Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes December 18, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

December 18, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Amber Mitchell (Chair), Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: Jean Hoyt and Jeff Gill.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Gillian Jones, Dick and Barbara Lechner. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

Old Business: 

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court,  Application #08-144

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the required southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to one (1’) foot for placement of a storage shed. 

Discussion:

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court, stated that her home is located on a wooded lot that is sloped. She indicated that she has a two car detached garage on the property and she needs additional storage space for bikes, outdoor gear, boxes, etc.  Ms. Jones stated that the storage shed is currently in place on the property and requires a variance.  She stated that the company brought the unit out on July 30th of this year and she is paying a month to month rental fee for it.  Ms. Jones stated that the only good place on her property to place the storage shed is along the southern property line.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if Ms. Jones believes that this is the only flat or level spot on her property.  Ms. Jones stated yes and that this is the only place that she can reasonably place a building because her lot slopes down considerably.  Ms. Jones guessed that there may be a twenty foot drop.  She also stated that there are some ponds in the back yard area as well.  Ms. Jones stated that her side yard has a large tree and the rental company said that there was no way to get the unit past the tree.  She went on to say that if the unit were to be placed on the side of her driveway it would block access to the garage.  Ms. Jones stated that on the north side of the property there is a turn around, but it is not wide enough to accommodate the building.  She also indicated that the turn around is right on the border of her property.  Ms. Terry stated that the structure is currently one foot from the property line versus the twelve foot Code requirement.  Mr. Montgomery asked about the reference in the submitted paperwork to garage ruins.  Ms. Jones stated that the garage was rebuilt perhaps twelve to fifteen years ago – before she purchased the property.  Ms. Jones stated that her basement gets runoff water from Sugarloaf Hill and the shed is necessary to keep items that she used to store in her basement.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked Ms. Terry about the Code versus the presented Covenants.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village does not have the ability to enforce the recorded Covenants and this is considered a civil matter between property owners.  She clarified that the restrictions in the Covenants are not a part of the Village’s regulations and the Board is to review the request for approval of a variance to reduce the required southern side yard setback for placement of a storage shed.  Mr. Montgomery asked if Ms. Jones is saying the front yard is the only area on her property that is not steep and not wet.  Ms. Jones stated yes and the placement of the shed is more of a topography issue rather than a wetness issue.  

Barbara Lechner, 132 Shephardson Court, stated she bought her property from Jack Thornborough and the Covenants were a part of the lot contract.  She stated that she intended to have her house set back further with a walk out basement and because she had to abide by the Covenants she had to move the location of her home.  Ms. Lechner stated that this was a big disadvantage.  She went on to say that some of the other neighbors have had to abide by the easements that the Village has set.  Ms. Lechner stated that she was present when Ms. Jones was placing the shed on the property and she explained to Ms. Jones that the shed wouldn’t meet the setbacks for the Village and the placement definitely would not meet the Covenant requirements.  Ms. Lechner stated that Ms. Jones chose to disregard these things.  Ms. Lechner questioned if Ms. Jones does get the needed variance – does this allow her to put another shed up?  Ms. Mitchell asked if Ms. Lechner’s concerns were with the building itself or is her concern that Ms. Jones is being granted undue privilege that she, Ms. Lechner, was denied.  Ms. Lechner stated all of the above.  Ms. Lechner stated that she has been trying to sell her house for a year and she doesn’t think the location of the shed adds to her property value.  Ms. Lechner questioned why the shed can’t be located in the back yard.  Ms. Terry clarified that the purpose of this Board is to review the variance according to the lot line and they cannot enforce the Covenants.  Ms. Lechner questioned why if she has to abide by the Covenant and Code - why doesn’t Ms. Jones?  Ms. Lechner stated that Ms. Jones could put the structure on the north or south side of her driveway.  Mr. Montgomery asked Ms. Jones if she is aware of the neighbors she stated got variances granted.  Ms. Jones stated she believed Fred on the corner received a variance for his shed.  Ms. Lechner stated no – he did not receive a variance and they (Fred Porcheddu) are unable to split their property.  Ms. Lechner stated that there may have been some variances granted for some sheds on Maple Street.  Ms. Jones stated that she would like it clarified that she didn’t have “blatant disregard” regarding the structure being placed where it is.  Ms. Lechner stated that Ms. Jones did know about the restrictions and still placed the structure where it currently is located.  Mr. Montgomery asked the size of the shed.  Ms. Terry stated 10ft. x 12ft.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if a smaller shed would fit Ms. Jones needs.  Ms. Jones stated that even if it were smaller there is still no place on the property to place the shed.  Ms. Jones stated that the current placement doesn’t block the view of Sugarloaf Hill and she does not believe Ms. Lechner can view the shed from inside her home.  Ms. Lechner stated that the shed encroaches on her house.  Ms. Jones stated that there is a brush line between the two properties.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there is any place between the house and the garage or behind the house that the shed could be placed.  Ms. Jones stated no.  She stated that there is a 10 foot cement block retaining wall to the right of the garage and there is a three foot walkway leading to a wooden deck which fills the rest of the area in the back yard.  Ms. Jones stated that there is also a fence on one side of the deck.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if the unit could be placed outside of the retaining wall.  Ms. Jones stated no due to the topography.  She went on to say that she hopes that what she is paying in rent is going towards the purchase price of the building.  She stated that it is a nice, sturdy building.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Ms. Jones has investigated if the company only does whole buildings – or can they build one to suit on site.  Ms. Jones stated she did ask them this question and this is not something they do.  She stated that she has known this company for five years or so and they do not build on site.  Ms. Jones stated that the company has a fleet of buildings for rent or purchase.  Ms. Mitchell questioned why this matter is just now before the BZBA if it has been up since July 30th of this year.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village did send multiple notices, and the applicant responded at a later time.  She stated that this matter was also tabled at the November BZBA meeting.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if all temporary structures must meet setback requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes because it is a structure.  Ms. Jones clarified that she is not interested in placing any additional buildings on the property.  She stated that she understands that there are laws and some people are granted variances because there are special circumstances.  Ms. Jones stated that she would encourage the BZBA Board to take a look at her property because they will see that there is no other place to put the storage unit.  Mr. Montgomery asked Ms. Lechner if she objects to the shed because it obstructs the look of her property.  Ms. Lechner stated that she knew when she built her house that she had to adhere to these rules.  She stated that there are rules in place that need to be abided to.  Ms. Lechner stated that she thinks the storage shed detracts from the look of her home and it’s just the principle of it.  She went on to say that the truck that delivered the shed was enormous and requires a lot of room to move around.  Ms. Jones asked that it be noted for the record that the property to the north was granted a variance for height.  It was noted that this property is owned by James Housteau.  Ms. Jones stated that it is not uncommon for variances to be granted in her neighborhood.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-144: 

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 he same zoning districts.  Mr. Montgomery stated that this statement is true.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the topography is peculiar to the land.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated false because all of the properties in this area have sloped conditions or whatnot.  Ms. Mitchell stated that she agrees with Mr. Ashbaugh.     

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. Mr. Ashbaugh and Mr. Montgomery agreed that this statement was false.  Ms. Mitchell stated true because we know variances have been granted for other properties in the area.      

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was false.  Mr. Montgomery stated that it would be an undue privilege to place the building in this location when there are other areas on the property that the building could be placed.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated false.  Ms. Mitchell stated 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.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the granting of the variance affects Ms. Lechner’s view and therefore her general welfare.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated false.  Ms. Mitchell stated that she would answer true, because no one’s health, safety or welfare is affected.  She stated that she realizes that the structure is not wanted by the neighbors, but their general welfare is not affected.    

