Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 12/21/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING  APPEALS
December 21, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Jean Hoyt, Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  None
Swearing In:
New Business:

Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St., Side yard setback variance
(Ms. Hoyt said the applicant is her neighbor and asked whether she should recuse herself.  Because the application does not relate to Ms. Hoyt, she may remain on the panel.)
 There is an existing garage in poor shape 7'6" from the property line, and the applicant wants to replace it with a one-car garage with a bedroom and bath upstairs to gain space for her in-laws to live. The footprint would be enlarged by one foot.   She needs a variance from 10' to 6'6".  The 10' is the distance the garage was originally erected from the west property line.  The neighbors have been consulted and have no objections, but they did not want any more than a one-foot variance because they want a reasonable space between homes.  They are putting in a foundation where there was none before. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked what good would one foot do, and Ms. Rettig said it gives them 24 sq.ft upstairs, and in the garage it will give more room for the car; the width is 13', which is a very tight space.  It will allow them to make an entrance from the garage into the house. 
 Mr. Heim asked whether she considered placing the structure farther back on the lot and she replied that they thought about that but would like space for a fenced-in area for the kids.  The house is on a hill and would be more of a challenge and an expense.
 Mr. Ashbaugh noted that if she used the existing footprint, she would not need a variance. Mr. Heim asked whether the overhang would be greater than at present and was told, No, the new overhang will be the same as the original.  They want the addition to match the house.
Paul Jakob, neighbor, expressed the hope that in the change, the old house will be brought into aesthetic conformance with the new. He does not have an objection to the structure blocking his view.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10' TO 6'6".  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NEGATIVE VOTE (MR. HEIM).

Finding of Fact:

 Members considered the criteria for variance for two signs:

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.  Special circumstances exist with the structure.  It's a 13' garage which is not by today's construction standards an acceptable width for a garage; thus a variance is necessary.
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, there are similar circumstances. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the special circumstance is the small garage. The applicant did not cause that.
D. That the granting of 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, there are other garages in 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 vicinity of the proposed variance.  It would not adversely affect others.
 
MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NEGATIVE VOTE (MR. HEIM).

Keith Vetter, 457 North Granger Street
Mr. Vetter asked to table for one more meeting so he can have more time to consider the tree. 

Minutes of September 14:  MR. JUNG MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:  7:30 p.m.
Next Meeting:  January 11, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

BZBA 11/9/06

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
Minutes
November 9, 2006 7:00 p.m.

Members Present:  Jim Jung, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair), Jean Hoyt
Member's Absent: Amber Mitchell
Also Present: Chris Strayer and Assistant Law Director Jim Gorry

Mr. Strayer stated that the meeting would be a work session with Assistant Law Director Gorry to go over procedures and rules for the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  The committee would also be reviewing proposed zoning changes.

Mr. Gorry explained the rules and protocols that the committee should follow.  He stated that the committee should function as a court or like a court - quasi judicial.  Mr. Gorry stated that a Quasi Judicial Hearing is not a meeting under the Sunshine Law and that members of the general public are not permitted to testify, but only interested parties may make statements.  He stated that the hearings are open to the public but are not public hearings.  He stated that the interested party must state their interest and if they are not a neighbor or affected party the committee cannot consider their testimony.  Mr. Gorry stated that anyone who testifies must be sworn in and provide their name and address for the record.  He indicated when you can and cannot recuse yourself from the hearing and vote of an application.  Mr. Gorry encouraged the members to not recuse themselves unless it is absolutely necessary and if there is a statutory conflict of interest.  He stated that it is allowable even if you know the applicant and a recusal should only occur when one feels they are unable to render an unbiased decision.   He stated that a member would most likely always recuse themselves when a neighbor or family member is involved. 

Mr. Gorry stated that the committee may discuss any pending application with each other and/or the law department and staff.  He stated that the BZBA Board should be careful having a quorum outside of meetings because this could violate the public meetings law. 

Mr. Gorry indicated that Council has requested that the BZBA Board not have Executive Sessions.  Mr. Strayer explained when asked that this was a full decision by Council.  Some members of the BZBA committee questioned this request by Council. 

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the committee can choose to resume the meeting at another time if there is a matter they wish to contemplate further.  Mr. Gorry stated that this is permissible if members of the committee feel unsure or unclear about something.  He stated that they can request a continuance and the property owner has the chance to deny a continuance.  He indicated that the application could either be approved or denied at this point.  He stated that members of the committee should never feel forced to vote when they are unsure of something. 

Mr. Gorry explained that the committee can investigate the proposed property prior to the hearing.  He stated that they can consider personal knowledge of the property and bring this to the attention of other members during the hearing.

Mr. Gorry explained that the BZBA operates by delegated authority - only those powers delegated to the BZBA by the Charter.  He stated that they do have Charter authority to grant variances and appeals. 

