchell had a concern about the fact that so many lots in the village are small, it's hard to add onto a building, so these are not applicable and No. A. would be false.  Mr. Dean said does this refer to all lots.  This is not peculiar.   Lots are small but it applies to all the lots.
S.H. was given to the Library and that's one reason to preserve it.

MR. DEAN MOVED THAT NO. A. IS AMENDED AS FALSE.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

UPON A CALL ON THE MOTION WITH AMENDMENT ON THE ORIGINAL KNOX MOTION,  IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

  Granville Public Library, 217 East Broadway - Parking

The Library is asking for a variance because although 66 spaces would be required, they only have two spaces planned, whereas no spaces are designated now. They feel the library can function without designated parking because this is a walking community and there are spots on Broadway and handicapped parking.  When they demolish the Pyle House and move the Sinnett House {S.H.}, there will be two spaces set aside for the Library. 

Debbie McPeek  noted that the street is already overcrowded as it is.  She would hope that if the Pyle House becomes a parking lot, that generous screening would be provided. Mr. Heim stated that the demolishing and moving of S.H.have already been approved.  Ms. McPeek said there is no way to provide parking for all patrons, but it would be good to have spaces for employees.   
Mr. Frazier said they are in active negotiations with folks to move S.H.  We would have other issues besides parking if the house is not moved.  If parking were to be provided on the Pyle lot, that would only add four spaces. 

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 05-006 AS PRESENTED.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY (Mr. Dean voted Nay).

Mr. Ashbaugh applied the application to the criteria for parking:

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. Like the above variance application, all structures in the village have a shortage of parking, so this is not a special circumstance. Ms. Knox thought it was because they are going to build the building without parking spaces.  Mr. Ashbaugh said it is false because this in not a peculiarity of the land or building.
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 true because in following the ordinance they could not do their expansion.  Other businesses have received parking variances. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   .False; they do.
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.  They are actually taking away parking spaces by building out the south side and doubling their size.  We have approved parking variances for restaurants, etc.
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. True, it will enhance the general welfare.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE APPLICATION. MS. KNOX SECONDED AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY VOTE (Mr. Dean voted Nay).


Minutes of February 10:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE; MS.MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings  May 12 and June 9:  

Adjournment:   7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 2/10/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
February 10, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Don Dean (Vice Chair),  Bill Heim (Chair), Trudy Knox, Amber Mitchell
 New member Fred Ashbaugh introduced himself and gave a short history of his employment in construction and engineering. 
Members Absent:
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Mark Clapsadle, Mark Sween, Jack Burriss
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

Mark Sween, 329 Summit Street - Lot Coverage

 Mr. Strayer explained that GPC heard this application for relocation of the garage but did not feel the design of the addition was consistent with the AROD and denied the application.  Thereupon the applicant and GPC met and revised the plan, which is before BZBA tonight.  The first plan was within all regulations, but in the revising, the lot coverage was exceeded and they needed to set the garage into the setback.
 Mr. Burriss, from GPC, added that on the plans as originally presented, the east side of the house was on a continuous plane, and stepping it back would reduce the massing and make a supplement to the original design.    Plans tonight incorporate suggestions felt appropriate by GPC.
 Mr. Strayer said when they turned the garage plan around, they needed just a little bit more driveway, causing the 1.8% overage. 
 Mr.. Clapsadle said in the new suggested addition the back yard disappeared so they asked for approval to  move the garage back to allow more yard.  Thus they went over lot coverage maximum by 1.8%.

