Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes September 9, 2010

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 9, 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: Todd and Robin Feil, Craig Zeigler, Ralph and Sheila McGrath, Skip Wille, Chip Gordon, John Heck, and Michael and Wendy Duffey. 

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:

Ralph McGrath, 118 Colomen Gwen Circle,  Application #2010-129

Planned Unit Development (PUD)The request is for a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from forty (40') feet to twenty-one (21') feet to allow for the construction of an eight foot nine inch (8'9") wooden arbor.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Ralph McGrath, and Craig Ziegler were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Ralph McGrath, 118 Colomen Gwen Circle, Granville, indicated that the arbor is part of the patio and in order to construct it a variance is required.  He indicated that he would essentially need an additional 19 feet.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if any other properties in this area have pursued the same type of improvements that Mr. McGrath is requesting.  Mr. McGrath stated that there are certainly other patios that are more elaborate than what he is proposing in the neighborhood.  He stated that he went in front of the Colony Board of Trustees and their Landscape Committee to provide the materials to be used and he received their written approval.  Ms. Terry stated that the patio is not in question for the variance, but instead anything that is above three feet in height in any district has to meet the setback the requirements.  She stated that patios do not have the same restrictions and Mr. McGrath would not need a variance for just the patio itself.  She went on to explain that she contacted the homeowner’s association and no one was aware that they had to pull a permit from the Village and this is the reason these applications haven’t come before the BZBA in the past.  Mr. Montgomery asked if there are lot coverage issues.  Ms. Terry explained that patios do not count and there isn’t a maximum impervious surface coverage.   

Craig Zeigler, 122 Colomen Gwen Circle, Granville stated that he was there in support of  Mr. McGrath’s request for a variance in the rear yard.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-129: 

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.  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. 

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 #2010-129 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-129: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-129 is Approved. 

Todd and Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway, Application #2010-130

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C)

The request is for the following variances:

1)         To reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to nine (9') feet on the western property line to allow for the construction of a rear deck;

2)         To reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to two (2') feet on the eastern property line to allow for the construction of an attached garage; and

3)         To reduce the required driveway side yard setback from five (5') feet to one (1') foot on the eastern property line to allow for the expansion of an existing driveway to the new attached garage. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Chip Gordon, Todd Feil and Robin Feil were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Todd and Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway, Granville, were present to answer any questions by the board. 

Mr. Montgomery asked who owns the property located at 565 West Broadway.  Chip Gordon, 2100 Lancaster Road, Granville, was present and stated that his company, SRG Investments, owns the property at 565 West Broadway.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there was once a shared garage on the property.  Ms. Feil stated that there was a shared garage that was between them and 585 and this was torn down.  Mr. Smith stated that he is unclear as to what type of structure the applicant is proposing to put in.  Mrs. Feil stated that it will be a two car garage with stacked parking that will start before the end of existing driveway.  She stated that the existing driveway would not move.  Mr. Gill asked if the new garage would block the view if one were on the deck/porch at 565 West Broadway.  Mrs. Feil stated that she is expecting that when she sits on her screen porch and looks at 565 West Broadway - the top of the garage will be below her porch and the garage is slightly above the basement and below the third floor.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the application for a new garage has already been before the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the application would still have to go to the Planning Commission because the applicant is proposing adding to the footprint - more than 20%.  Mr. Montgomery asked the proposed height of the garage.  Mrs. Feil stated that it would be a one story garage with mostly a shed roof from the house down.  Mr. Montgomery asked if on the east side facing 565 West Broadway - would the applicant be proposing windows and doors?  Mrs. Feil stated that that garage will be rather long and she is proposing four small windows along that side to break it up a little.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked what type of driveway the applicant would be installing.  Ms. Feil stated that they would remove the existing asphalt driveway and replace it with concrete.    She stated that it is her intention to remove the shared driveway on the other side of the property.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked the total depth of the home.  Ms. Feil stated somewhere around thirty feet and the new garage would be thirty-five feet.  Ms. Hoyt asked the applicant if the proposed plan before the BZBA was their first preference for the location of a new garage.  Mrs. Feil stated that their first choice fell through because it required cooperation from the neighbor to the west that didn’t work out.  

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the applicant gave any consideration to using the back yard for the location of the garage.  Mrs. Feil stated no because she wanted this to be exclusively used for gardening purposes.    

