Granville Community Calendar

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

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.