MS, KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE  APPLICATION 05-005 AS PRESENTED.  MS MITCHELL SECONDED, AND IT 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. This is a very small lot; it's hard to make additions without seeking variances.  These lots are not conducive to large residential additions.  Other lots in the VRD are constrained by small lot sizes, some even smaller than this one.
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.   Most of the lots in the area are small lots and probably very close to the lot coverage maximum, based on looking at them.  If you took a literal interpretation, you would be denying them rights others have.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   Special conditions do result from actions of the applicant.  When presented to GPC, the design fit within lot coverage and setbacks.  In following the recommendation of  GPC need for exceeding maximums was caused and the applicant was forced to seek variances.  Even though GPC's design caused the need for a variance, the Swerns desired to go along with the idea.  They could have disagreed with GPC's design or could have left the garage where it was in order to stay within requirements.
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 have been several variances granted in VRD for lot coverage because of the small lots.
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. This variance would not affect the health, safety and general welfare.  No neighbors have disagreed with this project in GPC or BZBA

MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED FINDINGS FOR 05-005 FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE.

{Ms. Knox would prefer to receive less specific recommendations from staff so members could write up their own findings of fact.  Mr. Strayer thought it would be helpful to have an hour before a meeting to discuss this with the Law Director.}

  Mark Sween, 329 Summit Street - Rear and Side setback variances

Mr. Strayer explained that GPC heard this application for relocation of the garage but did not feel the design of the addition was consistent with the AROD and denied the application.  Thereupon the applicant and GPC met and revised the plan, which is before BZBA tonight.  The first plan was within all regulations, but in the revising, the lot coverage was exceeded, and in order to maximize the useable yard space, they needed to set the garage into the setback.  The setback in the rear is 3 ½' vs. 10' minimum.
In answer to a question as to who owns the fence, Mr. Swern thought it belonged to the neighbor since the finished side faces on their side.   
Mr. Burriss noted that the plan would be consistent with other houses on College Street, close to the lot line.
Ms. Knox suggested adding more trees to replace the one that was lost, and Mr. Swern said there are a lot of other trees on the property.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 05-006 AS PRESENTED.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mitchell 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.   VRD parcels are small lots in this area and not conducive to large residential additions.  This small lot has no special conditions which would make it different from any other lot in the VRD.
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 many parcels in VRD which have either received variances for setbacks or have grandfathered setbacks, so a literal interpretation would deprive applicants of their rights.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Special conditions do result from actions of the applicant. He did not choose to request a variance but was forced to do so.  Even though GPC's design caused the need for a variance, the Swerns desired to go along with the idea.  They could have disagreed with GPC's design or could have left the garage where it was in order to stay within requirements
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 other houses in this district which have been granted a variance for side and rear setbacks.
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.  The variance will in no manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of any persons.

MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED FINDINGS FOR 05-006 FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES.

Minutes of  January 6, 2005:  MS. KNOX  MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR, DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Election of Officers:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO KEEP THE SAME OFFICERS AS AT PRESENT; MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:   March 10 and April 14
Adjournment:   7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 1/13/05

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
January 13, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean,  Bill Heim (Chair), Trudy Knox, Amber Mitchell, Tym Tyler (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:
 Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  John Noblick, Leslee O'Neill, J. T. Lloyd
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair explained the process for the upcoming hearing and swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

New Business:

John Noblick, (Lori Conway), 1037 Newark-Granville Road - Side Setback
The applicant wishes a variance from a 50' minimum setback to a 7' setback on the east side.  Mr. Noblick said the Conways want to build a pole barn beside the other barn beside the pasture.  Other neighboring buildings are about that close; one garage is part of the fence line, and a neighboring house is on the line.  Other locations are difficult because of the topography and the pond. This would not be visible from the road.  It will be painted white wood siding with silver metal roof. 

