Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 9/27/07

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes September 27, 2007 7:00pm

Members Present: Amber Mitchell, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair). Member’s Absent: None. Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Law Director Mike Crites. Brad and Amanda Schneider, Jan Packard, Sharon Sinsabaugh, and John Noblick. Law Director Crites swore in new BZBA member, Jeff Gill, prior to the BZBA meeting.

Mr. Heim swore in any witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing. He explained that the meeting was not a public hearing, but was open to the public as a quasi-judicial proceeding.

New Business: Barbara Visintine, 418 West Broadway, #07-067 Village Residential District (VRD) Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

This request is for approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty percent (20%) to thirty two percent (32%) and to reduce the western side yard setback from twelve feet (12’) to two point three feet (2.3’) for an addition.

Discussion: The applicant Barbara Visintine was not present at the meeting, and was represented by Mr. John Noblick. Ms. Terry read aloud the property location and request by the applicant. Mr. Heim questioned if the applicant had any children remaining in the home. He questioned this information as the applicant stated that they need the addition due to a growing family. Mr. Noblick stated that he believed the applicant is combining two families. Mr. Heim asked if they planed to sell the property as it currently is listed with a realtor. Mr. Noblick stated that he was unsure, but believed the sale of the home depended upon whether or not they could add the addition. Mr. Heim stated that the total coverage requested would be over ½ of what it was right now. Mr. Noblick stated that the preliminary plans were larger, but the applicant opted to scale back and proposed a larger porch. Mr. Heim asked if the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Terry explained that it would go to the Planning Commission after being heard by the BZBA. Ms. Hoyt asked if the new addition would be attached to the primary structure. Mr. Noblick stated yes and went on to say that the applicant was willing to tear down the existing barn if lot coverage was an issue. Ms. Terry stated that a demolition permit would be required to remove the barn. Mr. Gill asked if the rear addition exceeded the height of the front of the home. Mr. Noblick stated no. Ms. Hoyt inquired as to the total proposed square footage. Mr. Noblick stated that they were requesting a variance because according to code, only do a 125 square foot addition could be added. Mr. Heim stated that the footprint of the addition looked to be approximately 760 sq. ft., 460 sq. ft. for the porch, and a 550 sq. ft. for the barn. Ms. Hoyt asked if the barn had been renovated. Mr. Noblick stated that the barn appeared to be in good shape; however, it cannot accommodate a vehicle. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the driveway was included as part of the square footage. Ms. Terry stated that since it is a gravel driveway and not a hard surface, it was not counted in the lot coverage. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the sidewalk would be counted since it was a hard surface. Ms. Terry agreed. Ms. Hoyt asked if there had been any comments by neighbors. Ms. Terry stated that she did have one neighbor come in to look at the plans, but that individual did not voice any concerns.

Mr. Brad Schneider, 121 N. Plum Street, stated that he had concerns over the application. He stated that the proposed addition does not fit in with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Schneider distributed a letter with his concerns which is enclosed as part of these minutes. He stated that the request is 60% over what was permitted in the current code.

Ms. Jan Packard, 123 N. Plum Street, stated that she too objected to the proposal. She stated that she was disappointed to hear that they would consider taking the barn down as this would change the view from her home. She enjoys the open space view. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Ms. Packard felt the proposed addition would devalue her property. She stated aesthetically it would. She stated that it would dwarf the two neighboring homes in terms of the lot coverage.

Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Noblick if a tree located to the north of the property would have to be removed to make room for the addition. Mr. Noblick stated yes.

Ms. Hoyt asked how the number of bedrooms. Mr. Noblick stated there are three bedrooms and that after the addition, it would be a five bedroom home.

Mr. Heim asked if there was any more discussion or did anyone have a motion to approve or disapprove the application.

Ms. Hoyt moved to disapprove application #07-067. Second by Mr. Gill.

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-067 is disapproved as submitted.

Finding of Fact Ms. Hoyt read the following Findings of Fact: 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 districts. FALSE. 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 the Ordinance. FALSE. c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. FALSE. 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. 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. FALSE.

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #07-067 are approved.

Joe and Sharon Sinsabaugh, 129 West Broadway, #07-068 Village Residential District (VRD) Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

Side yard setback variance – This request was for approval of a variance to reduce the required western side yard setback from ten feet (10’) to three feet eight inches (3’8”) for a four (4) foot extension of an existing garage.

Discussion: Ms. Terry read aloud the location of the property and request by the applicant. Mr. Noblick, who also represented the Sinsabaugh’s, stated that the previous garage was destroyed by fire and the homeowner would like to build the new garage with a four foot (4’) extension to the rear – or south side of the property. Mr. Heim asked if this would accommodate rear stairs. Mr. Noblick stated yes. Mr. Heim asked how far this structure would be from the rear property line. Ms. Terry stated eighty one feet and eight inches (81’8”). Mr. Heim noted the previous side yard setback was three feet eight inches from the neighbors on the west. Mr. Noblick explained that no changes were proposed for the west side. He stated that they needed a variance, but it is not compliant with the code as proposed. Ms. Sinsabaugh stated that she received comments in support of the building from neighbors - Doug and Connie Kramer. Ms. Terry stated that there have been no objections by any neighbors. Mr. Heim asked if there was a motion to approve or disapprove the application.

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve application #07-068. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-068 is approved as submitted.

Finding of Fact Ms. Mitchell read the following Findings of Fact: 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 districts. TRUE, THE GARAGE BURNED AND THE APPLICANTS ARE ONLY REQUESTING A FOUR (4) FOOT EXTENSION TO THE SOUTH.

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 the Ordinance. TRUE, THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE SIMILAR SETBACKS. c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. TRUE, THE ORIGINAL GARAGE BURNED. 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. TRUE. THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST HAS MORE LOT COVERAGE AND CLOSE SETBACKS AS WELL. 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.

Ms. Mitchell moved the approve the Findings of Fact. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #07-067 are approved.

Approval of the Minutes June 14, 2007

Mr. Ashbaugh asked that the application number Mr. Vetter was referring to be referenced in the minutes. Mr. Heim made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Ms. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The minutes are approved as amended.

Motion to Adjourn Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn the BZBA meeting at 8:15 pm. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh.

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

The committee met after the BZBA meeting to go over Zoning Code changes with Law Director Crites and Ms. Terry.

____________ ________ Board of Zoning Appeals Chairperson, Bill Heim Date Approved

Next Meeting October 11, 2007 Submitted by: Melanie J. Schott

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.