Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 7/6/06

July 6, 2006

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. 
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. 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 
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger (from tape)

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.