Granville Community Calendar

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.