Ms. Jones stated that she can hear which way this is going.  She reiterated that any other place where she would locate the shed will obscure the front of her house.  Ms. Jones stated that topographically, she is more unique than her neighbors around her because she is set much further back.  She stated that all of the other neighbors have commented that they have no problem with the proposed location.  Ms. Jones stated that not granting the variance means that she is losing a privilege that other people in her neighborhood enjoy.  She stated that she has a neighbor who was granted a variance so they can enjoy a house they want and she sees no difference in her request.  Ms. Jones questioned criteria three (3) and why the Board answered ‘false.’  Ms. Terry stated that she believes the Board is saying that even though there are some topography issues - there are other areas where the shed can be located.  Ms. Jones stated that the topography is due to Sugarloaf Hill and this is out of her control.  She stated that she didn’t cause the circumstances or choose for her back yard to be hilly.  Ms. Jones stated that not granting the variance means that she will lose the privilege of having a shed.  Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that Ms. Jones could have the shed hand built in the back yard.  Ms. Lechner stated it is possible to have the structure built in the rear of the property.  Ms. Jones stated that she cannot afford to have that done.  

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve Application #08-144 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (no) Montgomery (no), Mitchell (no).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-144 had NO ACTION TAKEN. 

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to deny Application #08-144 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.   Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes) Montgomery (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-144 is DENIED. 

Ms. Terry indicated that there is a ten-day appeal period and any interested parties can appeal.  She stated that any appeal would go to Village Council for consideration.  Ms. Terry indicated that if Council were to uphold the BZBA decision, and someone wanted to challenge that ruling, then it could be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-144                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be inconsistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their disapproval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-144.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-144 are Approved. 

Approval of the Minutes

November 13, 2008

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve the minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The minutes are approved as presented. 

Motion to Excuse Absent BZBA Board Member

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to excuse Ms. Hoyt from the December 18, 2008 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.     

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to excuse Mr. Gill from the December 18, 2008 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.    

Approval of 2009 Meeting Dates: 

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to approve the 2009 BZBA meeting dates as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.     

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.  

Next Meeting:

January 8, 2009

BZBA Minutes November 13, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

November 13, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors: Gillian Jones and Phillip Templeton.

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

New Business: 

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court,  Application #08-144

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the required southern side yard setback for placement of a storage shed.  

Discussion:

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court, was present at the hearing.  Ms. Terry explained that there was a neighbor who wrote to the Village explaining that she was not able to attend the meeting, and requested that it be rescheduled for a time that they could offer testimony because they feel they would be directly impacted by the granting of this particular variance applied for by the applicant.  Ms. Jones stated that she typically has classes on Thursday evenings, and she made arrangements to be at this evening’s meeting.  She stated that she is also available on December 18, 2008.  Ms. Terry stated that this is not a set BZBA meeting, but they could schedule a special meeting if the other member’s of the BZBA are available.  The meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 18, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.  

Mr. Gill moved to table Application #08-144 until the tentatively scheduled December 18, 2008 special meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-144 is tabled.

Phillip A. Templeton, 405 ½ West Maple Street,  Application #08-146

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for approval of the following variances:

1)      To reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to 7,667 square feet;

2)      To reduce the minimum lot frontage from 75 feet to 0 feet;

3)      To reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 13.5 feet; and

4)      To reduce the eastern side yard setback from 12 feet to 10.4 feet. 

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry and Phillip A. Templeton. 

Discussion:

Phillip A. Templeton, 405 ½ West Maple Street, stated that he would like to purchase thirty feet of land from a neighbor to ultimately build a workshop.  Mr. Templeton explained that because of the age of his property - nothing is in conformance.  He went on to say that he also inquired on purchasing the vacated road beside him, but this hasn’t been worked out.  Mr. Templeton stated that the granting of this variance will clean up the side lot lines, as well as ingress and egress from his property.  He stated that he is asking the BZBA board to give him some conformity with his lot.  Mr. Templeton stated that the next step in this process will be to apply for a lot split and then a building permit to build the workshop.  Ms. Terry stated that this is a situation with a grandfathered non-conforming lot and once Mr. Templeton makes the proposed changes it loses its grandfathered status.  She went on to say that he can meet the setback requirements as it is now, but by adding this sliver of land it releases the grandfather status.  Mr. Montgomery clarified that Mr. Templeton is not trying to change the location of any structures and if he weren’t adding anything on the property it could stay as it currently is.  Ms. Terry stated yes and by adding on - the whole lot has to meet the Code requirements.  Mr. Montgomery asked what sort of changes will occur on the lot.  Mr. Templeton stated he would be purchasing the back thirty feet of the property towards the bike path.  Ms. Terry stated that essentially, Mr. Templeton would be taking a small lot and making it “more conforming” than it currently is.  Ms. Mitchell asked what would happen if the Board were to vote no.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would not be able to split the lot and it would remain as it currently is.  Mr. Templeton stated that he plans to build a 12’x24’ structure on the property.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he read in a narrative that there is no access onto the property except for the easements that have been provided.  He asked if the granting of this variance will fix the access issue.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked about the property that belongs to the people up front.  He asked what they are doing with the rest of the property.  Mr. Templeton stated nothing and they owned it as a buffer from a bike path.  Mr. Templeton stated that he had the option to buy the whole lot, but he chose not to.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there was a tremendous price difference.  Mr. Templeton stated yes and the appraisal came in very high.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the lot could be built on.  Ms. Terry stated that if there was an access easement it possibly could be built on as long as it met all of the Code requirements at that time.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the property is even large enough to build a structure.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that this lot split decreases the value of the seller’s property and this is to Mr. Templeton’s benefit.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that if the BZBA allows someone to sell a portion of their lot and then they come and say the lot has no value and is useless – this could create a problem.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that split is not before the BZBA today.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there is any issue of Mr. Oliverio’s lot becoming smaller.  Ms. Terry stated no that there is not a building on the land and there are no setback requirements because no structure exists there.  Mr. Templeton also clarified that he is having a survey done.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-146: 

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 he same zoning districts.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.   

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.      

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-146 contingent upon the lot split and combination as presented in attached Exhibit “A”.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-146 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-146                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application contingent upon the lot split and combination as presented in attachment Exhibit “A.”  

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-146.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-146 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

October 9, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. 

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.  

Next Meeting:

Changed from December 11, 2008 to December 18, 2008

BZBA Minutes October 9, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

October 9, 2008

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites, Rhonda Aller, and Richard Nevil.

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

New Business: 

Richard Nevil, 404 North Granger Street,  Application #08-125

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback on the north side of the property from ten feet (10’) to eight feet (8’), for construction of a second story dormer addition.  

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Richard Nevil, and Rhonda Aller. 

Discussion:

Richard Nevil, 324 East Maple Street, stated that the project includes expanding a second floor closet into a much needed bathroom.  He went on to say that he would like to add two feet on the exterior of the home.  Mr. Nevil stated that he believes that architecturally they can create a better look and he would use the same materials.  He stated that there is currently T111 plywood and they would be using wood to replace it.  Ms. Mitchell asked Ms. Terry if she has heard from any of the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.  She went on to say that the proposal is for a second story dormer addition and there is no impact on the foundation.  Mr. Gill asked if Mr. Nevil has spoken to the neighbor on the side of the proposed addition.  Ms. Aller stated that the neighbor on that side lives in Florida and the house is for sale.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the protrusion would only come out 24 inches or would it be more.  Mr. Nevil stated that it will only protrude out two feet.  Ms. Hoyt asked what year the house was built.  Ms. Aller stated that she believed the house was built somewhere around 1884.  Mr. Montgomery asked if this would be located on the left side of the home as you are facing it.  Mr. Nevil stated yes.   

