Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes October 8, 2009

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

October 8, 2009

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: Bradley Smith.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: David Schnaidt and James & Emily Browder. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry gave a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under 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 contentions;

(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. 

Mr. Ashbaugh excused himself at 7:05 PM from discussion and voting on Application #09-132 (James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street) because he is a contiguous property owner.  Mr. Ashbaugh was seated in the audience during the discussion and voting of Application #09-132. 

New Business:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street,  Application #09-132

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

The request submitted by James Browder for the property located at 122 North Pearl Street is for approval of a variance to reduce the northern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to two and a half (2 ½') feet to allow for the installation of an air conditioning unit. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and James and Emily Browder were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that he would like to place an air conditioning unit on the north side of his yard.  He stated that he is also seeking the appropriate approval from the Planning Commission.  He stated that this is the best location to place the unit because of where it has to be wired to the basement.  Mr. Gill questioned if the actual setback is seven foot.  Mr. Browder stated yes.  Mr. Browder explained that he chose this location because he wanted to avoid the existing water lines, chimney, and the crawl space.  Mr. Montgomery asked how close the air conditioning unit will be to the house.  Mr. Browder stated one foot.  Mr. Gill asked if there have been any comments from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Browder indicated that the neighbor on north side has been ill and may not be aware of his application, but that she also has an air conditioning unit on the same side of her house facing his house.  Ms. Terry indicated that this neighbor was sent a notice regarding the application.  Mr. Montgomery asked what part of the neighbor’s home will the air conditioning unit be facing.  Emily Browder, 121 North Pearl Street, indicated that the unit will be closest to the neighbor’s living room.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the applicant had any specifications on this particular type of model regarding the noise level.  Mr. Browder indicated that the unit does say it is a low noise model, but he can’t say for sure if it really is.  Mrs. Browder indicated that they are expecting their neighbor to return this week and they will have a conversation with her to see if she has any objections to the location of the air conditioning unit.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-132: 

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 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 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.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the applicant has indicated that it would be difficult to place the unit elsewhere due to the location of the wiring to the basement. 

(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.  

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 #09-132 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-132: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #09-132 is Approved. 

(Mr. Ashbaugh re-joined the BZBA meeting as the Chair of the hearing at 7:20 PM.) 

David and Rebecca Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street,  Application #09-138

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

The request submitted by David and Rebecca Schnaidt is for approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to a half (1/2’) foot to allow for the installation of a pergola and flagstone patio. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and David Schnaidt were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, explained what a pergola is and  where the existing garden  is located.  Mr. Schnaidt indicated that they would like to add a pergola and flagstone to the garden area and it will overlook a fire pit and outdoor waterfall area.  The house to the east was originally built too close to the property line and the owner’s, The Stover’s, had to sell some of the Schnaidt’s property to the neighbor so that they could have access to their house & side yard.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that his neighbor’s to the east, Christian and Stephanie Kuntz, have told him that they do not have any issues regarding his plans and the improvements provide for a better view from their kitchen or their front yard.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he would like to make the yard area more attractive.  He also stated that the improvements will not change access to/from the stairs and they are not coming over any further than it currently is.  Mr. Gill asked Ms. Terry if the applicant would need a variance if they were only doing the flagstone patio.  Ms. Terry stated yes because a variance is needed for anything built that is attached to the ground.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it will still be a semi-permeable structure.  He stated that the proposed lattice will be used for screening.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Planning Commission has approved Mr. Schnaidt's application contingent upon him getting a variance from the BZBA.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the flagstone will be 13x13.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the whole patio area will be 13x13 and the existing railroad tie wall will be replaced with stone at the existing height and restacked to look uniform.  Mr. Schnaidt indicated that the pergola will be smaller than 13x13.  Mr. Montgomery asked the approximate height of the pergola.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it will be approximately nine (9’) foot tall.  Mr. Montgomery asked where the stacked stone is in relation to the steps.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it will be in line with the handrail of the steps and the stacked stone wall will be at the same height it is now with the two railroad ties.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there will be steps up to the pergola.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned why Mr. Schnaidt didn’t consider lowering everything.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that they feel it would be more appealing to have a variety of heights because it allows them to view the waterfall area if the pergola is elevated.   

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-138: 

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.  Mr. Ashbaugh, Mr. Montgomery, and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill indicated that he believes this criteria is FALSE in this situation. 

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. 

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. Montgomery made a motion to approve Application #09-138 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-138: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #09-138 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact 

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street,  Application #09-132

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 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 #09-132.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (abstain).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #09-132 are Approved.  

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street,  Application #09-138

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 District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Montgomery moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-138.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #09-138 are Approved. 

Approval of the Minutes 

September 10, 2009

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (abstain).  Motion carried 3-0.  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 October 8, 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to Adjourn

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

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM.  

Next Meeting:

November 12, 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.