Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes December 9, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

December 9, 2010

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Members Absent: Rob Montgomery and Jeff Gill.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

Visitors: Kevin Reiner, Kathleen Korzenok, Bryon Reed, Keith Wills, Herach Nazarian, Brian Miller, and Jim Jung.

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry provided 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. 

New Business:

 Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, Application #2010-171

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

The request is for review and approval of variances, in order to construct a detached accessory structure, as follows:

1)         To reduce the western and eastern side yard setbacks from ten (10') feet to eight (8') feet; and

2)         To increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-seven (57%) percent. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Jim Jung, and Kevin Reiner were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, stated he would like to build an accessory structure in his rear yard.  He stated that the current structure in place was approved for demolition by the Planning Commission and it is a 16 foot by 20 foot building.  Mr. Reiner stated that he would like to place the new structure in the center of the property and it is a 16 and a half foot by 35 foot building.  He stated that he needs eight feet on the east and west side to fit the building in.  Mr. Reiner stated that a comparison to the adjacent properties shows similar smaller lots that also do not meet the setback requirements.  He stated that the home located at 219 West Broadway is six feet away from the western neighbors,  and the home located at 221 West Broadway is fifty-eight inches from the property line and their garage is five feet from his property line.  Mr. Reiner stated that the garage on 216 West Elm Street is also close to his property line.  Mr. Reiner stated that as far as lot coverage, they are currently at 47% with the existing structure.  He indicated that the new structure would change the lot coverage to 57%.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if the applicant has met with the Planning Commission and received the necessary approvals.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission approved the application contingent upon BZBA approval of the variances.  She stated that Council still needs to approve the Demolition of the existing structure.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked what the square on the drawing plans on the side of the proposed structure represents.  Mr. Reiner stated that this would be the air conditioning unit.   Ms. Terry indicated that this was not taken into account for consideration of the variance for the side yard setback.  She questioned if the applicant could move the unit to the rear of the structure where a variance would not be required.  Mr. Reiner indicated that he could move the air conditioning unit to the rear, where he could meet the ten foot rear yard setback requirement.   

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, indicated that his home is fifty-six inches away from Mr. Reiner’s home.  He stated that he strongly supports Mr. Reiner’s plans and he has taken a fallen down property and transformed it into a magnificent home.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if it would bother Mr. Jung if Mr. Reiner’s structure is fifteen to sixteen feet away from him.  Mr. Jung indicated that he didn’t foresee any problems at all.  Mr. Smith indicated that these particular properties in this area make it almost impossible to do much of anything without the granting of Variances.  Ms. Hoyt agreed that the applicant has a very narrow lot that is difficult to work with.  Mr. Reiner stated that the lot is thirty-three foot wide.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-171: 

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.  Mr. Smith stated this is true due to the narrow parcel.      

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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 have not been any neighbors that have come forward with concerns.  

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 the air conditioning unit should be moved to the rear of the proposed structure, rather than the side, which would result in the need for another variance.   

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2010-171 with the condition that the air conditioning unit be moved to the rear of the structure.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-171: Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2010-171 is Approved. 

Keith Wills (Michael & Kathleen Korzenok), 128 Merywen Circle, Application #2010-176

Planned Unit Development District (PUD)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to thirty-three (33’) feet.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Kathleen Korzenok, and Keith Wills were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)

Keith Wills, builder representing the homeowner, stated that he is there for a variance because the front yard footprint encroaches on the setback.  Specifically, he stated that two points are slightly encroaching on the thirty-five foot setback by one foot.  He stated that the encroachment is not visible.  Mr. Wills explained that they are in need of the variance because the title company is requiring it in order to provide a clear title from an insurance standpoint.  Mr. Wills stated that other homes in the neighborhood are fifteen foot from the setback.  Ms. Hoyt asked when this was discovered.  Mr. Wills stated that during the framing stage an inspector found it.  Ms. Terry indicated that this particular home sits on a reverse lot meaning that from the road it slopes upward with some topographical challenges.  Mr. Smith and Ms. Hoyt stated that it seems as though the request is for a very minimal variance and there is no purpose in denying it.     

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-176: 

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.  Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Smith agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated FALSE.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith stated that the variance is not substantial.  Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the result in not awarding 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.  The board discussed that the homeowner hired a contractor that completed a job that ultimately required a one foot variance. 

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.   

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2010-176 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-176: Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2010-176 is Approved 

Terra Nova Partners, 384 East Broadway, Application #2010-177

Village Business District (VBD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a conditional use for single family residential. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Herach Nazarian, Tony Beckerly, and Bryon Reed were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, stated he is representing Terra Nova Partners and they would like the lot located at 384 East Broadway in the Village Business District (VBD) to have a Conditional Use to build a single family home.  He stated that this is a listed Conditional Use allowed by Code for the Village Business District.  Mr. Reed stated that their proposal meets all of the performance and development standards.  He distributed a packet of information to the BZBA board.  He reviewed ‘Exhibit 1’ in the submitted package, which was the site plan.  Mr. Reed stated that their proposed lot coverage would be 6,714 square feet, which is 67% lot coverage.  He stated that this is under the 70% Code requirement.  Mr. Reed stated that the proposed plan is an improvement to the current parking lot that is currently in place.  He stated that all of the setback requirements have been met.  Mr. Reed stated that ‘Exhibit 2’ depicts multi-family residential structures on East Broadway, and there are fourteen other residential structures located throughout the Village Business District (VBD).  Mr. Reed stated that their proposal is a much less intense use than the adjacent multi-family structures.  He stated that the College Town House has three apartments and meeting space.  Mr. Reed stated that their proposal would have no burden on public facilities.  He indicated that they have provided “will serve” letters from the Granville water and sewer departments.  He stated that they were previously granted service for five units, but this proposal is for single-family service.  Furthermore, he stated that their proposal would have no undue burden on refuse, schools, and emergency services.  Ms. Hoyt asked if this proposal has been taken to the Planning Commission yet.  Ms. Terry stated no because they would need Conditional Use approval first.  Ms. Terry also stated that the current proposal does not require any variances as submitted.  Ms. Hoyt questioned what happened with the application for this property to have two family or multi-family units.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposal Ms. Hoyt is referring to was submitted by Terra Nova Partners and it was approved for a recommendation to the Council by the Planning Commission with a 3-2 vote, with some modifications to the core business district.  She stated that this recommendation was then sent to Village Council and they reversed the decision of the Planning Commission.  Ms. Hoyt questioned the shared access from East Broadway.  Ms. Terry explained that if access were to be moved to Granger Street, the applicant would need to look at a potentially different location for the driveway in relation to the proposed home layout.  She stated that the Granger Street access also has off-street parking on the other side of the street which would need to be considered if the driveway were moved.  Mr. Reed indicated that Terra Nova Partners are proposing to develop the property with a single-family home that would ultimately be for sale.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned why there would be a shared access driveway.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is proposing to use the existing access point to the property now.  She stated that if the applicant were to establish a new access point on East Broadway for this proposed house – it could be problematic because of site distance issues, the existing curve, and with having two access points located so closely together.  Ms. Terry stated that an access point from Granger Street would mostly likely mean that the driveway would be across the front of the house, if the current house plan were utilized because of the location of the garage, when driveways are typically on the side of homes.  Ms. Terry indicated that the current proposal for the structure shows the garage not being visible from either Granger Street or Broadway, which is preferred.  She also stated that the property address would be changed from a Broadway address to a Granger Street address if the access point changes.  Mr. Reed indicated that they are currently in contract for the lot now.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned why the home is proposed to be so far back on the lot.  Mr. Reed stated that they would have preferred to have the home pushed up further, but the current front yard setback states that the structure has to be consistent with other structures on the same block.  Ms. Terry explained that there isn’t a required setback distance; the setback is based on wherever the rest of the buildings are located in the same block.  She indicated that the rear yard setback is ten feet.  Mr. Reed indicated that they would prefer to have the proposed structure be in line with the school district office building on the other side of the street.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned how one could get a car in the proposed garage.  Mr. Reed stated that there is plenty of room to maneuver in the rear driveway courtyard area.  