Mr. Gorry went over general meeting conduct.  He stated that members of the BZBA Board are to function as judges and conduct themselves as judges always appearing with judicial propriety.  He stated that every applicant should feel as though they were fairly treated when they leave the hearing regardless of the decision.   He stated that no decision should ever be made before hearing all of the evidence.     

Mr. Heim asked what legalities are involved when an application is submitted by the architect or carpenter on behalf of the homeowner.  Mr. Gorry stated that legally - only the owner of the property or the property owner's attorney can speak to the application.  Mr. Gorry stated that in the past they have not disregarded applications submitted by the architects or carpenters, and it is the applicants fault if something faulty happens with the application.  Mr. Gorry stated that the committee can take into account the knowledge of the person before them. 

 


The BZBA Board went over the zoning Ordinance changes.  The following comments/suggestions are noted below:

Throughout the Ordinance - Change non-profit to NOT FOR PROFIT
(Mr. Heim stated that is consistent with the Ohio Revised Code)

Page 1 - Line 42 - "A resolution shall indicate the basis for the review and refer to THE pertinent legal provisions."

Page 2 - Line 20 - "accessory use FOR INSTANCE  shall not include the sale of alcoholic beverages of any kind."

Item (36) "Driveway" - should also include language about commercial driveways. 

Section 1139.06 - The Village Manager may also appeal any such decision to Council. 
Some members of the BZBA stated that they felt this was unfair, political, and micromanagement by Council.

Page 25 - Section 1145.03 - A new section ( c)
     "( c) Such permit shall expire if a condition use is discontinued for more than two years."

Page 29 - (a) The cumulative maximum size of the occupied are of a detached garage(s) shed(s), or other storage structure(s) in a residential zoning district shall be 500 square feet." 
Some member's of the BZBA questioned 500 square feet being enough.  Mr. Gorry stated that the legal counsel suggested 750 square feet, but Council changed this to 500 square feet.

The BZBA meeting adjourned at 7:57 pm.

Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

BZBA 9/14/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 14, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair), Jim Jung, Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)
Members Absent: 
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Brian Miller, Scott Klingensmith, Eleanor Cohen, Jeff McInturf
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight

New Business:

Keith Keegan, 342 East Elm S. - Fence Height Variance

 The applicant wishes to add a 72"fence and gate in front to completely encircle the hot tub which is already in place.  The GPC requested a fence to complete the existing wall ¾ around the property and keep both sections the same height of 72".  The code requests 42" in front but says nothing about the height of the fence circling the hot tub.  Just the driveway portion is new.  Mr. Ashbaugh wondered about liability problems later on, but that is not a concern for BZBA
    
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE  APPLICATION 06-110.   MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Mitchell 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.   True, the property already has existing walls which are higher than the 42" minimum.  The new walls would complete the property while keeping the existing design of the walls.
 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, there are no other properties in the district which enjoy this type of variance.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the existing walls are taller than the 42" minimum; therefore, to match the existing design, the property owner must increase the size of the new walls.
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, there are no other properties in the district which enjoy this type of variance.
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.  True, the granting of the variance will in no way adversely affect any persons residing or working in the vicinity.

 


Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Galway Drive - Density
+
{Mr. Heim recused himself from this application}
 Mr. Strayer explained that the variance is from 5,000 sq.ft to 9,142 sq.ft per acre.  The two-story building with 8,228 footprint  would exceed the maximum of 5,000, but if it were a one-story building, it would be under the maximum. 
 Jeff McInturf explained that this is a new company formed to develop this property for a medical practice for four doctors.  This will enable them to expand their practice in a new two-story building and will enable the Partners to bring in other businesses in time. It will also bring in needed tax dollars to the village.  This is a function  of the economic feasibility to have the criteria to make the numbers work.  They have tried to be sensitive in design and in character with other buildings in Granville.  This will be an L-shaped building with parking hidden in the rear of the building.
Mr. Ashbaugh asked about the setback, and Mr. Strayer said it is 90' and in the TCOD, which requires 100', but our Law Director said BZBA does not approve setbacks for the TCOD; that is up to the GPC.
Ms. Hoyt asked whether Mr. Strayer has received feedback from neighbors, and he has received one positive comment.  He added that the exterior is all brick.
Mr. Strayer noted that Village Council approved a document for the Cherry Valley corridor and in that plan it was made clear that medical offices would be the most accepted development for that area.

MR. JUNG MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 06-112 FOR DENSITY VARIANCE.  MS. HOYT SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Jung 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.   True, the nature of the acceptable developments and the size of the parcel hinders the developable land and forces an increase in density to achieve the goals of the development plan.
 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. 
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the literal interpretation of this zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the long-term development plan for the 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.  False, there have been no other variances granted for density in this district.
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.  True, the granting of the variance will in no way adversely affect any persons residing or working in the vicinity of the area.