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-125:

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 he same zoning districts.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated that just because they approve this particular application doesn’t mean they have to approve all requests for similar variances that are in the same zoning district.  Law Director Crites agreed that the BZBA should look at each application separately.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the home already exists in the setback and any change would require a variance.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.    

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-125 as submitted.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-125 is approved as submitted. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-125                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147 Variances and Chapter 1165 (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-125.  Second by Mr. Montgomery. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-112 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

September 11, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. 

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

November 13, 2008

BZBA Minutes September 11, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 11, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Rob Montgomery.

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites, Kevin Reiner, Bill and Carrie York, Debbie Troutman, Garret Moore, and Nancy Recchie. 

Oath of Office: Rob Montgomery was administered the Oath and Office and appointed as a member of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.

Election of a new Vice Chair:

Mr. Gill made a motion to appoint Fred Ashbaugh as Vice Chair. 

Mr. Ashbaugh accepted the nomination.  

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Fred Ashbaugh is appointed Vice Chair to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Mitchell explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

New Business: 

Jeff Darbee and Nancy Recchie, 1125 Newark-Granville Road,  Application #08-112

Open Space District (OSD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback on the west side of the property from fifty feet (50’) to fifteen feet 10 inches (15’10”) and the required rear yard setback on the north side of the property from fifty feet (50’) to twenty-one feet (21’), for a 3-season room addition. 

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Nancy Recchie, and Bill York 

Discussion:

Nancy Recchie stated that they purchased the home with plans to use it as a summer home and they hope to use it more this coming Fall and next Spring.  She explained that the building pre-dates the zoning and setback requirements and they did obtain a lot split when they acquired the property.  Ms. Recchie stated that the property is zoning Open Space District.  

Bill York, 100 Pren Tal Way, stated that they are the relevant neighbors who will be impacted by this application.  He stated that the addition will not move towards the direction of the Goldblatt’s or the Pfau’s home and it will only come closer to his property.  Mr. York stated that there were trees removed so there are no trees between the proposed porch and his property, except some trees that are located on his lot. Mr. York suggested that the applicant find a different direction to expand the porch.  He also stated that the proposed addition will double the size of the porch.  Ms. Recchie stated that it will not double in size.  Mr. York stated that something smaller could possibly be done.  Mr. York explained that the property is a sloping piece of land and the structure will appear to get taller and taller because it is further off the ground.  He went on to say that it is not a high priority area since it will be located in the back of their lot.  He also stated that he currently has a view of torn screens and ladders located in the rear of the property.   Mr. York stated that they request that the applicant change the plans and not come so close towards their property or consider painting the structure a dark brown or green with some landscaping.  Ms. Recchie stated that they do plan on doing some landscaping for shielding.  Mr. Gill asked Mr. York if his primary concern is sound or visual affects.  Mr. York answered that with Ms. Recchie and Mr. Darbee he is not worried about sound, but he also wants to consider that they may not always be the people who own the property.  Mr. York stated that they want to be good neighbors and their first choice if the structure is expanded is to have the addition across the back width rather than the length.  Ms. Recchie stated that they would like to continue the one story roof line and she stated that it is much more costly if they change the roof line – plus they would lose windows in their living room and kitchen that offer natural light throughout the home.  Ms. Recchie explained that they did have a tree fall on the property this past summer and they are in the midst of having this cleaned up.  She agreed that the loss of the tree increases exposure and their home is more visible.  Ms. Recchie added that they are certainly willing to plant evergreens, but it may take a few years for them to grow.  She added that they have no plans to sell the property.  Mr. Gill asked if a darker color and landscape screening would help.  Mr. York stated yes.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there is a reason the applicant is requesting to have the structure in the back, rather than on the side.  Ms. Recchie stated that the lighting for the interior of the home would be affected and she would prefer to not change the gable roof.  Mr. Gill stated that it sounds as though there is a developing compromise.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the newly proposed porch is the size of the existing home.  Ms. Recchie stated no that the porch is 16’x32’.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the BZBA can approve with condition that additional landscaping be put in.  Ms. Terry stated yes.   Mr. Gill asked what the ramifications would be if in one year there are no evergreens installed.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that their office would take action because it’s a violation of the permit that was issued.  Ms. Terry added that a Certificate of Occupancy is required for the structure and they would issue a temporary Certificate until the evergreen trees are planted.  Mr. York asked Ms. Recchie if there is a shade she would be willing to change the paint color to.  Ms. Recchie stated that they would probably have to do a green color since the roof is green and she stated that the body of the building would still be white.  She later stated that they could use same color as the stable doors – a green color.  Ms. Recchie stated that she would have no problem accommodating Mr. York’s request to paint the structure a dark color and add additional landscaping.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the motion to approve the application could specify that the applicant must paint the structure a dark color and install landscaping.  He added that Ms. Recchie could plant smaller trees which cost less.  Mr. York stated that dark purple is a dark color and he would hate to see this as the chosen color on the structure.  Ms. Mitchell stated that Ms. Recchie has verbally said that she would be using an existing green color already located on the stable doors.  Mr. Gill added that he would hate to specify a color in the motion because it would be hard for the Village to oversee/manage.  Assistant Law Director Crites cautioned against specifying a specific hue. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-112: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Montgomery stated he agreed because of the new zoning that was imposed after the structure was in place.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated that they did not create the situation and they are therefore asking for a variance. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated a “slightly more equivocal true” response to the statement.  Mr. Montgomery noted that there is also a garage at the corner of the lot line. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #08-112 with a qualification that the applicant agree to paint the structure a darker earth tone and for the color to be reviewed by village staff; And that appropriate plantings to include evergreens be brought to bear over the next year which will accomplish the overall purpose of screening the addition from the adjoining property. Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-112 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

Keith and Courtney McWalter, 223 East Elm Street,  Application #08-113

Village Residential District (VRD), Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the required eastern side yard setback from ten feet (10’) to nine feet (9’) for installation of a generator.  Kevin Reiner, Firmly Planted, is representing the owners of the property – Keith and Courtney McWalter.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Garret Moore, Debbie Troutman, and Kevin Reiner. 

Discussion: 

Kevin Reiner, Firmly Planted, stated that he is representing the property owners – Keith and Courtney McWalter.  He stated that the generator was originally proposed to be placed on the other side of the structure, but they decided that they would like to tuck it into the nook depicted on the drawings.  Mr. Reiner stated that the manufacturer recommends that the generator be placed three feet away from the structure.  He added that the generator will be used to keep the pipes safe.  Mr. Reiner stated that a more aesthetically pleasing fence has been approved and it will help shield the generator.  Mr. Reiner added that the property owners certainly want to accommodate the neighbors any way they can and they will also shield the generator with some boxwoods.  When asked by the Planning Commission, Mr. Reiner explained that the generator will need to run once a week for fifteen minutes and this can be pre-programmed in the system.  He also stated that there are noise buffer panels on all sides.    