Herach Nazarian stated that they could also look at pulling the garage further up to the front of the house.  Mr. Smith thanked the applicant for their professional presentation.  He stated that this is one of the very few vacant lots left in the business district.  He indicated that he doesn’t see this proposal as creating any problems in diminishing the value of current homes, but the question for the BZBA to answer is: Do they want to turn over one of the last lots in the business district to be used as a single family dwelling as opposed to a business use?  Mr. Smith indicated that he doesn’t know of any businesses rushing to use the lot or they would have already bought it.  He stated that the lot has been for sale for some time now.  Ms. Terry indicated that if one were to put a commercial structure in place, in order to meet the current code requirements, it would have to be located to the back of the property and then parking would have to be located in front of the structure.  She stated that significant variances for parking would most likely be required as well.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a unique set of circumstances involved because the properties that are in this same block are set so far back from Broadway, like the Granville Inn and College Town House.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that there was a house located on this parcel at one time.  He questioned if it was situated this far back as well?  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Reed stated that it would have been located in almost the same footprint they are proposing.  Mr. Reed stated that this structure burnt down in April 1981 and it was an apartment building with two to three units.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if the Village Planner would prefer to see the driveway on East Broadway or Granger Street.  Ms. Terry indicated that it would be difficult to create a new access point on Broadway and separate it from the corner and the other access point on Broadway.  Mr. Reed indicated that he would prefer to keep the access point where it is today.    

Mr. Smith stated that when one considers information from the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, do they want to give a last lot in this District a single family dwelling designation.  He went on to say that from what he is seeing the proposal could "fit marvelously in the neighborhood as well.”  

Ms. Hoyt stated that she would agree with Mr. Smith, but as an appraiser she has to   question marketability of this type of structure in this particular location.  Ms. Hoyt stated that as far as taxes go – how does the Village benefit?  Ms. Terry stated that in the course of time that the property was for sale she did have different individuals come to the Planning Department interested in converting the property to a commercial use.  She stated that part of the issue people saw with this lot dealt with where they would have to situate any new structure, the potential need for variances, lot coverage, parking, setbacks, etc.  She stated that depending on the type of commercial structure proposed, on-site parking required by the Code may not be able to be provided.  She explained that the parking requirements haven’t affected other buildings in this district due to their grandfathered status.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if these proposals were dismissed after they learned of all of the obstacles.  Ms. Terry stated that some individuals had indicated that they felt that there were too many obstacles related to the construction of a commercial structure on this lot.  Mr. Reed stated that they were the applicants for the proposed multi-family unit and they encountered these types of obstacles as well.  Ms. Terry explained that in the Architectural Review Overlay District, the Code encourages the building massing, height and style to be consistent with other surrounding structures.  This would mean that a two-story structure would be more appropriate in scale and massing, than a one-story structure in this location, and this could cause difficulties related to providing the required off-street parking spaces on this lot.  She stated that it could be difficult to receive variances to reduce the amount of off-street parking required when there are already issues with parking in this area.  For instance, the Granger Street apartments have two parking spaces total for twelve units and they primarily rely on the on-street parking.  

Mr. Reed stated that he received positive feedback at the Farmer’s Market regarding his first proposal and they also received a 3-2 vote from the Planning Commission (and the two that didn’t approve the application wanted the proposal approved as it was originally submitted without any changes.)  Mr. Reed stated that the application then went to Village Council and was turned down with a 7-0 vote.  He stated that Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe tried to reintroduce the matter because she received some positive feedback and this attempt failed.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if Council could change the decision of the BZBA because it appears as though they were really against the multi-family proposal with a 7-0 vote.  Ms. Terry explained that with this particular application for a Conditional Use, the matter would not go to Council if it were approved or denied, unless it was appealed.  She stated that the Village Manager does have the ability to appeal any decision by the BZBA to the Village Council.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there was any indication by Council as to why the proposal was denied and what was the discussion.  Mr. Reed stated that he is unsure why the application got turned down.

Tony Beckerly, 210 North Granger Street, stated that he represents Granville Hospitality, who is the owner of the parking lot in question.  Mr. Beckerly stated that his parking lot is mostly utilized by the College Town House or Senior Fellowship, Granger Street apartments, and everyone else.  He stated that he felt at the meeting that Village Council was frowning on the use of the parking lot being changed from anything other than a parking lot.  Mr. Beckerly stated that when the property was for sale interested buyers found the code too restrictive for new commercial structures and no one saw any practical way to develop the property.  Mr. Beckerly explained that the tax value of the property is very high and the Granville Inn only uses the lot about 5% of the year.  He indicated that it gets used by his employees and others in town.  Mr. Beckerly estimated that the property costs him over $1,000 a month in taxes and maintenance and it is not worth what the tax rolls indicate.  Mr. Beckerly also emphasized that this is a private parking lot.  He went on to say that he thought the multi-family use proposed by Terra Nova Partners was the best use for this property.  Mr. Smith stated that he is hearing that if they preserve the lot for commercial use it could require a lot of variances.  Mr. Beckerly agreed.  Furthermore, Mr. Beckerly stated that his business approached the Village and Denison University to see if they would want to buy the parking lot because he was hearing from many individuals that parking is an issue in the downtown area.  He stated that the Village and Denison did not want to pay the amount that the property was appraised for.  Mr. Beckerly stated that some years ago the Village had approached them about plans for the lot.  Mr. Beckerly later stated that if the taxes weren’t so much – the parking lot would not be such a financial burden on Granville Hospitality.  He stated that it comes down to economics.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she doesn’t see this proposed single family structure fitting in with the area, when one considers the adjacent properties.  Mr. Beckerly stated that across the street there are existing single-family homes.  Mr. Smith stated that someone driving by the College Town House might assume it to be a single family home.  

