Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes September 10, 2009

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 10, 2009

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: Rob Montgomery.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Michael and Brenda Carey, Steven Gaubert, Mark Clapsadle, Dale and Barbara McCoy, Joe Hickman, and Andy Ross. 

Description of Procedure:

Village Planner 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 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. 

New Business:

Ross Granville Market/Andy Ross, 484 South Main Street, Application #09-113

Suburban Business District (SBD)

The request is for approval of the following variances:

  • The request is for approval of a variance to increase the maximum square footage from 30,186 square feet to 31,386 square feet for a single use;
  • To reduce the minimum height of a commercial structure from two story to one story; and
  • To reduce the minimum required roof pitch.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Andy Ross were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Andy Ross, Granville Corporation, 484 South Main Street, stated that they would like to add a storage building to the rear of the property and they are also requesting permission to take over the use of the entire building located at 484 South Main Street.  Ms. Terry stated that the variance request is being heard because a single tenant can’t exceed 4000 square feet in this zoning district.  She stated that the video store and storage building as a single use in its entirety is approximately 31,386 square feet.  She went on to say that the single use square footage was increased before, but an additional variance is still required.  Ms. Terry also stated that the Suburban Business District also has a requirement that states only two story buildings are permitted and the applicant is presenting a building that is not a true two story building.  She stated that the Code states that the required roof pitch should be 8/12 and the applicant is proposing a 4/12 roof pitch.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is also going to the Planning Commission on Monday for architectural review and approval.  Mr. Gill clarified that the previous variance was just for the front addition.  Ms. Terry stated yes.   Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the new building will be used to help clean-up items in the rear of the property.  Mr. Ross stated that they will also keep a company vehicle in the new structure.  Ms. Hoyt asked the applicant to point out the location of the storage building on a drawing.  Ms. Terry explained that the remainder of the building is grandfathered, for height of the structure and pitch of the roof, because it was in place before the Code regulations.  Mr. Gill questioned if there would be any retail done in the new structure or is it just for storage.  Mr. Ross stated no it will only be used for storage.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-113: 

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.  Mr. Smith stated that the variance is not substantial. Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the variance was 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.  Mr. Gill, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated that he did not feel this criteria could be determined. 

(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. 

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 #09-113 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-113: Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #09-113 is Approved. 

Elizabeth and Steven Gaubert/Mark Clapsadle, 317 East Maple Street,  Application #09-116

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30') feet to sixteen (16') feet to allow for the construction of a new single story addition.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Steven Gaubert, and Mark Clapsadle were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh) 

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, stated that he was representing the applicant’s Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert, on an addition for the front elevation of their home.  He stated that all of the homes on the street already sit well over the front setback line and the applicant is requesting the official variance to allow for the addition.  Ms. Terry explained that on this street the north side is zoned Village Residential District and the south side is zoned Suburban Residential District.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Clapsadle if he feels the proposed location is the only logical location for this addition.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes and one reason is to make the bathroom closer to the existing bedroom.  Ms. Hoyt asked the existing locations of the bathrooms and Mr. Clapsadle showed her their locations on the submitted drawings.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that one now must walk through a living room, foyer, and a hallway to get to the bathroom.  Mr. Smith asked if this home is on the historical registry.  Mr. Clapsadle stated he would highly doubt it, that there is no true style to the home and it’s already been added onto various times.  Mr. Smith asked if there have been any comments by the neighbors on this request.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the addition will impede any access to the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated no and it will only affect some of the grass area.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked why the addition didn’t go around the corner of the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that structurally it would not work due to the roof pitch currently on the home.  He stated that putting the addition on the side of the home would also not be cost effective.  Mr. Gill asked if the only way that the applicant could add on to the home without a variance would be to the dining room/living room. Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the Planning Commission will be determining if the presented architecture is appropriate and the BZBA is simply approving the placement of the structure.      

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-116: 

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.  Mr. Smith stated that in the context of the neighborhood and the condition of the current structure he does not believe the variance is 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.  

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. Smith made a motion to approve Application #09-116 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-116: Hoyt (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #09-116- is Approved.