Mr. Ashbaugh presented paperwork he printed off of the internet that stated the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards - NFPA – 37 – Paragraph 4.1.4.  Mr. Ashbaugh said that the information states that these generator units are supposed to be five feet away from the house.  He went on to explain that these standards normally only apply if a community adheres to NFPA standards.  Mr. Reiner stated that they are working with Clay’s Electric and their recommendation was to have it three feet away from the home and he stated that this was also the manufacturer’s recommendation.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Licking County adheres to these standards.  Ms. Terry stated that they allow generators, but she is not certain if they adhere to the NFPA recommendations.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that some people are putting their generators far away from their house.  Ms. Terry stated that she could research what the building department recommendations are.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant could choose to table the application so they can further research the information.  Mr. Reiner asked if the county standards have been implemented here in Granville.  Ms. Terry stated that all of our work goes through the Licking County Building Department.  Ms. Mitchell asked if there would be any liability on the Village if the variance is approved and the generator were to catch on fire or catch another structure on fire.  Ms. Terry stated that she is aware of no liability on the Village by approval of the variance. Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the BZBA Board can address any safety factors when reviewing the criteria.  Mr. Montgomery asked the applicant if they ever considered putting the generator behind the house.  Mr. Reiner stated that they did consider putting it to the east of the home.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if the NFPA standards take precedence over the building code.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that in some municipalities he would think the NFPA standards prevail.  Mr. Reiner agreed he would like to table the application to gather more information.

Garret Moore, 207 South Pearl Street, stated that his main concern with the generator is the noise.  He said that his bedroom is on that side of the property where the generator would be located.  He went on to say that there would not only be one generator but also two air compressors and this will undoubtedly be very loud.  Mr. Moore stated that a neighbor around the corner has a generator that cycles once a week and he hears it.  Mr. Moore went on to say that the request for generators will come before the Village more and more and he asked them to please consider the noise and safety.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked Mr. Moore if he would prefer to see the generator installed in the rear of the home.  Mr. Moore stated that he would prefer it to be located on the west side and this is probably twenty to thirty feet away from the house on the west side.

Debbie Troutman, 205 South Pearl Street, stated that her concerns are similar to what Garret Moore stated.  She stated that the back yard is quite substantial and larger than the area on the side of the home.  She went on to say that a variance would not be required if the generator were to be placed in the rear.  Ms. Troutman stated that Kevin Reiner and the McWalters have been fantastic working with the neighbors.  She stated that they have a patio outside and she feels her living quarters would be impacted by the installation of the generator on the east side.  Ms. Troutman stated that she feels it could be located elsewhere - even by the outbuilding in the far corner of the lot and this would be out there away from the neighbors.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there is any existing AC unit in this location now.  Ms. Terry stated that there was one and now there are two.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Ms. Troutman feels moving the unit would be more appropriate.  Ms. Troutman stated yes.  Mr. Montgomery asked if a variance would be required if the unit were placed in the rear.  Ms. Terry stated that if the applicant moves the generator then it wouldn’t require a variance and they could have the applicant withdraw the application.  Ms. Hoyt asked if it would be costly to rearrange the plans to place the generator elsewhere.  Mr. Reiner stated that he didn’t think so and he would like to check with the certified electrician.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the generator would have to be within thirty feet of the panel – if there is not an extension.  Ms. Terry reviewed the plans and showed the BZBA potential locations.  Mr. Montgomery asked if a variance would be required to place the generator on the west side.  Mr. Reiner stated no.  Mr. Montgomery stated that if the county does enforce the NFPA standards then the applicant may need to look at putting the unit in the back or west side of the house. 

Mr. Montgomery moved to Table Application #08-113.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-113 is Tabled. 

Finding of Fact

Application #08-112                                                                             

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1165, Open Space District, and hereby give their approval of the application. 

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-112.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-112 are Approved. 

Approval of the Minutes

August 14, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (abstain), Ashbaugh (yes), Montgomery (abstain), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The minutes are approved as presented. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM.  

Next Meeting:

October 9, 2008

BZBA Minutes August 14, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

August 14, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Amber Mitchell (Chair), Jeff Gill.

Member’s Absent: Jean Hoyt.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Law Director, Allison Crites. 

Appointment of new Vice Chair:

Ms. Mitchell agreed to take the position of Chair with the resignation of Mr. Bill Heim. 

The BZBA Board agreed to elect a Vice Chair at the next meeting since Jean Hoyt was not present. 

New Business: 

Ross Granville Market, 484 South Main Street,  Application #08-97

Suburban Residential District (SBD), Architectural Overlay Review District (AROD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the roof pitch on the addition from 8:12 to 1’ 9 13/16”:12 on the northern slope and to 1’ 10 7/16”:12 on the southern slope, to match the existing roof on the main structure. 

Ms. Mitchell swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Leta Ross, and Laura Andujar 

Discussion:

Laura Andujar, stated that they originally asked for a 3/12 roof pitch, but they later found that the existing pitch is actually 2/12.  Ms. Andujar stated that they are before the BZBA to request a change to 1’9 13/16:12 and she explained that they later realized that the original pitch of the roof was not what they thought it was.  Mr. Ashbaugh commented that the original application didn’t look like the one currently before them.  Ms. Terry stated that the current concept is the same except for a tower on one end.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the video store originally had its own entrance.   Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission required some changes to the way the plan looked.  Mr. Ashbaugh commented that the BZBA only voted on the roof pitch and not what it looks like.  Mr. Gill stated that technically they still are not voting on the way it looks, only on the roof pitch.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission asked for the applicant to keep the colonnade look.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked about there being two approvals for the same applicant.  Ms. Terry stated that this approval could state that it supersedes the previous request in roof pitch on Application #07-074.   Mr. Gill commented that he loved the look of the design but he questions why we (The Village) don’t check what the applicant states in the application regarding the actual roof pitch.  He stated that he has some concern when he reads that this application states we need to review it because of an assumption that was said to be fact the first time around.  He asked how this should be handled.  Ms. Terry stated that she believes it’s a good faith effort on the applicant’s part – verses just moving forward without appropriate approval.  Mr. Gill stated that the word “assumed” made him take a second look.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the pitch on the front colonnade roof pitch would change.  Ms. Andujar stated no – this will remain an 8/12 pitch.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-97: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.    

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-97 as presented with the former variance for reduction in roof pitch under Application #07-074 being superseded by this application.   Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-97 is approved.

Finding of Fact

Application #08-97                                                                               

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-97.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

The Findings of Fact are approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

June 13, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

The minutes are approved as submitted.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The BZBA meeting is adjourned.  

Next Meeting:

September 11, 2008

BZBA Minutes June 12, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

June 12, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present: Amber Mitchell, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: Jean Hoyt.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, Tim and Cathy Klinger, and Mr. and Mrs. Robert James Betts. 

Mr. Heim stated that he would like to change the agenda to hear Application #08-52 first.  Mr. Gill made a motion to amend the agenda and hear Application #08-52 first.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote to Amend the Agenda:  Mitchell, Gill, Ashbaugh, Heim. Motion carried 4-0. 

Description of Procedures

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  

New Business: 

Robert James Betts, 13 Sunset Hill,  Application #08-52

Suburban Residential District (SRD-A).

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from fifty feet (50’) feet to thirty-one feet (31’) for a rear deck.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Robert James Betts and Alison Terry. 

Discussion: 

Robert James Betts, 13 Sunset Hill, stated that he would like to install a rear deck that would face the woods.  Alison Terry explained that the existing home as it sits today already encroaches on the rear yard setback.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-52: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated that the house is already located within the encroachment.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve Application #08-52 as submitted.   Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 4-0.  Application #08-52 is approved as submitted. 

(Mr. Heim recused himself from discussion and voting regarding Application #08-50 and left the Council Chamber’s.) 

Tim and Cathy Klinger, 219 Summit Street,  Application #08-50

Village Residential District (VRD), Architectural Overlay Review District (AROD)

The request was for approval of a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from ten feet (10’) to three feet (3’) for a detached garage. 

