Granville Community Calendar

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

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.