Mr. Nazarian stated that Mr. York owns apartments that were built to the north of the proposed property.  Ms. Terry explained that with a Conditional Use the board is charged with determining if the proposal is an overuse of the property or could the use cause some detriment to the neighborhood.  Ms. Hoyt questioned that if this was approved as a single family use - could it get changed back to a business use in the future?  Ms. Terry explained that it potentially could if the applicant met all of the requirements for parking, change of use, etc.  She stated that this would be similar to the request for the corner property where Goumas Candyland and HER Realty are located. 

Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned about this parcel being the last commercial spot in the downtown Village area and this is most likely the most serious decision this board has had to make since he has been a part of the BZBA.  Mr. Smith stated that the Granville Inn has been a tremendous neighbor and is an asset to the Village.  He stated that they tried to offer this property to the Village and there doesn’t appear to be anyone trying to build something on this parcel that is a commercial use.  He went on to say that there are many businesses in this area that reside in single family dwellings and this proposal for a Conditional Use doesn’t close this option off in the future.  Mr. Smith stated that he thinks in the short term that this proposal would be an improvement, rather than the option of leaving the area in question as a parking lot.  

Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that the shared driveway and front yard bothers him and he understands that the applicant is trying to fit the structure within the guidelines.  He went on to say that the rest of the approval process for construction would go through the Planning Commission.  He questioned if the Village received any word from Denison University regarding the shared access point.  Ms. Terry stated no.  

Ms. Hoyt questioned how long the property has been on the market?  Mr. Beckerly stated about two years. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-177: 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

b)                  The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 

c)                  The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as street, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. Mr. Ashbaugh acknowledged a letter by Larry Fruth and Erik Holmquist stating that the Village has the ability to serve the property with water and sanitary sewer.  

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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

e)                  The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

Mr. Smith indicated that he was concerned with this being one of the last commercial spots in the village.  He thinks that this is one of the more long term serious decisions that the Board has had to make in the few years that he has been on the Board.  He indicated that the Granville Inn has been a tremendous neighbor and asset to the village.  It has tried to offer this spot to the Village.  He indicated that no one is indicating their interest in developing this property commercially and that most, or many,  of the businesses are located in what were once single family dwellings, so he didn't think this closes off the possibility for a business use in the future.  He indicated that the Planner's comments regarding the difficulties of using this lot for commercial use is valuable to the Board in their consideration.  He indicated that in the short term it would be prudent for the appearance of  the Village to have a nice looking single family structure rather than a parking lot.  He indicated that with all of these considerations in mind, he would "Move for approval of Application #2010-177 as submitted".  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-177: Smith (yes), Hoyt (no), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 2-1.  Application #2010-177 results in “No Action Taken.” 

Mr. Reed asked what the objection to their plan was.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she thinks it is an important issue because it is the last commercial lot in the Village that is open for development.  She stated that she understands that the property has been on the market for some time, but she is not sure that she is ready to give up the last business property for a single family home.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she needs more time and she would prefer tabling the application until the other two board members can weigh in on the situation.  She stated that she is aware that this is a long and arduous process for the applicant, but she wants to make sure they are doing the right thing.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that it is actually not the “last lot” because a building could burn down or something could happen in another area of the Village Business District.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she realizes this, but this is a current buildable lot.    She stated that she agrees that it is not attractive as a parking lot, but she is unsure if a single family residence is the right answer.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she is surprised Council voted to turn down the applicant’s previous proposal because she feels it would be one of the highest and best uses for this property.  Mr. Reed, Mr. Beckerly, and Mr. Nazarian indicated that they “whole-heartedly” agreed with this statement.  Ms. Hoyt indicated that her criteria in making this decision is not that they need to keep this property as a parking lot, but she wants to ensure that what is done is the right decision. 

Finding of Fact 

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway,  Application #2010-171

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 with the air conditioning unit moved to the rear of the structure. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-171.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-171 are Approved.  

Keith Wills, 128 Merywen Circle,  Application #2010-176

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development 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 #2010-176.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-177 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

October 9, 2010

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

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member’s:

Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Montgomery was unable to attend the meeting due to an illness in his family.  Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse Mr. Montgomery from the BZBA meeting on December 9, 2010.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Ms. Terry stated that she hadn’t received any information indicating that Mr. Gill was unable to attend the meeting.  Ms. Hoyt made a motion to excuse Mr. Gill from the BZBA meeting on December 9, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Motion to Approve 2011 BZBA Meeting Schedule:

The BZBA reviewed the proposed schedule for 2011.  Ms. Terry noted that the meetings would be the second Thursday of the month, except for a change in January.  Motion carried 3-0 to approve the 2011 BZBA Meeting Schedule.    

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM.  

Mr. Smith requested that all of the proposal information from Terra Nova Partners be left in the BZBA packets for further review at the next meeting.  Ms. Terry stated that they would include all of the information.  She explained that if Mr. Gill and Mr. Montgomery wanted to vote on the application, they would need to read the minutes and review the tape of the meeting on December 9, 2010.  

Next Meeting:

January 6, 2011

February 10, 2011

BZBA Minutes October 14, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

October 14, 2010

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: John Noblick. 

Description of Procedure:

 

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing.  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:

Scott and Martha Keyes, 418 West Broadway, Application #2010-149

(Mr. Ashbaugh recused himself from the hearing for Application #2010-149 at 7:03 PM.  Jean Hoyt acted as Chair of the BZBA.) 

Discussion:

Alison Terry and John Noblick were sworn in by Ms. Hoyt.

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, stated that the applicant would like to change the gravel driveway to concrete and this would create less of a footprint than what is there now.  He stated that the applicant would like to put in more green space and at the closest point the driveway comes within one foot of the property line.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant is saying that the existing driveway is already within one foot of the lot line.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Gill asked if the homeowners or Mr. Noblick have talked to any of the neighbors regarding this application.  Mr. Noblick stated that he is not aware of any conversation with the neighbor’s.  Ms. Terry stated that the notices were sent out and the neighboring home closest to the driveway is a rental property and she didn’t hear anything back from the property owner.  Ms. Terry also stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this application because a portion of the driveway would be located within the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District) and the Planning Commission approved the application contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance from the BZBA.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-149: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(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 FALSE. 

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

 c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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 #2010-149 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-149: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (recuse).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-149 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact

Scott and Martha Keyes, 418 West Broadway,  Application #2010-149

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.  

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-149.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (recuse).  Motion carried 4-0.The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-149 are Approved.  

(Mr. Ashbaugh rejoined the BZBA meeting at 7:12 PM.)

Approval of the Minutes 

September 9, 2010

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM.  

Next Meeting:

November 18, 2010 (Mr. Smith stated that he is unable to attend this meeting.)

BZBA Minutes September 9, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 9, 2010

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Todd and Robin Feil, Craig Zeigler, Ralph and Sheila McGrath, Skip Wille, Chip Gordon, John Heck, and Michael and Wendy Duffey. 