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Tim Klinger and Alison Terry 

Discussion:

Tim Klinger, 219 Summit Street, explained that the topography is unusually hilly and wooded.  He stated that their architect felt that this particular location would be the most appropriate location for the proposed detached garage.  He stated that it is the least invasive location in terms of the environment.  Ms. Terry stated that she met with Mr. Klinger at the property and they looked at several options for the location of the garage – including in front of the property and to the side lot.  She stated that an embankment in the front the property would prohibit the garage’s placement because it would require a lot of retaining systems.  Ms. Terry explained that the side lot was not feasible due to the topography and the location of the gas meter.  Ms. Terry stated that this application has been approved by the Planning Commission pending approval by the BZBA.  Mr. Gill asked if there has been any word by the next door neighbor, Mr. Rittenhouse.  Ms. Terry stated that she has heard no objections to the application.  She stated that she did receive a letter from Al Packer stating that he has no objections to the application.  Mr. Klinger stated that he has had discussions with Mr. Rittenhouse and he did not indicate any problems.  He stated that Mr. Rittenhouse does plan to do some plantings to the rear of his property.  Ms. Terry asked Mr. Klinger if he was able to locate the pins.  Mr. Klinger stated that a recent survey did locate the pins.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-50: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true due to the topography.

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.  Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Gill stated that this would be a “feeble true” for him. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed that this statement is true.  Mr. Gill stated that this would be a “feeble true” statement to him because he feels that the setback encroaches closer than they like to grant variances.  He agreed that there are many variances issued in that immediate area.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-50 as submitted.   Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-50 is approved as submitted. 

(Mr. Heim re-joined the BZBA meeting at 7:25 PM) 

Approval of the Minutes

May 8, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). 

Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Findings of Fact 

Application #08-52

Mr. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-52.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes) Heim (yes). 

Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-52 are Approved.  

Application #08-50                                                                               

Ms. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-50.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). 

Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-50 are Approved.  

Excuse Absent BZBA Board Member’s

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Jean Hoyt from the June 12, 2008 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Gill, Ashbaugh, Heim.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Heim made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

July 12, 2008

BZBA Minutes May 8, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

May 8, 2008

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Amber Mitchell, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and

Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, Law Director, Mike Crites, Eric Rosenberg, Mark Clapsadle, Brian and Danielle Barclay, Greg Fracker, and Bryan Law. 

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council.  

New Business: 

Eric and Susan Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street,  Application #08-38

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B), Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the following setbacks:

Front yard setback from thirty feet (30’) to three feet (3’), the side yard setback from twelve feet (12’) to ten and one half feet (10 ½’) and the rear yard setback from forty feet (40’) to six and one half feet (6 ½’), for an attached garage and second story living space.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Eric Rosenberg and Alison Terry 

Discussion:

Mr. Rosenberg explained the project and that the existing garage is not functional.   He stated that they have received approval by the Planning Commission pending approval by the BZBA.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the only neighbor impacted by the variance would be Bob Ramsey at 399 North Pearl Street and he was present at the Planning Commission meeting consenting to the modifications.  Mr. Heim asked if the signature on the application is Mr. Rosenberg’s.  Mr. Rosenberg looked at the application and agreed that it was his signature.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the original garage will be incorporated in the project – with the new garage.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.  Ms. Terry clarified that the proposed staircase will be located within the garage and she stated that the Planning Commission commented on the roof line of the structure.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if access by the fire department has been considered.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes and that the garage will actually move two feet (2’) allowing for more access.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-38: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

Mr. Gill moved to approve Application #08-38 as submitted.   Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-38 is approved as submitted. 

Brian and Danielle Barclay, 108 Chapin Place,  Application #08-39

Suburban Residential District (SRD-A).

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from fourteen feet (14’) to nine feet (9’) along the southern property line and to reduce the rear yard setback from fifty feet (50’) to forty-four (44’) for a flagstone patio.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Danielle Barclay and Alison Terry. 

Discussion: 

Danielle Barclay stated that they are looking to reduce the setback on the south side six feet and also six feet in the rear.  Ms. Barclay stated that they wish to install a flagstone patio.  She explained that they have previously had issues with water settling in the area for the proposed patio and they hope to install some drainage to alleviate this problem.  She stated that there is a risk that water could enter the home.  Ms. Barclay stated that she has hired Colorscapes (Greg Fracker) to do the work and they are available tonight to address any questions or concerns by the BZBA.  She stated that neighbors at 109 Chapin Place (Stukus’s) have had similar drains installed and this alleviated the water problems.  Mr. Gill clarified if the BZBA can give permission regarding drains.  Ms. Terry stated no – unless it is tied into the storm sewer system.  Mr. Heim asked if these drains will enter the storm sewer system and Ms. Barclay stated no.  Mr. Heim asked who owns the property behind Ms. Barclay.  She stated Denison University owns this property.  Mr. Ashbaugh recalled an application where the BZBA could not rule due to the imperviousness of the proposed material.  Ms. Terry stated that this matter is different because the request is for a setback variance, not for lot coverage.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-39: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Ashbaugh, Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Heim voted yes.  Mr. Gill voted no and stated that he is inclined to see this statement as untrue if it is looked at as a setback issue only.

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve Application #08-39 as submitted.   Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-39 is approved as submitted 

Bryan and Christine Law, 389 Glyn Tawel Drive,  Application #08-40

Planned Unit Development District (PUD).

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from fifty feet (50’) to twenty-nine feet (29’) for a detached garage.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Bryan Law, Mark Clapsadle, and Alison Terry. 

Discussion: 