 

Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Galway Drive - Height

They also request to increase the height from two stories to two and a half stories.  It if was a flat roof, it would be two stories and within code, but GPC recommended a pitched roof.
Ms. Hoyt asked whether approving the height variance would set a precedent, and Mr. Strayer said No it would not.  Requests are on a case-by-case basis.

MS. HOYT MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 06-113 FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Hoyt 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.   True, special circumstances are due to the fact that the GPC wanted a pitched roof
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, the literal interpretation of this zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the long-term development plan for the area.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, in order to keep to the architectural standards planned for the area, it was necessary to itch the roof of the building.
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, there are no other lands or structures in the zoning district which have allowed buildings of thie height.
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. 
True, the granting of the variance will in no way adversely affect any persons residing or working in the vicinity of the area.

Minutes of July 6:  Page 1, First paragraph:  change the 112' to 12'
Page 1: 5th line up:  "Mr. Strayer said the Suburban Residential Zoning was not set up for small lots; it is for bigger lots than this."
Page 3, 8th line up, change to "Mr. Strayer said that we could have a work session with the Village Law Director."
The Headings are wrong.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of July 13:  Page 2, change 7th line up, change "approve" to table.
MS. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings:  October 12 and November 9
Adjournment:  7:40 p.m.
  Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

BZBA 7/13/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 13, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  Jim Jung
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Steve Mansfield, Rusty Thompson, Kristine and Keith Vetter
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight

Keith Vetter, 457 North Granger Street - Side Yard Setback

 Mr. Strayer said the variance would be from 12' to 6' since the applicant wants a garage at the end of the asphalt driveway, 6' from the neighbor's southern property line    
 Mr. Vetter wants a detached one-story two-car garage, and all materials will match the house.  He and the architect think this is the best place to put it, and putting it here precludes having to pave over more land.   About 15 houses in the area have garages within the setback, so this request is not exceptional, albeit they may be grandfathered..   They originally wanted a 12 pitch roof but changed it to 6 pitch.  The structure would block the neighbor's view, but this would occur regardless of whether the garage is built according to code. The neighbor was not privy to discussions about the structure. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked why the garage could not be pushed farther back and stay within code. 
 Ms. Hoyt asked whether there had been a garage there at one time and Mrs. Vetter did not think so.  The outline was for their back porch.  They have two small children and there are always a lot of items to carry from the car to the house, so the closer it is, the better.
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether the tree would have to be removed and was told Yes.  It already has three wires holding it together.  The neighbors say it's a matter of time before it goes down. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh noted that if they shoved it back, the tree would be ahead of the garage.  He asked whether the trees were on the applicant's, and Mr. Vetter said of the 3 trees, one is his.
 Mr. Heim asked what would the effect of the building on the root structure, and Mrs. Vetter said one leans onto the neighbor's property.  There is concern that even though the tree would not be very close to the garage, it might damage the roots.
 Steve Mansfield, neighbor, has lived there 15 years.  He was first informed of the request  to build on the property line on June 22 and he received the official notice the following day.  He looked at the code and in 1109.08 and saw that variances to the code may be granted only in cases of substantial hardship.  Since this is a double lot, there are many opportunities to build without variances.  There are no special circumstances.  Nothing prohibits them from putting it elsewhere.  Under your criteria there is no deprivation of rights.      Adverse effects:  (1) it would interfere with his enjoyment of his home; (2) that location would affect the resale value of his home because of a lack of privacy; (3) the location would limit access into his own garage when more room is needed for a truck to enter.  When screening is added in order to alleviate impact to the neighbors, (4) access would be even more narrow.  (5) The tree is on the property line and is a shared tree and he will not give permission to damage the tree.
Mr. Heim asked how far is the Mansfield house from the lot line and was told about 4 ¾ with overhang.
 Ms. Mitchell asked if they moved it so it would not require a variance, would the 6' preclude access to his driveway, and Mr. Mansfield said it would be better but not good.  It would be incremental.  A 6' space would still be within the dripline of the tree.
Ms. Hoyt said if they moved the garage 6', would that have a negative impact on the tree, and Mr. Mansfield said there are no generalized statements you can make, and he quoted distances from the National Arbor Day and OSU Extension.
 Mr. Mansfield has taken a photo showing the edge of the driveway, at side of the woods.  There is landscaping with railroad ties, and the photo shows there has been a  rise of the ground that pushed the ties up, so the location they want is on a place where the ground would heave, pushed up by the roots of the tree.  
 Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Vetter if it was for convenience sake he wanted the garage in this spot and was told Yes, and to enable a turnaround.
Mrs. Vetter noted that there may be some different options.  She was envisioning it as a way to improve their quality of life, since they have no garage now.  Mr. Mansfield spoke very cogently, but they do not really want the garage in the middle of the property.  The children enjoy the back yard and so do we.  We could either move it on the long axis or sideways.  One concern is if we move it too far, it would be difficult to exit the driveway.  They could probably move it a few feet but not as much as the dripline..    One difficulty is that there is a big piece of asphalt back there, but they could use the back corner of the property.   She is not sure she can address all of the other Mansfield concerns.  They need to discuss this more.  A future owner with a bigger car would have trouble turning around.
 Mr. Mansfleld does not want to impose his point of view, but he would propose an alternative :  Turn the garage 90°, behind the house. The obstacle would be the shed, but there are no trees there.  It's a reasonable distance to the back door, and a turnaround could be worked in.  Then they could remove some of the asphalt around the tree.
 Mr. Heim noted that in the last few years people want big garages and he asked how big this garage would be.  Mrs. Vetter said they need a two-car garage and  two doors and a 3' wall space.  She doesn't think she can shave off more.
 Mr. Heim asked if they would consider withdrawing this until you all have some discussion, and Mr. Strayer said it should be tabled. Mrs. Vetter said then no action could be taken before the next meeting.  She would bring in a new design.  She asked if they asked for 12' from the side line could they ask for relief from the 40' and Mr. Strayer needed clarification from the Law Director on this.   
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION.   MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Minutes of June 8:  Page 1, there is a typo in the Motion. 
The Headings are wrong.
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of July 6:  Page 1, change 112' to 12'. In first paragraph under Mays.
The headings are wrong.   MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Closing Comments:    Members discussed language for changing the code in regard to notification of neighbors.  Mr. Strayer will provide new copy.
 The aerial maps should only be used to show where the subject property lies in the neighborhood.
Next Meetings:  August 10  and September 14 
Adjournment:  8:00
  Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

