Granville Community Calendar

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

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.