Michael and Brenda Carey, 332 North Granger Street,  Application #09-21 (AMENDED)

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

The request is for approval of the following variances, Option 1, to allow for the construction of a one story detached garage:

  • To reduce the minimum side yard setback from twelve feet to two and a half feet along the northern property line;
  • To increase the maximum building lot coverage from 20% to 24.6%; and
  • To increase the maximum size of an accessory structure from 864 square feet to 1,140 square feet; and
  • To reduce the minimum driveway setback for a side yard from five feet to 2.5 feet along the northern property line. 

The request is for approval of the following variances, Option 2, to allow for the construction of a one and half story detached garage:

  • To reduce the minimum side yard setback from twelve feet to two and half feet along the southern property line;
  • To increase the maximum building lot coverage from 30% to 20.6%; and
  • To reduce the minimum driveway setback for a side yard from five feet to 2.5 feet along the northern property line; and
  • To reduce the minimum driveway setback for a rear yard from ten feet to seven feet along the eastern property line.  

Discussion:

Alison Terry and Michael Carey were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, stated that he was previously before the Planning Commission and they requested that he go back to the BZBA for approval of a variance to locate his garage in a different area on the property.  Ms. Terry explained that the application has been presented by Mr. Carey with two different options.  She stated that the BZBA can review the criteria for both options or choose one option and go through the criteria on just that option.  She also explained that there was a variance that was granted several months ago for a one and a half story structure and after this approval the applicant came to the Planning Commission and there was a lot of discussion with the neighbors on the structure and as a result the Planning Commission asked the applicant to amend the location of the structure.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Manager chose to amend the original application to override the previous decision by the BZBA for reconsideration.  Mr. Carey stated that out of the two options he is presenting he prefers Option 1 because it blends into the neighborhood better and his neighbors seem to like and support it.  Mr. Carey explained that he is also presenting Option 2 as a backup plan because he fears that there is some question as to whether or not the Planning Commission will approve Option 1.  He stated that the one story type garage has not yet been presented to the Planning Commission and at this time he does not know how they will feel about the change from the one and a half story that they previously supported. 

Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Carey’s application will be before the Planning Commission on Monday, September 14th.  Mr. Carey stated that he would like to request that the BZBA not put a one story restriction on the approval for a variance in case the Planning Commission feels that a story and a half structure look is preferred.  Mr. Smith stated that it appears Mr. Carey has been before the boards several times and he hopes Mr. Carey hasn’t soured on moving to Granville.  Mr. Smith stated that the BZBA approved the variance before and it was to increase the footprint of the existing garage.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant previously requested placing the new garage in the same location as the old garage, but making the footprint bigger.  She stated that with this proposal, the garage would be placed further back in the rear yard - to the fifteen foot setback.  Mr. Smith questioned what is the purpose of Option 2 if Option 1 is liked by the neighbors. Mr. Gill asked what were the Planning Commission’s concerns.  Ms. Terry stated that they were concerned about building height, massing, and they asked that the structure be placed further back on the property and still keep it a story and a half.  Mr. Carey stated that at first when the Planning Commission suggested this he was unsure because it would take up more yard space.  He went on to say that he had a discussion with the neighbors and they all ultimately agreed with Option 1.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the Planning Commission has not yet seen Option 1, and it seems larger than previous out buildings they typically see in the Village.  Mr. Gill stated that the applicant would be bringing down the vertical bulk of the structure with Option 1.  Ms. Hoyt stated that if the BZBA were to not set a limit to a single story than the structure could end up being larger with a one and a half story.   Mr. Carey stated that he would be willing to live with any restrictions set by the BZBA regarding the footprint or capping the square footage to be around 700 square feet.  He stated that this restriction would not allow him to build a 38x30 structure and also be a story and a half.  Mr. Smith asked if the existing garage would be torn down.  Mr. Carey stated yes.  Mr. Smith asked the current lot coverage.  Mr. Carey guessed somewhere under 20 percent.  Ms. Terry stated that the last variance was to increase the lot coverage to 20.6 percent.  Mr. Carey stated that Option 1 is a risk, but less risk without the single story restriction on it.  He added that the Planning Commission was ready to approve the building he presented with a stipulation that it be moved further back on the property.  He stated that in the meantime, they all came to prefer the one story structure.  Mr. Carey asked why the BZBA couldn’t limit the square footage of the structure instead of insisting on a one story structure just in case the Planning Commission doesn’t approve it.  He stated that he is on record stating that he is not requesting a structure that large.  Mr. Ashbaugh reviewed the previous conditions approved with the variance and they included no windows on the south side of the structure, that the structure be limited to a one and a half story structure, and that the location of the structure be as submitted by the applicant.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that this was approved by the BZBA and the Planning Commission couldn’t live within those parameters.  Mr. Carey stated that it was not so much the Planning Commission, but the neighbors requested a different location because they were trying to find a win/win situation for everyone involved.  Mr. Carey stated he feels they do have a win/win with Option 1.  He also stated that he has a projector available to view all of the options if the BZBA is interested in viewing this information. 