BZBA 7/6/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 6, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair), Jim Jung 
Members Absent:  none
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Christopher Mays
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight
.

Christopher Mays, 404 West Broadway - Side Yard Setback

 {Mr. Jung recused himself from this application.}

 Mr. Strayer said the property already has a side yard setback with 10' and this is an additional 1-2 feet.  The applicant wishes to build a 2-car garage on the north side so the setback variance would be from 12' to 8'.
 Mr. Mays, contractor, said they are proposing a 2-car garage with upstairs for bedroom or game room. In order to gain maximum space for doors, they request the variance on the north side.
 Ms Hoyt asked about the dimensions for the garage.  She was told the back wall is 28' and 26' on the side. 
 Ms. Mitchell asked whether the existing garage would stay and was told Yes, it will be a workshop.  It will be 1 ½' from the garage on the north.
 Ms. Hoyt asked whether it was approximate or exact, and Mr. Strayer said it would be 8'11 ½" to lot line. 
 Brad Snyder, 121 N. Plum, has been there since last August, and they are the most affected owners.  Their driveway already goes right up to the property line and there is not much green space for buffer, and they want a massive object there.  They have a nice bay window that would be affected from view.  Property owners do have rights.  There are no other close neighbors.  There is Sugar Loaf, rental property, Stone Hall.  There would be more of a concern but these neighbors are not directly affected.  He is for the owner improving his home.  He is in a historical area and he knew that when he bought it.   Even if it is a couple of feet it will make a difference for this neighbor.  Anyone with a neighbor planning such a big structure should be notified, but we were not notified from the village but from the previous owner.  We don't want to be the bad guy but we want to express our concern. 
 Mr. Heim asked for the petition the visitors brought in and read.
.
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked whether we take the overhang into consideration, and Mr. Strayer said no, the cantilever is not part of the application.  For a livable area yes, but for an overhang or eave, no.    Mr. Ashbaugh said the application asks for 8' reduction and prior to that it was 10' reduction.
 Mr. Ashbaugh said the garage on the property line is the problem.  It is grandfathered.  Mr. Strayer said the Suburban Residential Zoning was not set up for small lots; it is for bigger lots than this. Mr. Heim stressed that this has yet to go before the GPC; they approve architecture and design; all we do is consider the variance and how close the building can be built to the property line. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh said the lot is so small.  He would like to see improvements to the property but this is too small for the big garage.  The house plans are very nice. 
 
MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-079 TO ALLOW FOR THE VARIANCE SETBACK   MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS DENIED.
MR. ASHBAUGH - YES
MS. HOYT - NO
MS. MITCHELL - NO
MR. HEIM - NO
 
Finding of Fact:  Mr. Ashbaugh applied the criteria provided 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, since the lot sits on a corner, the property has two front yard setbacks and two side yard setbacks which hinder the developable area of the property.  
 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 in the same zoning district that have similar setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False, the 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.  True, there are other properties in the same zoning district that have similar 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 vicinity of the proposed variance. True, the variance will in no manner adversely affect persons in the area.

