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

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.