Granville Community Calendar

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

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.