 Denial criteria:

 Mr. Heim in D.  Are there other similar setbacks.  Mr. Strayer said Probably, i.e., the house next door.   But they may have been grandfathered in prior to this application.
 Ms. Hoyt the biggest issue is B. The neighbor next door is impacted more than anyone else, not for health, safety, and general welfare, but it does impact enjoyment of his property.   
 Mr. Heim in A.  Two side yard sidebacks are 12' on the west and north. 
 Mr. Strayer A.  False, we don't know there are other side yard setbacks consistent with this property.  Others might be front yard setbacks.  
 Mr. Heim feels it's true that on the corner they have 2 side yard setbacks but they are not hindering development of this property.   A foot and a half doesn't prevent development
 Ms. Hoyt said, if they go 2' out in addition with the overhang it is 4' hanging over the shrubs, making it closer to the neighbor.  She wanted the exact dimensions, 27x26 is a huge garage.  Even if they reduce it 1 ½', it's still a huge garage.  I hope the GPC is careful about this because this is a valuable historical house.  Reduce it by 4'.  Mr. Heim said GPC has been known to ask us to reconsider a decision, so we might get a request back. 
 Mr. Strayer said C does apply.  For B or D, even though there are others, they have been grandfathered in.  In A.  It is a corner with 2 setbacks.

 Mr. Strayer will redo these and get them out to everyone.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT PENDING WHAT WE RECEIVE FROM MR. STRAYER.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Mr. Ashbaugh - no
Hoyt - yes
Mitchell - yes
Heim - yes

 Mr. Heim asked about the list of property owners, and Mr. Strayer said they use the map.  You can't assume these maps are accurate.   Mr. Strayer said he is rechecking with the water department.  Ms. Mitchell and others still like the neighboring owners' names included.
 Ms. Hoyt says take the name from auditor and look up the deeds at the recorder's office.  Don't trust the auditor. 
 Mr. Heim wonders whether the code should be changed to reflect accurate records.  Mr. Strayer can suggest it to GPC or V.C. for 1139 or 1137.  Or 1145.02, application procedure and No. 6.  "A list of owners within 200 taken from auditor or treasurer's mailing list."   Mr. Strayer said that we could have a work session with the village Law Director.  Mr. Strayer will write it up and be sure to show it to Ms. Hoyt. 
 Mr. Ashbaugh asked questions about the application form.  Shouldn't it have a date stamp? Yes. He asked about calculating the lot coverage.
Ms. Hoyt asked if the GPC has come to us despite the neighbor's concern?     We are telling the neighbor that his wishes are not important if this gets sent back to us. No, said Mr. Strayer. Other situations have not arisen similar to this.  
 We need to be sure that the applicant is the owner or should be identified as designee.
 Ms. Mitchell said an outside architect does his work and leaves and has no emotional attachment
 Mr. Heim said the application should include drawing showing property line as in1145.02B (2)  Address and legal description should be included in applications.   We should have an official survey. 

 Mr. Heim introduced the new City Manager.

Next Meetings: July 13 and August 10 
Adjournment:
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger (from tape)

BZBA 6/8/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
June 8, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair), Jim Jung 
Members Absent:  none
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Jonathan Wells, Ned Roberts, Judith Fisher, Christopher Mays
Swearing in:  The Chair explained the process to be followed tonight
New Business:

Jonathan Wells, 339 West Maple - Side Setback

The applicant wishes to remove a deteriorated addition on east side and replace with larger addition and deck.  The variance requested would be from the current 12' from property line to 8' from property line.
Mr. Wells said the porch enclosure is a mess and falling apart.  The replacement would enlarge it a bit to add to the kitchen and add a deck out back.  There are no objections from neighbors; in fact, they welcome the improvement.
Mr. Ashbaugh asked whether the side is flat and what is in there now, and Mr. Wells said it is flat and the space is so dirty that it is unusable because of the tenant's dog, but he keeps his bike in there. He then asked about the cistern and Mr. Strayer said he will check with the authorities about it's being covered up.   
Ms. Hoyt thought this looks like a good use of space, which will improve the marketability and value of the house.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-071 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  Ms. Hoyt 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.   False, there are no special conditions which are peculiar to this land. 
 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 structures within the same zoning that lie within the required setback.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False, the conditions do result from the 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, there are other structures within the same zoning that lie within the required 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 vicinity of the proposed variance.  True, this variance will in no manner adversely affect the persons residing in the area.

