Granville Community Calendar

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

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.