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. 

New Business:

Ralph McGrath, 118 Colomen Gwen Circle,  Application #2010-129

Planned Unit Development (PUD)The request is for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from forty (40') feet to twenty-one (21') feet to allow for the construction of an eight foot nine inch (8'9") wooden arbor.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Ralph McGrath, and Craig Ziegler were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Ralph McGrath, 118 Colomen Gwen Circle, Granville, indicated that the arbor is part of the patio and in order to construct it a variance is required.  He indicated that he would essentially need an additional 19 feet.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if any other properties in this area have pursued the same type of improvements that Mr. McGrath is requesting.  Mr. McGrath stated that there are certainly other patios that are more elaborate than what he is proposing in the neighborhood.  He stated that he went in front of the Colony Board of Trustees and their Landscape Committee to provide the materials to be used and he received their written approval.  Ms. Terry stated that the patio is not in question for the variance, but instead anything that is above three feet in height in any district has to meet the setback the requirements.  She stated that patios do not have the same restrictions and Mr. McGrath would not need a variance for just the patio itself.  She went on to explain that she contacted the homeowner’s association and no one was aware that they had to pull a permit from the Village and this is the reason these applications haven’t come before the BZBA in the past.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there are lot coverage issues.  Ms. Terry explained that patios do not count and there isn’t a maximum impervious surface coverage.   

Craig Zeigler, 122 Colomen Gwen Circle, Granville stated that he was there in support of  Mr. McGrath’s request for a variance in the rear yard.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-129: 

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. 

(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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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 #2010-129 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-129: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-129 is Approved. 

Todd and Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway, Application #2010-130

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C)

The request is for the following variances:

1)         To reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to nine (9') feet on the western property line to allow for the construction of a rear deck;

2)         To reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to two (2') feet on the eastern property line to allow for the construction of an attached garage; and

3)         To reduce the required driveway side yard setback from five (5') feet to one (1') foot on the eastern property line to allow for the expansion of an existing driveway to the new attached garage. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Chip Gordon, Todd Feil and Robin Feil were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Todd and Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway, Granville, were present to answer any questions by the board. 

Mr. Montgomery asked who owns the property located at 565 West Broadway.  Chip Gordon, 2100 Lancaster Road, Granville, was present and stated that his company, SRG Investments, owns the property at 565 West Broadway.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there was once a shared garage on the property.  Ms. Feil stated that there was a shared garage that was between them and 585 and this was torn down.  Mr. Smith stated that he is unclear as to what type of structure the applicant is proposing to put in.  Mrs. Feil stated that it will be a two car garage with stacked parking that will start before the end of existing driveway.  She stated that the existing driveway would not move.  Mr. Gill asked if the new garage would block the view if one were on the deck/porch at 565 West Broadway.  Mrs. Feil stated that she is expecting that when she sits on her screen porch and looks at 565 West Broadway - the top of the garage will be below her porch and the garage is slightly above the basement and below the third floor.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the application for a new garage has already been before the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the application would still have to go to the Planning Commission because the applicant is proposing adding to the footprint - more than 20%.  Mr. Montgomery asked the proposed height of the garage.  Mrs. Feil stated that it would be a one story garage with mostly a shed roof from the house down.  Mr. Montgomery asked if on the east side facing 565 West Broadway - would the applicant be proposing windows and doors?  Mrs. Feil stated that that garage will be rather long and she is proposing four small windows along that side to break it up a little.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked what type of driveway the applicant would be installing.  Ms. Feil stated that they would remove the existing asphalt driveway and replace it with concrete.    She stated that it is her intention to remove the shared driveway on the other side of the property.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked the total depth of the home.  Ms. Feil stated somewhere around thirty feet and the new garage would be thirty-five feet.  Ms. Hoyt asked the applicant if the proposed plan before the BZBA was their first preference for the location of a new garage.  Mrs. Feil stated that their first choice fell through because it required cooperation from the neighbor to the west that didn’t work out.  

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the applicant gave any consideration to using the back yard for the location of the garage.  Mrs. Feil stated no because she wanted this to be exclusively used for gardening purposes.    

Chip Gordon, 2100 Lancaster Road, Granville, stated that he owns property to the east at 565 West Broadway and he is in favor of the request and feels it is appropriate for the neighborhood.  Mr. Gordon stated that he too has been trying to find more parking spaces for his property because of the topography in this area.  Mr. Gordon stated that he wants to take out a driveway on the side of his property and look at possibly putting in a garage.  He stated that the hand drawing submitted by Mrs. Feil shows that there is a fifteen foot side yard setback on the side of the property near his house and he measured this to make sure it was accurate.  He stated that Ms. Feil’s information mentions that each neighboring property has a garage and he would like to note that his property does not have a garage.  Mrs. Feil indicated that she was mistaken because she thought that the home did have a garage.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the tandem design for a garage Mrs. Feil is proposing is unusual for the community, but this will be up to the Planning Commission to decide if it's appropriate.  Mrs. Feil stated that they tried to have a side by side garage installed, but it is too narrow and you can’t make the turn.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-130:

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.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Montgomery, and Ms. Hoyt stated that the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he would consider the request for the variance to be 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.   Mr. Montgomery stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Ms. Hoyt 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. Gill, Mr. Ashbaugh and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.  Mr. Montgomery indicated FALSE.  

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 #2010-130 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-130: Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-130 is Approved. 

Michael and Wendy Duffey, 335 West Elm Street,  Application #2010-131

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

The request is for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero point three (0.3') feet on the western property line and from ten (10') feet to seven (7') feet on the eastern property line to allow for the construction of a new 24' x 24' detached garage. 

Discussion:

(Mr. Smith recused himself from the application because he is a neighbor to the Duffey’s. 

He was seated in the audience at 7:40 PM.)

(Alison Terry, Michael and Wendy Duffey, and Mr. Greg Wasiloff, were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, Granville, stated that they have a very narrow lot that currently has a one car garage.  He indicated that they want to build a two car garage and both neighboring properties have two car garages.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant will need to request a Demolition Permit, but they applied for the variance first.  