MS. HOYT MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Christopher Mays, 404 West Broadway - Side Yard Setback

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to attach a 1½ story, 2-car garage to the house.  The current garage is detached.  The house is on the corner of Plum and W. Broadway, and the variance is for a setback from 12' to 8', which is a 1' increase.  He has received no adverse comments, but Mr. Heim asked whether the notifications were accurate.     Mr. Strayer said he gets the neighbor list from the latest tax maps and the Auditor's office.   But one neighbor sold her house months ago, and so the nearest neighbor might not have received the official notice.  Mr. Mays said he has talked to the new neighbor, who has no problem with the design.
 Mr. Mays said the upstairs area will be for storage and activities.  He needs to position the house as in the design because he doesn't want to harm the hedge between the driveways and the big evergreen.    
 
MS. HOYT MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-079 TO ALLOW FOR THE SETBACK TO BE GIVEN AS PRESENTED IN THE DRAWING.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  Mr. Ashbaugh 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.   True, since the lot sits on a corner, the property has two front yard setbacks and two side yard setbacks which hinder the developable area of the property.  
 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 in the same zoning district that have similar setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  False, the 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.  True, there are other properties in the same zoning district that have similar 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 vicinity of the proposed variance. True, the variance will in no manner adversely affect persons in the area.

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

Judith Fisher, 844 Burg Street - Rear Yard Setback

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant proposes to build a barn/garage for storage at the rear of the property.  The rear slants in such a fashion that it cuts down on the buildable area.  This, coupled with the angle of the building, make the variance necessary.
The applicant explained that the setback would need to be reduced from 50' to 32' to avoid extensive regrading and to ensure proper drainage. She wants to add a solarium, so this needs a south frontage and level enough for the barn in a monolithic path rather than on a foundation.  There is a fall of 20' from the cottage to her building, a difficult slope to walk on.  She wants to add gardens on the west side, and wants to site the garage to maximize the vista from the cottage.  The 1 ½-story building will have gable, timber frame pine boards to match the cottage, and will look like the original era of the 1938 building.  She described further the steep slope. To adhere to the setback code, she would need a 100' retaining wall, 8' high, and she will not do that.  She has planted trees and provided privacy to the neighbors. The house originally had a detached garage, but it was connected later.   

MR. JUNG MOVED TO APPROVE 07-081 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  Mr. Jung 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.   True, the severe slopes and angle of the rear property line dramatically reduce the buildable area of the property which is inconsistent with other properties in the district.  
 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 in the same zoning district that have similar setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the topography and property lines of the parcel limit the buildable area on the property without causing great expense.
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, there are other properties in the same zoning district that have similar 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 vicinity of the proposed variance. True, the variance will not adversely affect persons in the area.

MR. JUNG MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS READ.  MS.HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Minutes of April 13: Page 1, correct typo on "McClain" and  on Page 2 on "James Graham Trainer."
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Next Meetings: July 11 and August 10 
Adjournment:   7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

BZBA 4/13/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 13, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair), Amber Mitchell (Vice Chair), Jim Jung 
Members Absent:  none
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present: John Noblick, Marty Chaney, James Graham

Old Business:

Carol Moore, 8 Samson Place, Rear Yard Setback

 Mr. Strayer explained that the house actually sits 19' into the setback and they are asking to reduce it to 6' from the rear property line.  The property is only 90' deep. 
Mr. Noblick, designer for Jerry McClain, explained the design for the new carport on the south side and showed on the drawing exactly where it would be sited, on the wooded side of the lot.  They are eliminating part of the deck in order to add a laundry on the first floor.  Ms. Moore also wants a cover for her car.
Mr. Heim asked whether the house was built before zoning and was told that it was built in the 1950s before there was any zoning.  (The small houses were built to accommodate Denison's returning veterans in inexpensive housing.)  All of the houses are sited within setbacks.  To adhere with setback Ms. Moore would find the back setback would overlap the front setback.
Mr. Ashbaugh thought it would be nice if the carport were on the other side.  He asked how many other houses in the area are within the setback, and Mr. Strayer said all of them encroach into setbacks.  They are all grandfathered in.
Mr. Noblick said the house on the right shares a driveway with Ms. Moore. It's a single drive, and there is no room for her company.  The houses are so close on the street that it would be better to push this back farther.  In doing so and building a carport would make her house conform more to the area.  All the houses on the cull de sac are tiny and on small lots.  Don Gunnerson designed them originally.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-024.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  Mr. Ashbaugh 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.   All the lots have the same characteristics, and there is nothing peculiar about the land or structure.  The problem is the zoning district.  This is a nonconforming 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. True, the SRD-A code was created for larger lot zoning and not for the small lots as created in this area.  The land sizes in question do not allow for typical construction.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, the lot sizes and zoning code were not the result 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, other properties in the SRD-A have large properties that these zoning standards more readily apply to.
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.  True, due to the locating and sitting of the land and structures, this project will not have adverse affect on health, safety and general welfare,