Bryan Law stated that he designed the home at 389 Glyn Tawel, but one thing he missed in the design was an appropriate laundry room.  He stated that he has looked at every option available to put a first floor laundry in the home and the proposal before the BZBA right now is the best option he has come up with.  Mr. Law stated that it would be in excess of $200,000 to do a front to back addition on the home.  He stated that homes in their development have three car garages and he feels this option is the least intrusive option.  Mr. Law stated that he intends to build the garage to look as though it has always been there.  Mr. Law stated that he has spoken with neighbors (Krajewski’s, Coleman’s, and Frayes) and has heard of no objections to his plans.  He indicated that he has not had any formal conversations with the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association because he felt this was pointless without having a variance.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village of Granville does not enforce rules of the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association and if the building of the garage were to be disputed – this would be a civil matter.  Mr. Heim asked what zoning is located behind Mr. Law.  Ms. Terry stated it is zoned Rural Residential District and is located in Granville Township.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned why Mr. Law is not putting a third bay on the side of the existing garage.  Mr. Law stated that this is mostly due to new concrete and he feels it would look as though it were added on afterwards.  Mark Clapsadle stated that he is representing the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association and he is the review architect for Bryn Du Woods.  He stated that there are three reasons why the Homeowner’s Association opposes the approval of the variance and the first reason is the style of the structure.  He stated that a second reason would be that they do not feel that a detached garage is appropriate for this style of home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the Board of Trustees and neighbors would like to maintain the view across the field where Mr. Law would like to place the garage.  Ms. Terry was asked if she received any letters in opposition to the variance.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Gill inquired if the BZBA is to consider the style of the structure in their decision.  Ms. Terry stated that they are only addressing the request for a setback variance.  Ms. Terry clarified that it is a fifty foot (50’) setback.  Mr. Law stated that there has been some discrepancy regarding the setback requirements.  He stated that his mortgage location survey indicates that there is a 40 foot (40’) setback requirement, while the Village Code states that there should be a fifty foot (50’) setback requirement.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association has been misinformed because they too believed there was a forty foot (40’) setback.  Mr. Heim questioned why the bay couldn’t be added to the existing structure considering the opposition by the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association.  Mr. Law stated that in his conversations with neighbors – they preferred to see the option he is presenting today.  He added that he would have to install a retaining wall if he adds a bay on to the existing garage.  Mr. Law stated that he plans on planting trees so you cannot see the structure.  Mr. Gill suggested that it might be appropriate for the applicant to continue dialog with the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association and request that the application be tabled.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that they are not arguing that Mr. Law did not come to the Homeowner’s Association first – although it would have been nice.  He stated that Mr. Law took the most cost effective route.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the typical length of a garage is twenty feet (20’) and the applicant is requesting twenty-four feet (24’).  Mr. Clapsadle stated that twenty-four feet (24’) is standard in Bryn Du.  Ms. Mitchell stated that she can appreciate Mr. Gill’s suggestion to continue discussion but she feel that they ought to vote on the application as presented this evening and she can understand why he didn’t go to them without first having the variance.  She stated that the BZBA should not be concerned with the discussion between the two parties.  Mr. Gill questioned if a variance is needed with either option for the location of the garage.  Ms. Terry stated yes and if a variance is granted by the BZBA it will be for the detached garage proposed by Mr. Law.  She explained that if these plans change he would need to come before the BZBA again.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he is bothered by the great opposition by the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association.  Mr. Law questioned the testimony of someone who is not adjacent to his property.  Ms. Terry explained that testimony can be given by an adjacent property owner or any interested party.  She stated that they found the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association to be an interested party – so their testimony is permissible.  Mr. Gill stated that it is his opinion that any letters of support by adjoining property owners would carry some weight in the decision making process.  Mr. Gill stated that he is not comfortable with the dialogue between the two parties and it is possible this could turn into outright litigation.  He stated that the applicant could ask for the application to be temporarily withdrawn.  Law Director Crites explained the procedure for tabling an application.  He stated that it is the applicant’s prerogative to agree or to not agree to tabling an application and the request to table would come from the applicant.   

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-40: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously voted No. 

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.  The BZBA unanimously voted No. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. The BZBA unanimously voted No. 

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.  Mr. Gill, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Ashbaugh voted yes.  Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Heim voted no.  Ms. Mitchell added that they know that a property across the street has a detached garage.  Ms. Hoyt stated that they are not sure that the detached garage is a result of a request for a setback variance.  Mr. Gill stated that to answer “no” would mean that no one in this zoning has grounds to apply for a setback 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.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement was true.  

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve Application #08-40.   Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (no), Gill (yes), Heim (no).  Motion carried 3-2.  Application #08-40 is approved.

Approval of the Minutes

April 15, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

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

Finding of Fact

Application #08-38                                                                               

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-38.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-38 are Approved.  

Application #08-39

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-39.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes) Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-39 are Approved. 

Application #08-40

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-40.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-40 are Approved.  

Motion to Adjourn

Ms. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

June 12, 2008

BZBA Minutes April 15, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

April 15, 2008

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Amber Mitchell, Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, Fred Porcheddu, Vince Engel, Susan Schlicher, Steve Schlicher, Barbara Lechner, Dick Lechner, and Richard Downs. 

Law Director Crites administered the Oath of Office to Amber Mitchell. 

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and it can be made in public or private.  Mr. Heim stated that any appeals must be filed within thirty days to Village Council. 

New Business: 

Richard Downs, 136 Shepherdson Court,  Application #08-25

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B), Architectural Overlay Review District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty (20’) feet for a rear-deck and screened porch.  The property is owned by Fred Porcheddu.  

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Alison Terry, Fred Porcheddu, Vince Engel, Susan Schlicher, Steve Schlicher, Barbara Lechner, Dick Lenchner, and Richard Downs. 

 Discussion: 

Richard Downs, 41704 Loudon Street, stated that he is the contractor for the proposed project and it does require a variance.  Mr. Downs stated that he has worked his entire career in Granville.  He stated that Mr. Porcheddu owns the lot that he would be encroaching upon and he has not heard of any objections by the neighbors regarding the plans for the improvements.  Mr. Downs stated that the current size of the home is 22 x 24 feet and it is barely usable due to being so small.   

Fred Porcheddu, 136 Shephardson Court, stated that he owns the property and has lived in the community for many years in the finest neighborhood anyone could ask for.    

Mr. Heim asked what Mr. Porcheddu hopes to gain by the proposed expansion.  Mr. Porcheddu stated that they would be doubling the size of the home by adding a kitchen and basement.  He explained that the existing porch would move to the other side of the home.  Mr. Heim asked if the Planning Commission has addressed the project.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has already made approval pending a variance by the BZBA.  Mr. Gill asked where the existing porch is located on the presented plans.  Mr. Porcheddu stated that it is currently located on the east side of the home.  He added that Mr. Downs plans to use the existing materials on this porch to build the new porch (when possible.)  Ms. Hoyt inquired if the second lot owned by Mr. Porcheddu was dividable.  Ms. Terry stated that it could be sold as a separate lot or it could be combined with the other lot.  Mr. Porcheddu stated that he has no intention to ever sell the lot in his lifetime.  Mr. Ashbaugh inquired on the existing footprint of the screened in porch.  Mr. Porcheddu clarified this in the plans and he stated that they intend to move the screened in porch approximately twenty (20’) feet.  Ms. Mitchell asked if there have been any comments by neighbors for or against the proposal.  Ms. Terry stated that she did have one neighbor come in to review the plans and she received no written comments from anyone else.  Ms. Mitchell asked how the proposed size of the home will compare with other homes in the area.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a ranch style home located next door and that most homes are generally not as small as 22x24.  Ms. Hoyt added that the way the home is now doesn’t conform with other homes in the area.  Mr. Ashbaugh clarified that the size of the existing home is comparable to a two car garage.  Mr. Heim asked if the Planning Commission had any other comments or concerns.  Ms. Terry stated that they were fine with the massing and scale and their only condition of approval was that the BZBA grant a variance for the setback.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-25: 

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.  Mr. Gill asked if the small size of the initial structure could be considered for its peculiarity.  Ms. Terry stated that she would not see why this couldn’t be considered.  Others on the BZBA agreed and there was an overwhelming response to view Criteria (a) as TRUE. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA answered that this is a TRUE statement. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA answered No. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA answered that this is a TRUE statement. 

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.  Each member of the BZBA answered that this is a TRUE statement.  

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #08-25 as submitted.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-25 is approved as submitted. 

Finding of Fact                                                                                    

Ms. Ashbaugh moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-25.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell.  Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-25 are Approved.  

Mr. Richard Downs thanked the BZBA for volunteering their time to sit on the board.  He also thanked them for arranging their schedules to hold the meeting this evening.  

Approval of the Minutes

April 10, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (abstain), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

Ms. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  Motion carried 5-0.  

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

May 8, 2008

BZBA Minutes April 10, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

April 10, 2008

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: Amber Mitchell

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, D. Michael Crites, Law Director, Ken and Patty Dickerman, Mr. and Mrs. Don Contini, Kim Clark, and Marjorie Hickey. 

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.  He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision. 

New Business:

Ken & Patty Dickerman, 321 North Pearl Street,  Application #08-26

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B), Architectural Overlay Review District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to allow a home occupation, tutoring services, to be conducted in the rear accessory structure. 

Mr. Heim swore in the following people who wished to testify:

Ken and Patty Dickerman, Alison Terry, Kim Clark, and Marjorie Hickey.  