Mr. Montgomery questioned if the new footprint of the garage is over top of gas lines leading to the nearby sub station.  Greg Wasiloff, 2696 Silver Street, Granville, stated that this has to be checked, but they suspect it goes from the front of the street to the substation along the property line.  Mr. Duffey stated that he has seen drawings showing that the gas lines run in a north-south direction and the garage is to the east of that sub station.  Ms. Hoyt asked if Mr. Duffey is proposing a story and a half structure.  Mr. Duffey stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant will be raising the elevation of the land.  Mr. Duffey stated no.  He explained that the current driveway is a shared driveway between the three properties.  Mr. Gill asked if the applicant had talked to the neighbors regarding his plans.  Mr. Duffey stated that both neighbors are in favor of the two car garage.  Ms. Terry confirmed that she had not received any feedback from the letters that were sent out regarding the application.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the neighbors are aware that the new garage will have additional height.  Mr. Duffey stated Mollie is aware of this, and he is not sure about the other neighbor.  He explained that they wanted a craftsman style garage that is consistent with the architecture of the house.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if the proposal by the applicant will impede the delivery of utilities – meaning the location of the gas lines.  Mr. Wasiloff stated that the applicant may need to get permission from the gas company to build on top of the lines and the easement isn’t indicated on the plat map as running through the area.  Ms. Terry later mentioned that the legal description for the property makes mention of the gas lines.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the proposed garage is 24 foot wide and does it sit right up against the property line.  Mr. Wasiloff stated that the garage is 24 foot wide and it is located in the same location as the existing garage they are proposing for demolition.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the new garage will encroach any further to the west than the current garage.  Mr. Wasiloff stated no.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-131: 

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.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Montgomery, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Gill stated that the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated that the variance is for the allowance of a two car garage and it is substantial.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that there is an existing garage in this area.    

(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. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2010-131 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-131: Smith (abstain), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1 (Abstention, Smith).  Application #2010-131 is Approved.

(Mr. Smith rejoined the BZBA meeting at 8:00 PM.) 

Finding of Fact

Ralph McGrath, 118 Colomen Gwen Circle,  Application #2010-129

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1171, Planned Development 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 #2010-129.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-129 are Approved.  

Todd and Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway,  Application #2010-130

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 #2010-130.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-130 are Approved. 

Michael and Wendy Duffey, 335 West Elm Street,  Application #2010-131

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 #2010-131.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (recuse), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1 (Abstention, Smith).  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-131 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

July 8, 2010

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (abstain), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-1 (Abstention, Smith).  The minutes are approved as amended.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.  

Next Meeting:

October 14, 2010

BZBA Minutes July 8, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

July 8, 2010

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: Dana Landrum and Don DeSapri. 

Description of Procedure:

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

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing.  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 subjec 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:

Landrum Cottage/Dana Landrum, 221 East Broadway,  Application #2010-107

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

The request is for a Variance to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from four (4) parking spaces to two (2) parking spaces for 655.5 square feet of space to be used for a bakery, which will also contain retail sales and indoor seating. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Dana Landrum and Don DeSapri were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Dana Landrum, 642 Chateaugay Road S.W.,Pataskala, stated that she opened the bakery on May 1, 2010.  She stated that after opening she placed tables outside of the bakery because the library asked her to provide some outdoor seating.  Ms. Landrum stated that her neighbors are aware of the approval she is seeking for parking and they want it to be approved.  Ms. Landrum stated that she plans to seek approval to take over the antique shop and she will continue her baking along with some sales in the first building.  Ms. Landrum stated that she plans to serve “very accessible gourmet food” with seating for 20-25.  She also stated that the Health Department and Building Department have looked at the proposed space and they had no concerns.  She went on to explain that there is a handicapped bathroom that they can use for the time-being and the Robbins Hunter Museum will add additional bathroom facilities by December.  Ms. Landrum explained that they currently use three parking spaces behind the building.  She stated that her agreement with the Museum is to use one for the bakery, one for the antique shop, and one for the museum.  She stated that she is aware that the criteria for the Village are different than the agreement she has with the Robbins Hunter Museum regarding parking spaces.  Ms. Landrum stated that the Village criteria would require her to provide four parking spaces and she is seeking a Variance to reduce this by two spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that the parking size requirements are 10 foot by 20 foot and according to the Village regulations there are currently two parking spaces, even though they park three cars in the area.  Ms. Landrum indicated that the hours of operation for her restaurant would substantially change and so would the products.  She stated that they would like to offer a Sunday brunch and she anticipates her employment to double.  Mr. Gill asked if the “spirit of the Ordinance” is intended to largely aim at getting employee parking off the street.  Ms. Terry explained that this language is primarily intended for parking for the entire business use.  She went on to say that there isn’t anything in the Code that states a certain amount of parking should be provided for employee parking.  Ms. Terry stated that as a business use increases in intensity – the parking requirements also increase.  Mr. Gill stated that some other downtown businesses are aggressive at how they mark their parking spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that some of these spaces are privately owned by the property owners.  She stated that Park National Bank is one example of a business that leases out parking spaces.  The BZBA agreed that there are real issues with parking in the downtown area.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if there would be any signage involved for the parking spaces stating that they are for employees only.  She stated that she could see patrons wanting to park in these spaces.  Ms. Landrum indicated that there is a sign that says ‘No Thru Traffic’ already located in the alley.  Ms. Terry explained that the variance would be to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from four to two spaces.  She stated that the applicant wouldn’t have to stipulate that the parking spaces are for employee parking only.  Ms. Terry stated that Variances granted by the BZBA do not set a precedent.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant, Ms. Landrum, would be seeking approval from the Planning Commission on Monday, July 12th for a Change of Use for the proposed restaurant.  Mr. Montgomery asked if it is permissible to grant a Variance when the applicant is not the owner of the property.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant had to provide permission from the property owner during the application process.  She reviewed the total square footage involved with the two buildings and how she rounded up to conclude that four parking spaces would be required.  She explained that the Robbins Hunter Museum is grandfathered and there are not any parking space requirements for them at this time, unless their use changes.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the alley is privately owned and the Village has no control over this area.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if a variance would be required if the parking space Variance is not granted and the applicant needed to provide more parking.  Ms. Terry explained that either way, the applicant would need a Variance and it is up to the BZBA to decide which is the lesser of two evils.  She explained that if the parking variance is not approved, then the applicant would have to look at providing additional parking on the existing property and this would result in the need for a variance to allow the vehicular access to the property to cross other properties that are zoned Village Residential District (VRD).    

Don DeSapri,  250 Potter’s Lane, indicated that he is the President of the Board for the Robbins Hunter Museum.  The BZBA asked if Mr. DeSapri was in agreement with the request for a Variance.  Mr. DeSapri stated that he saw no issues whatsoever.  Ms. Terry asked if he saw any changes resulting from the parking.  Mr. DeSapri stated no.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-107: 

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. Mr.  Montgomery, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. Mr. Gill stated FALSE.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Hoyt stated that the Variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill 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. Montgomery stated TRUE.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he believes the area around the proposed bakery is dangerous to get turned around in a car and he believes that the character of the neighborhood would be altered because there are often children walking to the library in the alley.  Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Mr. Gill 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.  Mr. Montgomery stated FALSE.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he thinks the intent of the zoning requirements are not to overburden off-street parking and for off-street businesses to provide adequate parking.  Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Mr. Gill stated TRUE.      

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.  Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Ashbaugh  indicated FALSE.  

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Ashbuagh, and Mr. Montgomery stated FALSE. 

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.   