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

James Grahlam Trainer, 48 Wexford Drive - Side Yard Setback

 Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a side yard setback for a new house.  The setback is supposed to be 14' and this would be 8'.  He has received no comments from anyone except for Mr. Griffith, who appeared at the start of this meeting.  He owns three lots adjacent to Mr. Trainer's lot as well as a vacant lot between the two of them.
 Mr. Trainer said they bought the lot two years ago and moved into Erinwood to live in while the house was being built.  The house would be 87' wide, so they met with a shortfall of 2' the way the house is set up, the master bedroom is on the 'variant' side.  The garage is on the north, there is a steep slope in the rear, sloping down from the house, precluding putting the garage there.  It would also require a retaining wall.  There is a 50'setback in the front.  To redesign the whole house would involve many thousands of dollars and it would be difficult to build into the slope.  The neighbor's only concern is adding landscaping between the houses.  The Conveyance of Property discouraged putting the garage in the front. 
 Mr. Heim noted that on the plan it shows the required house setback is 60' but the plan asks for 50' Mr. Strayer said 50' is OK. Ms. Hoyt asked whether the neighbor could eventually sell this vacant lot and impact the future. She is concerned about that person being close to the Trainer house. The answer is Yes.
 Mr. Ashbaugh thinks a 20' driveway is too narrow and if not for the slope, he would prefer the garage be in the rear.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-033 AS PRESENTED.  MS. HOYT SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (Mr. Ashbaugh and Mr. Heim voted no.)

Mr. Strayer said we cannot really concern ourselves about what might occur in the future.   

Finding of Fact:  Ms. Mitchell 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.   True.  The severe slopes to the rear of the property decrease the buildable area of the parcel, forcing the structure to be located closer to the roadway in the narrower part of the property. 
 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.  True, the severe slope of the property forces the location of the house, not the 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.  Not applicable.
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. True, the siting of the house in the proposed location will not affect health, safety or general welfare of persons in the area.

 Discussion arose about voting for criteria after a negative vote. Mr. Strayer explained that the application has been approved, and so you are only voting for the criteria being acceptable to the approval.  If you don't think the criteria are appropriate, then you can vote against it.  Because you voted against the application, you don't have to vote against the criteria.  Mr. Ashbaugh takes issue with Criteria A.
 Ms. Mitchell feels that the applicant went through so many plans ("400") to find this perfect one that it is not as though he settled on the first one, and we shouldn't make it more difficult for him.  Mr. Strayer added that we have to look at the Bryn Du neighborhood.  The adverse effect is less than would be considered closer to town.
 Mr. Ashbaugh said the house that may go up on the next door lot would have to be set very close.    Ms. Hoyt added that these are larger homes and in order to fit in with the rest of the subdivision, they have to go to variances sometimes.  If they conformed to the regulations, the house might be too small, and Mr. Strayer said there are deed restrictions on minimum sizes.  A lot of the houses there are built across two lots. 
MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS READ.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NEGATIVE VOTE (Mr. Ashbaugh).

Minutes of February 9:  Page 2, in the paragraph starting with Mr. Ashbaugh, change to "It will soon be near a limited access intersection….."
MR. JUNG MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

(NorthStar is awaiting approval from the bank and getting the residential developer on board.)

Next Meetings:   May 11 and June 8
Adjournment:   7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

BZBA 2/9/06

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
February 9, 2006
Minutes

Members Present:   Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Bill Heim (Chair),  Amber Mitchell, Jim Jung 
New Member: The chair welcomed Jean Hoyt to the Board.
Members Absent:  none
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Gary Smith, Russ & Kathy Griffith, Joe & Diane Charles, Gale Cady Williams (This Week), Sandra Benson, Darryl Payne, Matt Denny (WNKO News), Virginia Hamm, Roberta Snedeker, Earl Harris, Dorothy S. Clark, Jim Murr, Brian Miller (Sentinel), Bill Parker, Jeanne Clemons, Gary Smith, Tom Brigdon
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.
Election of Officers:  Mr. June nominated Bill Heim as Chair and Amber Mitchell as Vice Chair.  Mr. Ashbaugh seconded, and motion was unanimously approved.

New Business:

