Granville Community Calendar

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.