Further Discussion:

Mr. Gill stated that the BZBA can’t keep giving out Variances for parking spaces that don’t exist.  He went on to say the Village requirements state that Landrum Cottage would require four parking spaces and Ms. Landrum is stating that they are actually parking three cars back there now.  He stated that he doesn’t think customers will go back there because the parking spaces will be full with employee parking.  Ms. Hoyt asked Ms. Landrum if she has any commercial traffic delivering supplies through the alley way.  Ms. Landrum stated that she does her own deliveries and she may look at getting a linen service, but they would use the front entrance and not the alley.  Mr. Montgomery stated that his concerns are regarding people coming in and out of the business…and the Code states that they need to provide adequate off-street parking.  Ms. Landrum stated that since she has been open, she has observed most of her visitors walking from the local hotels.  She stated that many of her employees do not have parking requirements.  Mr. Gill stated that they appreciate the Robbins Hunter Museum sending someone to represent their board.  Ms. Terry clarified that if the museum were to expand in the future, they should keep in mind that any changes in the use would have to adhere to the current parking requirements.  Mr. DeSapri stated that they do not estimate any further changes at this time.    

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2010-107 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-107: Gill (yes), Montgomery (no), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.  Application #2010-110 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact 

Landrum Cottage/Dana Landrum, 221 East Broadway,  Application #2010-107

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading 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 #2010-107.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (no), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-110 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

June 10, 2010

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.  

Next Meeting:

August 12, 2010

BZBA Minutes June 10, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

June 10, 2010

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Ed Ridgeway and Mary Ann Murphy. 

Description of Procedure:

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

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing.  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:

Sean and Denee Choice, 121 Bedwen Bach Lane,  Application #2010-79

Planned Unit Development (PUD)  The request is for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from fifteen (15’) feet to seven (7’) feet to allow for the construction of an expanded driveway area.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Ed Ridgeway were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Ed Ridgeway, 711 Forest Hills Road, Heath, Mark Builders:

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant wanted to expand the driveway.  She stated that Mark Builders submitted a zoning permit application on behalf of the homeowners and believed that is only required administrative approval.  Ms. Terry stated that once she reviewed the application, she realized that a variance was necessary and when she contacted Mr. Ridgeway he indicated that the concrete had already been poured.  Ms. Terry stated that there was a mis-communication regarding the approval process when the application was dropped off and that the first step for remediation of this mistake was to require that the applicant apply for the required variance.  Ms. Terry went on to explain that when she pulled the original plans that were issued for the home and driveway, the existing driveway wasn’t built as approved and that the side yard setback wasn’t shown on the plans or adhered to.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the house next to this property has a driveway that is just as close to the side yard setback.  Mr. Gill asked if the property owner talked to any of the neighbors.  Mr. Ridgeway stated that when they were tearing down a fence he gave some of the bushes to the next door neighbor, and they discussed the plans to expand the concrete driveway but they didn’t have any discussions regarding setbacks.  Mr. Gill asked if the Village received any feedback from neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated that she had received several phone calls regarding the variance request.  The BZBA discussed whether or not the Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association was contacted.  Ms. Terry explained that the Village is not required to contact the Homeowner’s Association, and that the rules within this subdivision are not a factor in whether a permit is issued by the Village for any improvements to a property.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village must follow the zoning code requirements and cannot enforce deed restrictions.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-79:

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 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.    

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Ashbaugh and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.  Mr. Montgomery indicated FALSE.  Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant has already poured the concrete.  

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 #2010-79 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-79: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-79 is approved. 

Finding of Fact 

Sean and Denee Choice, 121 Bedwen Bach Lane,  Application #2010-79

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1171, Planned Development 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 #2010-79.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-79 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

March 11, 2010

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The minutes are approved as presented. 

May 13, 2010

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

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

 

Next Meeting:  July 8, 2010

BZBA Minutes May 13, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

May 13, 2010

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Paul Hammond, and Scott Walker.

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.

New Business:

Tracee Laing/Paul Hammond, 494 North Granger Street,  Application #2010-67

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B)

The request is for the following Variances:

1)         To reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30') feet to twelve (12') feet, for the construction of an eight (8') foot by ten (10') foot garden shed; and

2)         To increase the height of the fence in a front yard from forty-two inches to forty-eight inches, for the construction of a wood dog-ear fence. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Paul Hammond were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh) 

(Mr. Ashbaugh recused himself from Application #2010-67 at 7:05 PM and was seated in the audience.) 

Paul Hammond, 494 North Granger Street, stated that they would like to build a shed to house gardening and mowing equipment.  He indicated that the front of the house faces the creek and the golf course and the back of the house faces Granger Street.  Mr. Hammond stated that there is a tree line next to the sidewalk and the side yard cannot be seen very well.  He stated that the proposed shed would have to be located in the middle of the yard if they weren’t requesting this Variance.  Mr. Hammond stated that they would also like a fence and it would cover up the garbage cans, which are 40.5 inches tall.  He stated that the Zoning Code allows for a 42 inch high fence.  Ms. Terry clarified that the proposed height of the fence would be 48 inches high.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the shed is proposed to be located thirty feet from the street as shown on the site plan.  Ms. Terry stated that this measurement was provided by the applicant and was taken from the edge of the sidewalk closest to the house.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the rear of the garden shed would face Granger Street.  Mr. Hammond stated yes.  Mr. Montgomery asked why the proposed fencing requires a Variance.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant would need a Variance because the fencing would be located in the front yard of the home and the Code only allows for a 42 inch high fence in the front yard. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-67: 

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. 

(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 FALSE. 

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 #2010-67 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-67: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-67 is Approved. 

(Mr. Ashbaugh rejoined the BZBA meeting at 7:20 PM.)

Denison University/Scott Walker, 200/300 Ebaugh Drive,  Application #2010-68

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for a Conditional Use to construct two (2) maintenance buildings.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Scott Walker were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Scott Walker, Franklin Avenue, Heath, explained that the structures will replace two buildings that currently hold field house equipment and lawn equipment.  He also stated that the new location of the buildings will be closer to recreational activities.  Mr. Walker stated that the building behind Rose House would hold a golf cart and paint and equipment used for the athletic field, as well as a work bench.  Mr. Walker stated that the second structure is behind the soccer area and lacrosse, soccer, and football equipment will be housed in it.  Mr. Gill asked why the structure requires a Conditional Use. 

Ms. Terry stated that the use requires a Conditional Use versus Permitted Use due to it being a maintenance building.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed placement of the structures wouldn’t interfere or be a detriment to neighboring properties since it is surrounded on all sides by properties in the Institutional District.  She stated that the Conditional Use means that the approval for this application requires additional review by this board.  Mr. Walker indicated that there is nothing that will occur in the structures that isn’t already occurring in the existing structures for the same purpose.  Mr. Montgomery asked what Rose House is used for.  Mr. Walker stated that there is an office and apartment for Ohio Campus Impact.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-68: 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

b)   The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.     

(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 unanimously agreed 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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

e)  The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2010-68 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-68: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-68 is Approved. 