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that he felt that the Planning Commission was not going to approve the presented plan of a story and a half structure.  He stated that they anticipated a story and a half structure to be about 16 foot high, the same as the McCoy's garage which was approved several years ago.  Mr. Hickman stated that Mr. Carey’s garage took on a different shape and size than they anticipated with dormers and a 20 foot high roof.  Mr. Hickman stated that the Planning Commission couldn’t pass Mr. Carey’s presented plan in good conscience and asked all of us to meet and come up with a new plan.  Mr. Hickman stated that they do like Option 1 presented by Mr. Carey tonight.  He stated that they would contest the one and a half story structure previously presented to the Planning Commission and they would be hesitant to approve Option 2.  Mr. Carey stated that this is not what Mr. Hickman stated at the last Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Hoyt asked Mr. Hickman if he objects to the requested variance near his property line.  Mr. Hickman stated that he does not object, but you may want to check with the McCoy’s because the structure will be closer to them. Mr. Hickman stated that if the BZBA member’s came out and looked at the existing garage and where it lines up at their property they would see that the proposed size of Mr. Carey’s first structure is not fitting. 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Hickman if he is saying this will change the essential character of the neighborhood if altered.  Mr. Smith went on to explain that the BZBA has legal criteria they must follow and he questions which criteria Mr. Hickman’s concerns fall under.  He asked if the variance would be a detriment to his property and if so how?  Mr. Hickman stated yes because of site lines and massing.   Mr. Smith asked what is meant by massing.   Mr. Hickman stated that there would be massing right next to his property and Option 1 is similar to his garage and the McCoy’s garage, which is more fitting to the neighborhood.  Mr. Gill stated that it seems as though Mr. Hickman has no objection to the side yard variance, but the taller the structure is the less he wants to see it be located closer to his property line.  Mr. Hickman agreed and stated that they feel a “16 footish” structure is the most appropriate.   Mr. Gill asked if the BZBA can approve the number of stories for a structure.  Ms. Terry stated that they can in this zoning district which is Suburban Residential District which allows for thirty foot high structures.  Ms. Hoyt questioned how they are to know the height of the typical story and a half.  Mr. Carey stated that his structure fits into the guidelines he read regarding a story and a half structure. 

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that his garage is sixteen foot high and his garage is not a story and a half.  He stated that he was told it had to have a roof pitch that matched his house, which is a 6/12 pitch.  Mr. Carey stated that Mr. McCoy chose to make his first floor ten feet high.  Mr. McCoy stated that he admits that a story and a half structure didn’t sound that bad to him, but the applicant’s idea of a story and a half is only two feet shorter than his house.  Mr. McCoy stated that Mr. Carey said he would consider a single story, but the lot coverage would not allow for this.  Mr. McCoy stated that he told him he was told the same thing - that the lot coverage numbers are not set in stone and can be changed.  Mr. McCoy stated that Mr. Carey will end up with more driveway with Option 1.  Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that the garage will be two feet away from Mr. McCoy’s property line and he asked if he has a problem with this.  Mr. McCoy stated he has no problem with this. 

Mr. Smith stated that he would support approval of Option 1 and if for some reason the  Planning Commission doesn’t like Option 1 he would also vote to approve the variance for Option 2.  He stated that since he knows the neighbors support Option 1 he will also support it.  