Discussion:  Ken Dickerman, 321 North Pearl Street, explained that they would like to move his wife’s home occupation of tutoring children to the rear structure on their property.  He stated that they are applying for a temporary variance (13 Months) because they will not continue to run the business out of their home or garage after this time.  He  stated that they were running the tutoring sessions out of their home until it became too cumbersome to set up the classroom in their living room and dining room each week.  Mr. Dickerman stated that they also wished to move the tutoring sessions to the accessory structure because it could be a dander free and pet free area for some of the children who have allergies.  Mr. Dickerman stated that their tutoring/literacy program runs in two hour sessions on Monday and Tuesday afternoons and Tuesday and Thursday mornings.  He stated that the two hour sessions are from 9:30 – 11:30 or 12:30 – 2:30 and they have some walkers and some who carpool.  Mr. Dickerman stated that they purchased the home in 2001 and the garage that used to be located on the property was demolished by a Cherry tree during an ice storm.  He stated that they rebuilt the structure to be a two bay garage and expanded it back into the hillside to make a recreational room for his family.  He stated that the changes he made were already underway and approved by the BZBA prior to the ice storm.  Mr. Dickerman stated that with regards to parking they have asked each parent dropping off or picking up children to use Summit Street.  He stated that there have been occasional instances where the right of way has been blocked and they have had to cancel sessions with parents who were not in compliance with this request.  

Patty Dickerman, 321 North Pearl Street, stated that it is her ambition to improve the literacy skills of children in this area.  She stated that this business allows her to be home with her children and not put them in childcare.  She stated that she is not exactly sure why they are there because they have made every attempt at ensuring their clients do not park in the right of way.  

Mr. Gill stated that the real issue that the BZBA must address is the proposed business in the rear structure.  He questioned if the business were to remain in the primary structure (home) – if the BZBA would be hearing this.  Ms. Terry stated that this matter would not need to be heard by the BZBA if the business were to remain in the primary structure.  Mr. Gill asked if the number of students has increased since they moved the business to the rear structure and he asked if the noise levels or parking needs have also increased.  Mr. Dickerman stated no and he stated that the only employee is Patty Dickerman.  Mrs. Dickerman stated that she prefers to have no more than five students during each session.  Mr. Dickerman went on to say that there is not outside activity while the children are on the property.  Mrs. Dickerman stated that the environment is that of an educational center and this is not daycare.  Mr. Dickerman stated that if the parking is the issue and this makes or breaks him being allowed to run the business out of the rear structure – he will not let clients use the driveway and they can use on-street parking.  

Ms. Hoyt asked if the parking issue would be the same if the business were to be located back in the primary structure.  Mrs. Dickerman stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if being denied access to the rear right of way and only utilizing the front driveway would hurt the business.  Mr. Dickerman stated that the busy times of day on North Pearl Street tend to be during school drop off and pickup and it can be difficult to back up on North Pearl Street during these times.  He went on to say that he can fit three cars in his driveway, but two fit more comfortably.  Mr. Dickerman stated that his neighbor to the north has allowed them to use their driveway, but they do not want to do this any longer.  

Ms. Hoyt remarked that the matter before them is for a temporary permit and she questioned if the applicant will continue to run the business out of the primary structure after the thirteen (13) month time span.  Mr. Dickerman stated they will not run the business out of their home because his wife will be completed with her graduate degree and will either look for a full-time position or run the tutoring sessions elsewhere in the Village.  Mrs. Dickerman also stated that they have looked at running the business elsewhere, but at this time it is not financially feasible.  Ms. Hoyt asked what guarantee there might be for the neighbors that they wouldn’t be back before the BZBA requesting another variance.  Mr. Dickerman stated that he would guess the variance would be voided after thirteen (13) months.  Mrs. Dickerman stated that it is her preference to be employed by a school district, rather than self-employed after the thirteen (13) month time frame.  

Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if parking in the driveway would be considered “stacked parking.”  He stated that he recalled an application for a home on Broadway and North Pearl Street where they did not permit stacked parking.  He questioned if the driveway itself can be considered for parking.  Ms. Terry stated she would need to further research this.  

Mr. Heim explained that the matter before the BZBA is to decide if the home business is permissible in the rear structure and this is ancillary to the parking situation.  He stated that he is aware of letters sent by neighbors regarding the parking situation and Officer Dixon (of the Granville Police Department) has tried to remedy this.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the parking issues will remain the same whether the business is located in the primary structure or the accessory structure. 

Kim Clark, Old Farm Road, stated that she has lived in Granville for three years and she has three children – one who is tutored by Patty Dickerman.  Mrs. Clark stated that Mrs. Dickerman is able to provide a service that no one else in the area is able to provide and she believes she is a very good teacher.  Mrs. Clark also stated that she sees it as a great value to have the educational environment located outside of the home in the rear structure.

Marjorie Hickey, 211 South Main Street, stated that she has lived in Granville for eighteen years and she and her husband previously owned the Village Baker shop.  Mrs. Hickey stated that her six year old son attends Mrs. Dickerman’s program and he is has allergies so it has been very beneficial for her to send him to class in the rear structure.  

(Mr. Heim swore in Don Contini at this time.)  

Don Contini, 315 North Pearl Street, stated that he is affected by the actions of the applicant because he is the neighbor who is getting blocked in.  He stated that he has not complained of the business being located in the home before because no one was using the right of way for parking.  Mr. Contini stated that he purchased his home on North Pearl Street nineteen (19) years ago and he didn’t think he would have a school located in his backyard.  Mr. Heim questioned if Mr. Contini was stating that he is bothered by the noise and the cars.  Mr. Contini stated yes.  

Ms. Hoyt questioned if the BZBA had the authority to approve the variance with the condition that the right of way behind the home not be utilized.  Ms. Terry stated that they can certainly approve the variance with or without conditions.  Ms. Hoyt asked Mr. Contini if he would be in agreement to the applicant keeping the business in the rear of the structure if the right of way were not used.  Mr. Contini stated that he would still appeal the decision because of the noise and the fact that he lives in a residential area and that he does not believe it is appropriate to run a school in this zoning district.  He stated that he is very concerned that if a school is approved – what would be next?  Mr. Heim thanked Mr. Contini for his comments and he stated that the BZBA board received his letters.  Mr. Contini stated that he wished to make a few more comments.  He stated that the applicant is selling them a story when they say that they have to tear down the classroom in their living room and dining room each week and this isn’t so.  They have a separate TV room that was used previously when the Home Occupation was conducted out of the front structure.  He stated that clients could back out onto Pearl Street and practically everyone who lives on Pearl Street has to back out.  Mr. Contini stated that there were not any issues prior to the applicant using the rear structure and he believes “it is just plain stubbornness on the Dickerman’s part to have people start parking there.”  Mr. Contini stated that ever since the family moved in he has helped them in many cases and they have taken advantage of the situation.  Mr. Contini stated that if they had not asked for the variance, the BZBA would not be hearing from him.  He stated that he has no problems with Mr. and Mrs. Dickerman’s children or her teaching other children how to read – but “not at his inconvenience so they can convenience themselves.”  Mr. Contini stated that he used to sit on this board and he is aware that this is not permissible by Village Code.  Mrs. Dickerman stated that no one is standing around on Mr. Contini’s property and they are always located on her property when arriving or exiting.  She stated that Mr. Contini’s car is not being blocked in and she questions if he is offended because of the crossing of the right of way or the use of their property to back up.  Mr. Contini stated that clients are in the right of way and the right of way is to be left free and them being there affects his ability to back out.    