Denison University/Scott Walker, 400 Ebaugh Drive,  Application #2010-69

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for a conditional use for additions to an existing restroom facility, adding team rooms. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Scott Walker were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Scott Walker, Pine View Drive, explained that they would like to add some team rooms or locker rooms for athletics.  Ms. Terry indicated that the use is a conditional use, and because it is an accessory use.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the Conditional Use is permitted in this zoning district.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  He also asked if the buildings are visible from North Pearl Street.  Ms. Terry stated they are behind a wooded tree row and won’t be visible.  Ms. Hoyt added that this will be a nice addition to the campus. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-69: 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

b)   The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.   The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(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 unanimously agreed 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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

e)  The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.   The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2010-69 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-69: Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-69 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact

Tracee Laing/Paul Hammond, 494 North Granger Street,  Application #2010-67

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 #2010-67.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith, (yes), Ashbaugh (recused).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-18 are Approved.  

Denison University/Scott Walker, 200/300 Ebaugh Drive,  Application #2010-68

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses, and Chapter 1169 Institutional 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 #2010-68.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-68 are Approved.  

Denison University/Scott Walker, 400 Ebaugh Drive,  Application #2010-69

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145 Conditional Uses, and Chapter 1169 Institutional 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 #2010-69.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-69 are Approved.  

Motion to Adjourn

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

Next Meeting:

June 10, 2010

BZBA Minutes March 11, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

March 11, 2010

7:00 p.m.

 

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

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors: Art Chonko and John Noblick. 

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.

New Business:

Scott & Martha Keyes, 418 West Broadway,  Application #2010-18

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

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to three feet four-inches (3’4”), to reduce the northern rear yard setback from fifteen (15’) feet to three feet four-inches, and to increase the maximum lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-six (26%) percent, to allow for the construction of a detached garage. 

Discussion:

(Mr. Ashbaugh recused himself from discussion of Application #2010-18 because he is working with the owner of the property at 418 West Broadway.  He was seated in the audience at 7:05 PM.) 

(Alison Terry and John Noblick were sworn in by Vice Chair, Ms. Hoyt.)

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, 51 North 3rd Street, Suite 701, Newark, Ohio indicated that he is the builder for the proposed project.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has received approval from the Planning Commission for the construction of a new garage, and the approval is contingent upon a Variance from the BZBA.  Mr. Noblick stated that the existing barn is fragile and has been approved for demolition by the Planning Commission, but not yet had a first reading at Village Council.  Mr. Gill asked if the property owner has had conversations with neighbors regarding their plans.  Mr. Noblick indicated that he is not sure.  Ms. Terry stated that she did hear from one neighbor to the west that indicated that they didn’t have a problem with the plans.  Mr. Noblick explained that the applicant wants this garage in this location because of a 26 foot long vehicle that they can drive straight in.  He also stated that the applicant was choosing not to blow out a good portion of the back yard and the presented plan puts the garage in line of the existing driveway to create more green space.  Ms. Terry stated that in this zoning district, Suburban Residential District (SRD), there is not a maximum impervious lot coverage and a driveway does not count against the maximum building lot coverage.  Mr. Gill asked if the letters were sent Certificate of Mailing and if an address changes the letter would get returned to the Village.  Ms. Terry stated yes & that the Village also posts sign notices in the yard and puts an ad in the newspaper.  Ms. Terry explained that in this particular case, due to the proposed demolition and new structure, the neighbors were notified by mailings on three different occasions.  Mr. Gill stated that he always likes to see that the person making the impact (applicant) has attempted to make his/her neighbors aware of their plans.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the proposed height of the new garage is similar to the height of the old garage.  Mr. Noblick stated that the new garage will be a hipped roof that is six inches higher than the existing garage and it will feel shorter.  He added that there will be three deciduous trees that will help screen the building on the east side and the proposed structure is more attractive than having the vehicle in the yard.  Mr. Montgomery noted that to the east lawn, there is a six foot privacy fence with a lattice top and these people don’t really see much due to the fence.     

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-18: 

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.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Montgomery, and Ms. Hoyt of the BZBA stated FALSE. Mr. Smith stated 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.  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. 

Ms. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2010-18 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-18: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-18  is Approved. 

(Mr. Ashbaugh rejoined the BZBA meeting as Chair at 7:20 PM)

Denison University/Art Chonko, 200 Livingston Drive,  Application #2010-23

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for approval of the following variances:

1)      To reduce the required parking space dimension for 90 degree parking spaces from a ten (10’) feet minimum  width by twenty (20’) feet minimum length to nine and a half (9 ½’) feet minimum width by eighteen (18’) feet minimum length, for the northern and southern parking areas; and

2)      To reduce the required parking drive aisle dimension for angled parking from eighteen (18’) feet to sixteen (16’) feet for the parking areas adjacent to the front entrance.  

Discussion:

(Mr. Gill recused himself from discussion and voting on Application #2010-23 because of his wife’s employment with Denison University.  He was seated in the audience at 7:20 PM.) 

(Alison Terry and Art Chonko were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh) 

Art Chonko, Denison University, P.O. Box F, explained that they would like to reduce the width of the parking spaces.  He stated that by allowing the smaller spaces they were able to reduce the size of the parking area and this in return saves trees and reduces the need for retention walls.  Mr. Chonko stated that no one else is impacted by the parking Variance other than the University.  Mr. Montgomery indicated that the smaller sized spaces seem fine to him, but he questions the drive aisle being two feet narrower.  Mr. Chonko stated that the angled parking is one way.  Mr. Montgomery asked how long the angled spaces are.  Mr. Chonko stated that they vary.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Engineer is okay with the proposed Variances.  Mr. Smith stated that if there is a problem with the angled spaces not being long enough then it’s a problem for the property owner.  Mr. Ashbaugh noted that there are parking spaces in front of the library that are only eight foot wide.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the applicant is increasing the number of parking spaces with this plan.  Mr. Chonko stated that there is a net gain of four spaces.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-23: 

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. Montgomery, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Ashbaugh of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.  Ms. Hoyt felt 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.  The BZBA unanimouslyagreed FALSE.    

(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. Montgomery, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Ashbaugh of the BZBA stated FALSE.  Ms. Hoyt 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 noted that ordinarily he would have concern over emergency vehicle accessibility, but this seems to have been addressed according to the engineer’s email. 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2010-23 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-23: Gill (abstain), Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-23 is Approved. 

(Jeff Gill returned to the BZBA meeting at 7:35 PM.) 

Finding of Fact 

Scott and Martha Keyes, 324 East Maple Street,  Application #2010-18

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.  

Mr. Gill moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-18.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (abstain).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-18 are Approved.  

Denison University/Art Chonko, 200 Livingston Drive,  Application #2010-23

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1183 Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-23.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (abstain), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-23 are Approved. 

Approval of the Minutes

February 18, 2010

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM. 