Mr. Carey stated that if there is not a parameter in the approval allowing him to change to the one and a half story structure in case the Planning Commission doesn’t agree with Option 1 – he will not have the garage he desires.  Mr. Hickman stated that the Planning Commission will make Option 1 work after all we have collectively been through.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Option 1 is ok with Mr. Hickman since it will be twenty-two feet away from his lot line.  Mr. Hickman stated that he is ok with this.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the structure were to be taller and in the rear of the property would it still bother you Mr. Hickman.  Mr. Hickman stated yes he would object if the structure were taller.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the existing garage would go away and provide a more open feeling.  Mr. Carey stated that he very strongly objects to the limitation of a one story structure. He stated that he has heard that the one story style will not be preferred by the Planning Commission because it is too similar to a garage built around the 70’s as opposed to a more historic structure.  Mr. Carey stated that he has been through a lot with the Planning Commission and they have looked at different plans over the past several months.  He stated that he doesn’t know how the Planning Commission will react to this new idea because it is very different from anything else he has presented.  Mr. Carey stated that technically if a story and a half is approved it will extend the Hickman’s privacy fence.  He stated that he took all of the neighbors concerns into consideration and they claim they didn’t know a story and a half would be at that height.  He stated after all this discussion, we are still arguing about a story and a half structure.  Mr. Carey stated that we all like this Option 1and he feels he is “bending over backwards” to appease the neighbors.  He asked to not be limited to a single story structure. 

Barbara McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that they are all tired of this situation and this garage with Option 1 fits in with other garages in the neighborhood.  She stated she doesn’t see how the Planning Commission wouldn’t see that.  Mrs. McCoy stated that the other garage presented by Mr. Carey is a story and a half and does not fit into the neighborhood.    

Mr. Gill stated that he appreciates everyone’s comments and he understands Mr. Carey’s concern because what you think fits the neighborhood may be different from what the Planning Commission thinks.  Mr. Gill stated that he is also hearing that everyone feels Option 1 fits into the neighborhood.  Mr. Carey stated that Mr. McCoy also wanted a larger structure ten years ago. Mrs. McCoy stated that they were told no and they didn’t argue this.  Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Carey’s concerns are legitimate and as a general matter people should be able to use their property to their benefit.  Mr. Smith stated he doesn’t see his plan in either Option 1 or 2 to be contrary to the neighborhood or as an unreasonable request because it supports the spirit of the zoning code.  He stated that Mr. Carey can paint his house purple and pink with stripes and the neighbors may not like that, but he can still do it.  He ended by saying he does feel Mr. Carey he has a legitimate concern and he suspects if this came before him again for a different variance he would vote for Option 2.  

Mr. Gill stated that if we approve Option 1 and then the Planning Commission wants dormers and a 20 foot  high roof, Mr. Carey would have to resubmit for another variance.  Mr. Smith stated that perhaps approving the application as it is presented without conditions is the “cleanest” way to approve it and if it is rejected by the Planning Commission the applicant would have to come back to the BZBA.  He added that they should not approve it based on what the Planning Commission may or may not do.  Mr. Gill agreed and stated that any provisions they would add could be interpreted differently.  Mr. Carey stated that he is “up against the clock for this year” to have this built and he hopes he doesn’t have to come back to the BZBA for another approval.

Mr. Smith asked if fellow BZBA members are likely to approve the application if it were not limited to a one story structure.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she will not approve the footprint if it’s more than one story and she doesn’t want to yield her duties to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Gill stated he feels no qualms with Option 1.  Mr. Carey stated that he Planning Commission has to look at the massing guidelines. 

Mr. Gill made a motion to reconsider Application # 09-21.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Reconsider:  Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-21 regarding presented Option 1: 

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. Ms. Hoyt stated that the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Ashbaugh 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. Mr. Smith stated that the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered.  Mr. Gill, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Ashbaugh 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. Smith stated that there will be some increase in light and property values and these concerns have been raised but are not felt to be problematic.     