Mr. Gill questioned how to proceed from this point forward.  Law Director Crites stated that the Board must go by the criteria presented by Ms. Terry that is part of the Code.  He stated that the BZBA is required to look at each request for a variance based on these factors (criteria.)  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #08-26: 

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.  Each member of the BZBA stated that they did not see any special circumstances.  No.

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.  Each member of the BZBA answered No. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA answered No. 

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.  Mr. Gill questioned if the proposed time frame by the applicant puts this in a gray area.  Each member of the BZBA stated that it did not put this in a gray area and each member answered no to any undue privilege. 

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.  Mr. Heim stated that he believes the general welfare may be affected.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she does think it would affect the general welfare.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that statement (e) is false.  Mr. Gill stated he would answer a “light no” to statement (e).  

Mr. Gill stated that with some regret he moves to deny Application #08-26.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #08-26 is denied. 

Finding of Fact                                                                                    

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-26.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-26 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

March 6, 2008

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to excuse a Member’s Absence:

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Amber Mitchell from the BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

Other Business:

The applicant, Mr. Dickerman, inquired on the appeal process.  Ms. Terry explained that a letter would be sent to him explaining that he has ten (10) days to appeal the ruling by the BZBA.  She stated that the appeal process would go before Village Council.  Mrs. Dickerman asked if she would be unable to teach from her garage (rear structure) until the appeal process has gone through.  Ms. Terry stated that they would not be able to use the rear structure for the purpose of teaching or a school.  Mr. Gill stated that the BZBA is bound to rule according to the Code.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Heim.  Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.  

Next Meeting:

April 15, 2008

May 8, 2008

BZBA Minutes March 6, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

March 6, 2008 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: Amber Mitchell.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, Michael Crites, Law Director, Stephen Fowler.

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding. 

Mr. Crites gave the Oath of Office to and swore in Fred Ashbaugh and Jeff Gill.  

New Business: 

Stephen Fowler, 128 Cherry Street,  #08-06

Village Residential District (VRD) regulations.

The request is for approval of a variance to decrease the minimum side yard setback for the northern property line from ten (10) feet to six foot one inch (6’ 1”) and to increase the lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to sixty-nine point ninety-eight (69.98%) percent for a rear addition.  The property currently has a total lot coverage of sixty-eight point fifty-three (68.53%) percent and the existing rear addition sets back four foot one inch (4’1”) from the northern property line. 

Mr. Heim indicated that Fred Ashbaugh would be recusing himself from discussion of this application.  Mr. Ashbaugh then left his position as a BZBA member and sat in the audience.

Mr. Heim swore in those who planned to testify: Alison Terry and Stephen Fowler.

Discussion: Mr. Fowler explained that the Planning Commission had already reviewed and approved the architectural plans to the home, contingent upon the Board of Zoning& Building Appeals approval.  He went on to explain that the modifications he was proposing resulted in an additional forty-six (46) square feet of lot coverage.

Mr. Heim asked if there was any resolution with the encroachment of the garage on the neighbor’s property.  Mr. Fowler explained that he wasn’t planning any modifications to the garage at this point in time and that he hadn’t submitted anything with this application.  Mr. Heim asked if Mr. Fowler had heard anything from his neighbors regarding the requested variance.  Mr. Fowler indicated that he sent a letter to all of his neighbors explaining his request and that he had spoken with them as well. 

Mr. Heim reviewed the Criteria for Approval of the variance as follows:

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.  No.

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.  Yes.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of   the applicant.  Yes.

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.   Yes.

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.  Yes. 

Mr. Gill made a motion to “Approve the variances as requested in application #08-06.”  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #08-06 is approved as presented.                                                                                                             

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-06.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #08-06 are approved.  

Mr. Ashbaugh left the audience and rejoined the Board meeting. 

Approval of the Minutes

January 10, 2008 

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh  

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.   

Motion to excuse Amber Mitchell

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Amber Mitchell’s absence.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 4-0Ms. Mitchell’s absence is excused. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Heim made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.  

Next Meeting April 10, 2008

BZBA Minutes January 10, 2008

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

January 10, 2008 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Amber Mitchell, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner,  Allison Crites, Assistant Law Director, James Housteau and Herach Nazarlan. 

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding. 

Mr. Heim moved to hear Item #3 Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson after ‘New Business.’  

New Business: 

James Housteau & Dawn Vujevic, 124 Shephardson Court,  #07-103

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) regulations.

The request is for approval of a variance to increase the maximum height from thirty feet (30’) to thirty-six (36’) for a new single family home.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  

Mr. Heim swore in those who planned to testify: Alison Terry, James Housteau, and Herach Nazarlan. 

Discussion: Ms. Terry stated that the lot has a slope to the South with an eleven foot (11’) drop.  She explained that the Code states that the height of the home from each frontal corner should not exceed thirty feet (30’).  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is proposing that the average height of the home be thirty-three point four (33.4’).  She stated that when viewing the home from the front on Shephardson Court the height at the left corner would be thirty feet (30’), while the right corner height would be approximately thirty-six feet (36’) due to the first floor of the home.  

James Housteau stated that he is the owner of the property.  He stated that the description given by Ms. Terry is accurate and the variance is requested due to the nature of the lot.  Mr. Housteau stated that his concern with bringing in dirt is that from the street there is already a three to four foot difference in elevation.  He stated that the overall presence of the home would be more ominous if they brought dirt in.  Mr. Housteau stated that they were originally looking at a different style of home to put on the lot, but ultimately went with the gothic style because they felt it fit better with the lot size.  

Mr. Heim questioned if there would be three walls in the basement with windows.  Mr. Housteau stated that the drawings in front of the Board are not accurate as far as window placement.  He stated that when he became aware that a variance was needed, he halted all drawings to focus on the getting the variance first.  Mr. Heim suggested that the front rock siding may look more pleasing broken up with windows and not be so monotonous.    Mr. Housteau stated that he has not seen any incidences of gothic style homes having windows in this particular location, but he realizes this is subjective.  He stated that personally he does not see the continuation of rock as monotonous.  Mr. Housteau stated that they will be putting in a basement walk out which is not depicted in the drawings yet.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he believed the building code would require this.  Ms. Terry stated that the Building Code Department, as well as the Planning Commission, will be reviewing the application.     

Ms. Hoyt questioned if the proposed 6/12 roof pitch for he garage was acceptable in the code.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code only calls for an 8/12 roof pitch for the Commercial district, and not the Residential District.  

Mr. Gill made a motion to Approve Application #07-084 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #07-084 is approved as presented. 

Finding of Fact

Mr. Heim 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.  Yes, due to the slope of the lot.  

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.  Yes.

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  Yes, they cannot control the slope of the land..

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.  Yes.

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.  Yes.                                                                                                             

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-103.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #07-103 are approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

December 13, 2007 

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt  

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

Election of Chair and Vice Chair

Mr. Gill made a motion to have Bill Heim continue as the BZBA Chair.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (abstain).  Motion carried 4-0.  Mr. Heim is elected as the Chair. 

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion for Amber Mitchell to be the Vice Chairperson.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  

Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0Ms. Mitchell is elected Vice Chairperson. 

Approval of the 2008 Hearing Schedule

Mr. Gill stated that he would suggest changing the hearing scheduled for February 14th to a different date since it may be difficult for some people to attend.  He stated that February 14th fell on a four day weekend for the School District and that he had a Boy Scout trip and wouldn’t be able to attend either.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell.  There were no objections to making the proposed change.  Ms. Terry suggested holding the meeting on February 21st.     

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The hearing schedule is approved as amended above. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:45pm.  

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

Next Meeting February 21, 2008

 

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.