Chip Gordon, 2100 Lancaster Road, Granville, stated that he owns property to the east at 565 West Broadway and he is in favor of the request and feels it is appropriate for the neighborhood.  Mr. Gordon stated that he too has been trying to find more parking spaces for his property because of the topography in this area.  Mr. Gordon stated that he wants to take out a driveway on the side of his property and look at possibly putting in a garage.  He stated that the hand drawing submitted by Mrs. Feil shows that there is a fifteen foot side yard setback on the side of the property near his house and he measured this to make sure it was accurate.  He stated that Ms. Feil’s information mentions that each neighboring property has a garage and he would like to note that his property does not have a garage.  Mrs. Feil indicated that she was mistaken because she thought that the home did have a garage.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the tandem design for a garage Mrs. Feil is proposing is unusual for the community, but this will be up to the Planning Commission to decide if it's appropriate.  Mrs. Feil stated that they tried to have a side by side garage installed, but it is too narrow and you can’t make the turn.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-130:

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.      

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. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Montgomery, and Ms. Hoyt stated that the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he would consider the request for the variance to be 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. Montgomery stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Ms. Hoyt 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. Gill, Mr. Ashbaugh and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.  Mr. Montgomery 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.  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 #2010-130 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-130: Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2010-130 is Approved. 

Michael and Wendy Duffey, 335 West Elm Street,  Application #2010-131

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero point three (0.3') feet on the western property line and from ten (10') feet to seven (7') feet on the eastern property line to allow for the construction of a new 24' x 24' detached garage. 

Discussion:

(Mr. Smith recused himself from the application because he is a neighbor to the Duffey’s. 

He was seated in the audience at 7:40 PM.)

(Alison Terry, Michael and Wendy Duffey, and Mr. Greg Wasiloff, were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, Granville, stated that they have a very narrow lot that currently has a one car garage.  He indicated that they want to build a two car garage and both neighboring properties have two car garages.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant will need to request a Demolition Permit, but they applied for the variance first.  

Mr. Montgomery questioned if the new footprint of the garage is over top of gas lines leading to the nearby sub station.  Greg Wasiloff, 2696 Silver Street, Granville, stated that this has to be checked, but they suspect it goes from the front of the street to the substation along the property line.  Mr. Duffey stated that he has seen drawings showing that the gas lines run in a north-south direction and the garage is to the east of that sub station.  Ms. Hoyt asked if Mr. Duffey is proposing a story and a half structure.  Mr. Duffey stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant will be raising the elevation of the land.  Mr. Duffey stated no.  He explained that the current driveway is a shared driveway between the three properties.  Mr. Gill asked if the applicant had talked to the neighbors regarding his plans.  Mr. Duffey stated that both neighbors are in favor of the two car garage.  Ms. Terry confirmed that she had not received any feedback from the letters that were sent out regarding the application.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the neighbors are aware that the new garage will have additional height.  Mr. Duffey stated Mollie is aware of this, and he is not sure about the other neighbor.  He explained that they wanted a craftsman style garage that is consistent with the architecture of the house.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if the proposal by the applicant will impede the delivery of utilities – meaning the location of the gas lines.  Mr. Wasiloff stated that the applicant may need to get permission from the gas company to build on top of the lines and the easement isn’t indicated on the plat map as running through the area.  Ms. Terry later mentioned that the legal description for the property makes mention of the gas lines.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the proposed garage is 24 foot wide and does it sit right up against the property line.  Mr. Wasiloff stated that the garage is 24 foot wide and it is located in the same location as the existing garage they are proposing for demolition.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the new garage will encroach any further to the west than the current garage.  Mr. Wasiloff stated no.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-131: 

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.      

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. Ashbaugh stated that the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Montgomery, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Gill stated that the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated that the variance is for the allowance of a two car garage and it is substantial.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that there is an existing garage in this area.    

(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 #2010-131 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-131: Smith (abstain), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1 (Abstention, Smith).  Application #2010-131 is Approved.

(Mr. Smith rejoined the BZBA meeting at 8:00 PM.) 

Finding of Fact

Ralph McGrath, 118 Colomen Gwen Circle,  Application #2010-129

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 Development 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 #2010-129.  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 #2010-129 are Approved.  

Todd and Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway,  Application #2010-130

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 #2010-130.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-130 are Approved. 

Michael and Wendy Duffey, 335 West Elm Street,  Application #2010-131

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 #2010-131.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Smith (recuse), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1 (Abstention, Smith).  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-131 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

July 8, 2010

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (abstain), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-1 (Abstention, Smith).  The minutes are approved as amended.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.  

Next Meeting:

October 14, 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.