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. Mr. Smith the applicant is not wanting to limit the structure to a one story if the Planning Commission is not in agreement.  He questioned if there would be any support to delete the words “one story” as stated in the submittal.  Mr. Gill stated that he is not sure how he would vote if the application came back to the BZBA with a change.        

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #09-21 as submitted with Option 1.

Mr. Carey asked to comment regarding the motion.  

Mr. Smith moved to withdraw his motion so Mr. Carey could comment if so recognized by the Chair, Mr. Ashbaugh.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if there was a need to hear more testimony.  He also stated that he doesn’t feel that the Planning Commission will send this back to the BZBA.  Mr. Gill suggested approving the application as presented and not trying to word it cleverly with restrictions.   Mr. Smith stated he thinks that it was the applicant’s original intention to not have a one and a half story mentioned in the approval and this was something staff put in when formalizing the application.  Mr. Gill stated that he doesn’t feel simply deleting “one story” would be sufficient enough to allow the applicant to build a one and a half story structure.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Mr. Carey reviewed this application before tonight.  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Carey did not review this exact verbiage that she put on the staff report.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he will allow Mr. Smith’s motion to be withdrawn but after all the discussion he doesn’t know what more testimony could be added.  Mr. Carey stated he did receive three emails from Ms. Terry.  Ms. Terry stated that these pertained to the  Planning Commission meeting on Monday.  Mr. Carey stated he did not have an email on the BZBA staff report.  Mr. Gill said that it would be difficult to come up with language putting restrictions on Option 1.  Mr. Carey stated he disagrees and coming back to the BZBA means further delays and more costs for him.  Mr. Ashbaugh said that he has had this information regarding the application since Monday and its been out for review.  He stated that the Planning Commission may approve/disapprove of the structure, and the BZBA can only tell him where the structure can be located.  Mr. Gill stated that they have three families that seem to have worked out a consensus and he suggests that they vote on that. 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #09-21 (Amended) with Option 1, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there is any more discussion. 

Ms. Hoyt stated she is more swayed by Mr. Smith’s comments regarding eliminating the  one story verbiage.  She stated that she didn’t read this as footprint square footage, but she read it as total square footage.  She stated that if they look at total square footage, she would be in favor of deleting the one story stipulation.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that they would have to talk to the neighbors and he questions if this is what they would agree to.  He stated that they seem to not want the height, but they are ok with a larger one story structure.  Mr. Carey stated that the neighbors stated on the record that they didn’t like the height when the garage was up front, but not when it was in the back of the property.   Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he heard Mr. Hickman say he didn’t like the height at all. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA only votes on the footprint and not the total square footage of a structure.  Mr. Carey stated that he requested a joint session of the Planning Commission and BZBA because this approval is very intertwined but the process is contrary to that.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA previously voted on approving dormers and a story and a half but it appears that the Planning Commission was not ok with this.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that Mr. Carey could request to table the application, but this wouldn’t really get him anywhere.  Mr. Carey stated that he has already been approved for a variance.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated yes, but the neighbors stated during the Planning Commission meetings that they don’t want a one-and-a half story structure.  Mr. Carey stated that he now is hearing a 180 flip tonight from the neighbors and every time at these meetings it’s something else that they object to.  

Mr. Smith stated he does have some concern that the BZBA did previously approve this as a one and a half story structure, although everyone can change their mind.  Mr. Smith stated that he would presume that Mr. Carey’s neighbors will support Option 1 at the Planning Commission meeting and if for some reason they don’t he has indicated how he will vote if this matters comes before the BZBA again.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-21: Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #09-21(AMENDED) is Approved 

Finding of Fact 

Application #09-113 (Ross Market)                                                      

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1175, Suburban Business 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 #09-113.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #09-113 are Approved.  

Application #09-116 (Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert)                             

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 as submitted by the applicant.  

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-116.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #09-116 are approved.  

Application #09-21 (Michael Carey) (AMENDED)                               

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Chapter 1157, General zoning Regulations, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-21 Amended (Option 1).  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #09-21 are approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

August 13, 2009

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

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Rob Montgomery from the BZBA meeting on September 10, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.  

Next Meeting:

October 8, 2009 (Mr. Smith stated that he may not be able to attend this meeting.)

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.