Next Meeting:

April 8, 2010

BZBA Minutes February 18, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

February 18, 2010

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, Law Director, Michael Crites.

Visitors: Art Chonko, Richard Nevil, Brian Miller, Dale Googins, Oakley Overman, Vince Ghiloni, and Forrest Blake.

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. 

New Business:

Brian and Connie Davis, 324 East Maple Street,  Application #2010-5

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

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five feet four-inches (5’4”) to allow for the reconstruction of a detached garage.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Vince Ghiloni, and Richard Nevil were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Vince Ghiloni, 3232 Canyon Road, indicated that he is the builder for the proposed project.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has received approval from the Planning Commission for the construction of a new garage, and the approval is contingent upon a variance from the BZBA.  Mr. Ghiloni stated that the garage will not be any larger than before and it will be nicer than the original structure.  He stated that a variance is required for conformity to the Village Code.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the new garage will be the same height as the garage that burnt down.  Mr. Ghiloni stated that the roof pitch is higher and this is so the structure will match the neighborhood.  Mr. Ghiloni guessed that the new structure will be approximately 40 inches higher.  He also stated that the new garage will have the same number of doors and windows as the previous garage.  Mr. Ghiloni stated that they will use hardiplank siding instead of the vinyl siding that was on the old garage.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the same driveway and footers were being used.  Mr. Ghiloni stated yes.  Ms. Terry explained that if more than 60% of the structure is damaged or lost, then the Code states that a variance is required if the new structure does not conform with the current Code requirements.  Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if the structure retained its non-conforming status.  Ms. Terry explained that her records only go back to the early 1990’s and she does not know what designation the garage had before it burnt down.  She stated that the new structure will have to adhere to the Code standards that are in place today.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there have been any replies from the mailings to neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-5: 

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. 

(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.   

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2010-5 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-5: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-5 is Approved. 

Denison University/Art Chonko, 200 Livingston Drive,  Application #2010-10

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for approval of a Conditional Use for expansion of the athletic center & new natatorium. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Art Chonko were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh) 

(Mr. Gill recused himself from discussion and voting on Application #2010-10 because of his wife’s employment with Denison University.  He was seated in the audience at 7:20 PM.)

Art Chonko, Pine View Drive, explained that the University would like to build a new natatorium and athletic center.  He indicated that this would be an addition to the Mitchell Athletic Center currently in place and all existing structures would remain.  Mr. Chonko stated that the University is trying to enhance the existing program.  He also indicated that they will be creating additional parking spaces and he will come back for approval on this because a variance would be required if they reduce the size of the parking spaces. 

Mr. Montgomery questioned which Conditional Use is being applied for.  Ms. Terry stated that the University is requesting use as a gymnasium.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there is a Conditional Use already in place with the existing structure.  Ms. Terry stated that if there was a Conditional Use in place it was for the original structure and not for the proposed expansion/addition.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if they will be creating a new retention pond.  Mr. Chonko stated that water will still go through Clear Creek and they are catching some in a bio swale before it goes on to the creek.  Mr. Chonko indicated that they are also trying to improve on the water that comes up at Deeds Field.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the change in the layout is going to change the traffic flow.  Mr. Chonko stated no.  He stated that they will have the same number of students and parking spaces.  Mr. Chonko stated that the whole project is internal to the campus and will not impact State Route 661.  

Dale Googins, 508 North Pearl Street, stated that he is a retired faculty member of Denison University and he is not opposed to the addition at Mitchell Athletic Center.  Mr. Googins stated that his comments are more directed to the Village, rather than Denison.  He asked how the current water is taken away and if this project will require that the Village make the existing drains bigger to remove water.  Mr. Chonko stated that they will be working with the Village Engineer on these types of matters.  Ms. Terry stated that if more than one acre is disturbed the applicant will also need a permit from the EPA.  She explained that they are not allowed to add more storm water.  Mr. Chonko stated that any costs associated with the water drainage will be incurred by Denison.  He stated that a swale is there to help reduce the water disbursement.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there was anything in the design of the addition that would promote excessive lighting or noise.  Mr. Chonko stated that they will be consistent with what is located there now.  He also stated that they are trying to acquire LEED Certification for environmental concerns with the pool.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-10: 

a)  The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

b)  The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  

c)  The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  Each member of 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  

e)  The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. 

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve Application #2010-10 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-10: Gill (abstain), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2010-10 is Approved. 

(Mr. Gill re-joined the BZBA  meeting at 7:40 PM) 

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street,  Application #2010-15

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

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback on the northern side of the home from ten (10’) feet to three (3’) feet to allow for the construction of a second story addition.  

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Forrest Blake were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, stated that the original house was built in 1920 and has an addition that was put on in the 1980’s.  He stated that his intent is to add a second story level with master bedroom and to redo the first floor of the addition to make it maintain the character of the 1920’s portion of the home.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has not yet reviewed this application.  Mr. Blake stated that his submitted drawings show that he is going to maintain the current roof pitch of the existing home on the new addition, but he is now thinking this will change and the roof pitch will be a step down.  Mr. Gill asked if Mr. Blake has talked to his neighbors about the proposed addition.  Mr. Blake stated that he talked to the neighbor to the south and the neighbor on the north side.  Ms. Terry indicated that there has not been any response to letters that were sent out regarding this application.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated the house has one dormer on one side and he questioned if this would be replicated on the other side.  Mr. Blake stated that he has talked about this with the architects and he is unsure at this point.  Mr. Blake stated that he would like the back addition to be something different than aluminum and he plans to use either wood or hardiplank board.  He also stated that he will match the detailing on the windows with the new addition.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the wood deck will remain.  Mr. Blake stated yes.  Mr. Gill and Ms. Hoyt questioned if any light would be blocked to neighboring homes.  Mr. Gill guessed that there would be some impact to the home on the south side.  Mr. Blake stated that this home goes further to the east, so there is not much impact.  Mr. Montgomery commented that the BZBA is only addressing a variance for the side yard setback.  Ms. Terry stated that this variance is required because the structure is being added on to vertically.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-15: 

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. 

(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 #2010-15 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-15: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-15 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact 

Brian and Connie Davis, 324 East Maple Street,  Application #2010-5

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 #2010-5.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-5 are Approved.  

Denison University/Art Chonko, 200 Livingston Drive,  Application #2010-10

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1169, Institutional District, and Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Montgomery moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-10.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (abstain), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-10 are Approved.  

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street,  Application #2010-15

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 #2010-15.  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 #2010-15 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

October 8, 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 (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Approval of Meeting Dates for 2010:

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the hearing dates as presented to the BZBA Board.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith from the BZBA meeting on February 18, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

Election of Chair to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals:

Mr. Gill nominated Fred Ashbaugh as Chair to the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Election of Vice-Chair to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals:

Mr. Gill nominated Jean Hoyt as Vice-Chair to the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to Adjourn

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

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM. 

 

Next Meeting:

March 11, 2010

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.