NorthStar Realty, Galway Drive

 Mr. Strayer explained that the applicant is seeking three conditional uses, a density variance, a lot coverage variance, and a front yard setback variance for the Cherry Valley/Newark Road corner. If a parcel is on a corner, it will be considered to have two front yards and one side yard.
 Gary Smith, land planner for NorthStar, asked that two of the six be tabled until next month (006 and 007) when they will be more certain of the density.
AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO TABLE 06-006 AND 06-007.  MR. JUNG SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Gary Smith said the reasons they are seeking these variances are (1) to help create a mixed use plan and (2) present a buffer between retail shops and offices and do something creative and positive for the community.  They have tried to create a true mixed use development with shops, homes, and offices.  Starting from Cherry Valley, the site will feature retail close to the road, then offices, and at the rear, two-family, two-story homes with parking in the rear.  This will make a nice transition to the Village Green homes on Galway.
For the bank's conditional use, they have tried to plan this in keeping with the village feel with a strong front appeal.
 Regarding the setback, the fact that Galway already has a sidewalk right on the edge of the R.O.W., pulling the building back 30' would give you a sidewalk, a lawn, and another sidewalk.  
 The reason tonight's plan is different from an earlier plan is that the engineer had not seen it yet and some adjustments had to be made.  They had to change the access at Wendy's to allow for the boulevard the village is planning on Cherry Valley.  Because of the topography they had to move the retention pond feature in the park.  They also added islands.  They had an informal work session with GPC and are addressing their concerns.
 Mr. Heim asked about the pond and the sewers and utilities, and Mr. Strayer said the EPA has requirements for filtration of the stream water before it goes into the pipe, so the water standard has to be met.

B. Conditional Use for the Bank

Gary Smith said there will be three lanes with the ATM, with access from Cherry Valley or Galway and parking at side of bank. 
 Ms. Hoyt thought it looked as though cars are exiting to the place where people have to walk across three lanes of traffic to enter the bank.  Mr. Smith said they have given thought to the different options and are trying to diversify the traffic.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE BANK (06-004).  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

C. Conditional Use for Bank Drive-Through
 Sandra Benson noted that if the drive-through will be open 24 hours a day near their homes, there will be people driving in and out all the time.
Ms. Hoyt does not have the dimensions, but with the entrance and exit going through the bank, it does not look like it would impede driving.
Mr. Ashbaugh noted that all this commercial will be here before any condos will be built, and he does not think it will be an issue.  It will soon be near a limited access intersection. The whole idea is to try to get activity like this close to the highway. 
Mr. Strayer thought it looked like the bank is 500' from the nearest existing condo.  BZBA can make it conditional upon the GPC taking that into consideration and the drive-through and the directional traffic pattern as well.
MR. JUNG MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT: (1)THE BANK SHALL BE AT LEAST 500' FROM EXISTING CONDOS AND (2) GPC CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE DRIVE-THROUGH DIRECTIONAL PATTERN.   MR. ASHBAUGH SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

F. Front Yard Setback Variance
This refers to the two retail buildings. The lot is on the corner and has two front yards.  Mr. Smith said that because there is an existing sidewalk, they do not want to duplicate sidewalks on Galway.    The variance goes with the lot, noted Mr. Strayer.  The south side would be 10' from the front line for the entire parcel.
Earl Hawken stated that other developers of this type in this area, have abided by setbacks, percentages, and densities, etc., and he does not know why we are granting variances to outsiders.  Mr. Strayer explained that in the meeting with GPC and staff, all would like to see the buildings pulled as far away as possible with buildings on the road to allow a sense of community, so this request is as a result of the GPC recommendations.    This applies to retail sections.  We should say this is for these buildings only and not for residential uses and put in the conditional use section that approval is contingent upon setbacks being maintained at the 30' minimum.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SETBACK VARIANCE 06-008 AS SUBMITTED.  MS. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

A. Conditional use variance for the residential area
Gary Smith said they wanted to create traditional two-owner duplex condos with porches and  with parking in the rear and fronts facing Galway.  The parks, with open space, sidewalks, trees, and a pond, would be for the residents. And there would be no playground equipment. 
Ms. Hoyt asked where guest parking would be located and was told they have not reached that point with the developer but garages would have driveways for guest parking.  They could probably carve out some parking in the alley also.
Mr. Ashbaugh thought these condos were much smaller than those at the Village Green, and Mr. Smith reminded him they are two stories.     
 A woman asked whether people can rent, and Mr. Strayer told her this would be addressed by the home owners' association.  We are addressing the nature of the use.  The application is for two-family homes, and if they want something else, they have to return to us.   Mr. Heim said the conditions are to (1) approve two-family unit buildings only and (2) a minimum setback of 30'.
 Gary Smith repeated they are 15' off the R.O.W.  They are trying to achieve traditional urban feel.  They are not large buildings that would dominate the street.  Parking is behind the units in the alleys.  They can revisit the 30' setback, but he does not feel he can determine this at this time.
 Ms. Mitchell would rather see more room for guest parking with units closer to the road and more parking space in the rear.
 Ms. Hoyt noted that the people here tonight are concerned about the residential portion, so we will deal with that in March.
MR. JUNG MOVED TO TABLE 06-003 UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.  MS. HOYT SECONDED AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAE VOTE (MS. MITCHELL).

Minutes of December 8:  . MS.MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8 AS PRESENTED.  MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
Finding of Fact:  Postponed until all six issues are determined.
Next Meetings:   March 9 and April 13
Adjournment:   8:15 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.