MS, KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE  APPLICATION 04-193 AS PRESENTED.  MS MITCHELL SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Ms. Mitchell. applied the application to the criteria for 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. There are no special circumstances that would create a special situation.
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.   The property to the east has three structures built into the 50' setback, including an outbuilding which is built on the lot line.  Also the applicant's property has an existing shed built 41' into the setback
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   Special conditions do result from 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.  The property to the east has three structures built into the 50' setback, including an outbuilding which is built on the lot line.  Also the applicant's property has an existing shed built 41' into the 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 posed variance.  Only the property to the east would be affected, but this building would not encroach more than any other building in that general area. The health, safety and general welfare of the property owners would not be affected.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED.  MR TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Leslee O'Neill, 865 Newark-Granville Road - fence height variance
Mr. Strayer said that after the last meeting, when a 72" fence variance was denied, they went to GPC to come up with an alternative design, and GPC and Joe Hickman were concerned about the steep slope on the front lot line, and he recommended that they install a retaining wall to hold the soil in.  GPC had recommended a fence on top of the wall so they would not need such a high fence, making a 2' wall and a 4' fence. The wall was approved by Joe Hickman and Mr. Strayer.   Tonight they submitted an application for a 48' fence variance.  The fence will be broken up by pillars every 70"
There was some confusion as to whether the wall should be part of the total fence height.  Mr. Strayer could not reach the Law Directors, but he thinks the wall should not be considered.   Ms. Knox thinks it should be. 
Ms. O'Neill said they have installed a 3-bay sandstone fence, going from 8" blocks to 6" blocks, and it is 15' from the sidewalk.
Mr. Heim read from the code, section 1187.03(2) where it contends that maximum fence height from the ground is 42".  "Artificially raising the height of the lot line by the use of … retaining walls…shall be included in the 42" maximum."  Because there is a conflict between what the Village has brought to us as a recommendation and which GPC indicated  is OK, we are obligated to operate under these rules.
Mr. Strayer said the grade goes up directly from the street and is not at the level of the sidewalk, and he would contend that the retaining wall is not artificially raising the height. 
Ms. Knox had talked earlier to Mr. Strayer and received a different opinion.  She maintains the application is for 72".  Ms. Mitchell asked whether GPC would have to adhere to our recommendations.  Mr. Strayer said the reason they went to GPC first was to get some idea of achieving something of what they are trying to do. Mr. Heim asked whether there was any point in our acting, since GPC has already acted?  Mr. Strayer said all they did was approve the wall.  They won't approve a 48" fence without a variance.
Ms. O'Neill asked if it looks good, doesn't that mean anything?  Mr. Strayer said you cannot pass criteria on looks.  It has to be based on other examples or lot deficiencies, etc.  Mr. Heim added that GPC has set up the regulations, and the BZBA has responsibility  to decide on their own as a committee, hearing the evidence and making decisions on what is in the code.
Mr. Tyler wanted to hear the opinion of the Law Director.  Mr. Heim wanted to hear everything the O' Neills wanted to say and then go to the Law Director regarding where the bottom of the fence actually is, whether on the stone or on the ground.

MS. KNOX MOVED THAT WE TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL WE MEET WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR.  There was no second for this motion.

MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS IS.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY  MAJORITY WITH 3 AYES AND 2 NOES (Ms. Knox, Mr. Heim).

Ms. Knox said that if the code stated that a wall plus a fence was not to exceed 42": and it is approved for 70", what happens then?  Mr. Heim said we deserve an opinion from the Law Director.  Ms. Knox said people go ahead and build what they want and then apply for approval.  This has nothing to do with what GPC said.  That they want a fence for the dogs is insufficient reason for a variance.
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 land at the front of the property slopes away from the house at a severe angle. This criterion does not apply.  Ms. Knox disagreed, saying this is not a steep slope.  Ms. Mitchell also disagreed with this decision.
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 is another house in this district which has been granted a variance for a 48" fence.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   Special conditions do result from 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.  There is another house in this district which has been granted a variance for a 48" fence.
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.  The variance will in no manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of any persons.

MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR CRITERION A AS DESCRIBED.  MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Heim voted No.).
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR THE VARIANCE; MR. DEAN SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of  November 11, 2004:  MS. KNOX  MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED WITH ONE SPELLING CHANGE; MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Next Meetings:  February  10 and March 10
Adjournment:   8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

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.