Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
August 13, 2009
Members Present: Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, and Rob Montgomery.
Member’s Absent: Bradley Smith.
Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.
Visitors: Julie Smith and Nick Schott.
Description of Procedure:
Mrs. Terry gave a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:
Note: The items listed on this agenda under Old Business and New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:
(1) The applicant;
(2) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the
applicant or appellant;
(3) The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject
of the application; and
(4) Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or
property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.
A person authorized to appear and be heard may:
(1) Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
(2) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position,
arguments and contentions;
(3) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and
(4) Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to
his or her position, arguments and contentions;
(5) Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not
been admitted by the Board.
Julie Smith, 332 West Elm Street, Application #09-75 (Previously Tabled)
Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)
The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10') feet to seven feet eight inches (7'8") feet, to allow for the construction of a Porte cochere.
Mr. Gill made a motion to remove Application #09-75 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #09-75 is removed from the Table.
(Alison Terry, Julie Smith, and Frank O’Brien-Bernini were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)
Ms. Terry asked that it be clarified for the record that the Agenda lists the wrong application number for Application #09-75.
Julie Smith, 332 West Elm Street, stated that the board has seen the plans and tabled the application due to the exact location of the sewer line. Ms. Smith stated that since tabling the application she took a look at the retaining wall made from railroad ties and it is in need of replacement. She indicated that by replacing the retaining wall, it should allow better access to the sewer line if it ever needs to be replaced. Ms. Smith stated that only a small portion of the wall would have to be removed, rather than the entire wall. She stated that they have moved the pillars a foot or two to allow better access to the sewer line and this was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gill clarified that the neighbor that raised the issue that resulted in the BZBA tabling the application indicated that his sewer line is in the center of Ms. Smith’s driveway. He stated that the neighbor wanted to ensure that the line could be dug out and equipment could get through to do any repairs that might be needed. Ms. Smith stated that should a repair need to be done she does not believe she would want heavy equipment back there compromising the retaining wall and most likely any digging would have to be done by hand. Ms. Terry showed the drawing with the modifications to the pillars that was given to the Planning Commission with the review of the Porte cochere. She also stated that she spoke with Erik Holmquist at the Sewer Plant and he said he understands that there may be a sewer line and it is a private line off of the main line. Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Holmquist indicated that it would be up to the homeowner to handle any and all costs of a sewer line repair for that private line. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if someone could come back to say that the Village made the property owner incur this expense. Ms. Terry stated that she also had a conversation with the Village Manager, Don Holycross, and he stated no.
Frank O’Brien-Bernini, 338 West Elm Street, stated that he has talked with Brad and Julie Smith and they have a good mechanism in place for relieving any concerns he previously had. He stated that the applicant has indicated that they will do everything possible to avoid hitting the sewer line and he has also made sure that the contractor has liability insurance if he were to hit it. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini also stated that the water run off concern he previously had was also addressed by the Smiths.
The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-75:
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 agreed TRUE.
b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:
(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.
(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.
(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.
(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.
(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.
(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.
(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.
c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.
d. 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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. Mr. Gill noted that anytime the BZBA approves a variance up to the property line you can start to impact the delivery of services and make it difficult to move freely between various structures. Ms. Terry indicated that this particular variance for Application #09-75 is not on the property line.
e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.
Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #09-75 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-75: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #09-75 is Approved.
Nick Schott, 664 West Broadway, Application #09-104, Conditional Use
Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C)
The request is for approval of a Conditional Use for a Lodging Home.
(Alison Terry and Nick Schott were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)
Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that he is requesting a Conditional Use for a Lodging/Guest Home for property he owns at 664 West Broadway. Mr. Schott stated that prior to owning this home it has been a rental for fifteen plus years. He indicated that the Code lists a Lodging home as being a permissible conditional use for the SRD-C zoning district if approved by the BZBA. He went on to say that he reviewed the criteria and feels he meets all of the requirements. Mr. Schott stated that the proposed use of the property would have a positive effect on the school population. He stated that he can view this property from his back door residence and it is within his best interest to make sure there is a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Schott indicated that he has improved the look of the home and he sees no impact on the infrastructure or increased burden to roadway, water, and sewer systems. Mr. Schott stated that his target audience of renters include business travelers and individuals needing short term furnished rentals.
Mr. Gill asked if the conditional use is required for anything less than a 12 month rental agreement. Ms. Terry stated that the unit could be rented month to month, but not shorter. Ms. Terry read aloud the definition of a Lodging House in the Code.
Mr. Montgomery questioned if the applicant could have multiple family arrangements with this conditional use. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would only be permitted to rent the entire unit and not individual rooms. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if a bed and breakfast falls under this category. Ms. Terry stated no because a bed and breakfast is a home occupation and you are required to live there as well. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the duration of the rental can be as short as one wants. Ms. Terry indicated that it could be rented by the night, multiple days, or by the week. Ms. Hoyt asked if there are any other properties in the Village with this designation. Ms. Terry stated that she does not know of any. Ms. Hoyt stated that this is an interesting concept for Granville. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that there is another home he is aware of across from the funeral home that used to be designated as a lodging house. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the conditional use survives the sale of the property. Ms. Terry stated that if the property were to sell the permit shall automatically go with the sale of the property and it would expire if the conditional use is not commenced within two years. She stated that the permit can also expire if the use is discontinued for more than two years. Mr. Montgomery questioned if there have been any concerns by the neighbors. Mr. Schott stated that he has been in contact with most of the neighbors and he explained that they were going to be invited to attend this hearing if they did have concerns. He also indicated that one neighbor stated that they didn’t see how the change would impact them any differently than it is now. Ms. Hoyt stated that most likely the neighbors are delighted that you are improving the property.
The BZBA discussed that the need for the conditional use is because the applicant wants to rent the structure for a shorter duration of time other than a monthly rental (which does not require BZBA approval.). Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the home could be rented daily or weekly with this designation. He asked Ms. Terry if she received any comments or concerns by any neighbors. Ms. Terry stated no.
The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-104:
(a) The proposed use is a Conditional Use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The BZBA stated TRUE.
(b) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with the existing land use. The BZBA stated TRUE. Ms. Terry and Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that differentiates the property and it is shown as future residential.
(c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. The BZBA stated TRUE.
(d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. The BZBA stated TRUE.
Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #09-104 as submitted. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #09-104 is approved as submitted.
Finding of Fact
The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-75. Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 4-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #09-75 are Approved.
The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Conditional Uses, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-104. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 4-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #09-104 are approved.
Approval of the Minutes
July 9, 2009
Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes). Motion carried 4-0. The minutes are approved as presented.
Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:
Mr. Montgomery made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith from the BZBA meeting on August 13, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Gill.
Motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.
September 10, 2009 (Mr. Montgomery indicated that he is unable to attend this meeting.)