Granville Community Calendar

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

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.