Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes April 14, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

April 14, 2011

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Scott Manno, Fred Ashbaugh, Rob Montgomery, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Bradley Smith.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director.

Visitors: Brad and Amanda Schneider, and Phil Watts.

Citizen Comments:  There were no citizen comments. 

New Business:

Brad and Amanda Schneider, 121 North Plum Street, Application #2011-11

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to eighteen (18’) feet and to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-two (22%) percent to allow for the construction of a front porch. 

(Brad & Amanda Schneider and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

Amanda Schneider, 121 North Plum Street, stated that they would like to build a front covered porch.  Ms. Schneider indicated that they would not be significantly affecting the lot coverage.  She provided pictures of what the original front porch looked like.  Mr. Gill questioned how far the proposed porch would project in front of the façade of the house.  Ms. Schneider guessed it would encroach on the full five feet - maybe a little less.  She stated that the hangover at the top would be less than a foot.  Ms. Schneider explained that they have had ice damage/icicles at their front door and they use this as the main entrance into the home.  She stated that they would like the porch for safety reasons.  Mr. Ashbaugh noted the examples of porches on Plum Street and Broadway presented by the applicant.  Ms. Schneider stated that the proposed porch would look more like the examples shown on Broadway.  Ms. Terry stated that the application would also have to go to the Planning Commission for architectural review and approval.    

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-11: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed 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. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-11 as presented by the applicant.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-11: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2011-11 is approved. 

Granville Milling Company, 400 South Main Street, Application #2011-27

The request is for review and approval of a Variance to increase the maximum height for a building from thirty (30’) feet to eighty-four feet six inches (84’6”) for a new grain bin.  The property is zoned Community Service District (CSD). 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Phil Watts were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)

Phil Watts, President of Granville Milling Company, stated that the mill is in need of an additional grain bin for manufacturing.  Mr. Manno asked what the expected noise factor would be.  Mr. Watts stated that he can’t say for certain, but it would be no more than the noise level that is currently there.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he does have concern about the noise adding to the amount of noise currently there now.  Mr. Watts indicated that he didn’t feel this would be a problem.  He explained that they need more corn to produce what they are doing.  Mr. Montgomery questioned if there would be an increase in airborne particles, as typically seen in the Fall.  Mr. Watts agreed that there could be an increase in dust.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the proposed grain bin is closer to residences and the airborne particles do migrate a few blocks away from the mill.  

Mr. Watts explained that the airborne particles are due to the unloading procedure.  Mr. Ashbaugh later suggested that the mill may want to investigate a way to contain the airborne particles with a storage containment system or vacuum.  Mr. Manno asked if the mill expects to see an increase in truck traffic.  Mr. Watts stated no more than what is currently there now.  He stated that they used to lease from an outside facility where product was trucked back and forth.  He stated that with more in-house manufacturing they could actually see less truck traffic.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the variance request is for something that is three times the size (height) of the current code and he has concern about the obstruction of views for East Maple Street properties.  Mr. Watts indicated that East Maple should be above the height of the proposed bin.  Mr. Gill questioned if the Planning Commission would be approving the location of the bin from what is outlined on the drawing.  Ms. Terry indicated that the location of the bin could potentially shift slightly, but would need to be in the same general area.  Mr. Gill indicated that he couldn’t see anywhere on East Maple Street that the proposed grain bin would block.  Mr. Gill questioned if residents on Maple Street got notification of this variance request.  Ms. Terry stated yes that notices were sent to residents on East Maple for the north and south side of the street.  Mr. Montgomery indicated that he can see two existing grain bins from his house.  He stated that they are not higher than the houses on his block and all of the bins right now are concentrated closer to the street in the same area.  He stated that the new bin would be located in a different area from the existing two.  Mr. Manno asked why the new bin is proposed to be so far away from the existing bins.  Mr. Watts stated that this was due to the need for two-way traffic.  He stated that it would have been more feasible for the mill to have the new bin next to the existing bins, but it wasn’t possible when a truck would need to come through.  Mr. Montgomery questioned how the thirty feet (30’) height requirement came to be in this district. She explained that this code section is relatively antiquated with little information in it related to types of structures and that thirty feet (30’) is a standard building height in this type of district.  Ms. Terry stated that this property was likely not zoned as Community Service District (CSD) years ago when the area originally developed.  Mr. Montgomery agreed and stated that it appears to him that the CSD Code was written to accommodate existing businesses in this area.  Mr. Manno asked if Mr. Watts expects the new bin to be sufficient for expansion and future growth or will a request for more bins be needed.  Mr. Watts stated that the last bin they installed was in 1985 and he doesn’t see the need for any more at this time.  He explained that their focus on growth has been with satellite stores in other towns.  He stated that they use Granville for all their manufacturing.  Mr. Watts stated that the existing bins allow storage of 550,000 bushels and the proposed new bin would allow an additional 150,000 bushels.  He stated that this would give them the capacity to store 700,000 bushels of product.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that when he was reviewing this application he researched the height of cell phone towers and he was surprised to see that they can be 100 feet tall.  Mr. Watts stated that the mill had previously received a variance for a 120 feet high bin that already exists on the property.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-27: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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. Gill, Mr. Manno, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated FALSE.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the character on Maple Street could be altered due to the view, so TRUE.      

(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. Manno, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed TRUE.  Mr. Montgomery stated FALSE.     

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. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-27 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-27: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (no).  Motion carried 3-1.  Application #2011-27 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact

Brad and Amanda Schneider , 121 North Plum Street,  Application #2011-11

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 #2011-11.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-11 are approved. 

Granville Milling Company, 400 South Main Street,  Application #2011-27

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1167, Community Service 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 #2011-27.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (no), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-27 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith from the BZBA meeting on April 14, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.     

Approval of the Minutes

March 14, 2010

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.     

Next Meeting:

May 12, 2011

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.