Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes June 11, 2009

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

June 11, 2009

7:00 p.m.


Members Present:  Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, and Fred Ashbaugh.

Member’s Absent: Rob Montgomery and Bradley Smith.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Lauren Andrew-Fisher and Josh Fisher. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry 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.  He stated that any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.    

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizens’ Comments. 

New Business:

James Browder, 332 East College Street,  Application #09-60

Mr. Gill made a motion to Table Application #09-60 that was on the June 11, 2009 Agenda.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Table Application #09-60:  Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

Ms. Terry noted that Mr. Ashbaugh would not be able to vote on the application because he is an adjacent property owner and there would not be a quorum to hear the application.  

Lauren Andrew Fisher, 332 East College Street,  Application #09-65

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

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to four (4’) feet, to allow for the installation of an air conditioning unit. 

Lauren Andrew Fisher, 332 East College Street, stated that the Planning Commission did review this application and it was approved with the condition that she receive BZBA approval and that she screen the air-conditioning unit with evergreen plant material.  Mrs. Fisher indicated that they have spoken with the neighbors on the side affected by the placement of the air-conditioning unit and they had no issues.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked why the unit is being placed where it is, rather than in the rear of the property.  Mrs. Fisher stated that the HVAC installer felt the proposed location was the best option.  She went on to explain that it would cause more difficulty to run the lines through the foundation of the home and crawl space and they are able to utilize an old window for placement of the cooling lines if installed on the side of the home.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that it doesn’t take much effort to run lines if there is access to a crawl space.  Mrs. Fisher stated that if they installed the unit in the rear of the home it would also interfere with their garden.  She went on to say that if the unit is on the side of the home it is hidden from neighbors and pedestrians and they felt it was just a nicer fit on the side.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the proposed location prohibits lawnmowers or cars from getting through if need be.  Mrs. Fisher stated that fortunately the neighbors have been kind enough to allow access using their driveway to get the rear of the property, if the need should arise.  Mrs. Fisher stated that there is also adequate space on the other side of the home to get to the rear of the property.  She also stated that there is a large lilac bush that is in the area where they would like to place the air-conditioning unit and this would also block any access to the rear of the property. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-65: 

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 this statement is false.  

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 this statement is false.  

(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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is false.   

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is false.  

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true. 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  TheBZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is  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 agreed that this statement is true. 

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.   

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #09-65 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #09-65 is approved as submitted. 

Finding of Fact

Application #09-65                                                                               

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 #09-65.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

The Findings of Fact for Application #09-65 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

May 14, 2009

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Excuse Absent BZBA Member’s

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Smith for the June 11, 2009 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Motion to Adjourn

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 

Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

July 9, 2009

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.