Granville Community Calendar

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

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.