Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
January 6, 2011
Members Present: Jean Hoyt, Fred Ashbaugh, Rob Montgomery, Jeff Gill, and Bradley Smith.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Debi Walker, Village Planning Department.
Visitors: John Noblick, Bryon Reid, Herach Nazarrian, Kevin Reiner, Lisa McKivergin, Tony Beckerly, Steven Katz, and Brian Miller.
Description of Procedure:
Ms. Terry provided 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 a 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.
Terra Nova Partners, 384 East Broadway, Application #2010-177
Village Business District (VBD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).
The request is for review and approval of a conditional use for single family residential.
(Alison Terry, Herach Nazarrian, Tony Beckerly, and Bryon Reid were formerly sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh on December 9, 2010. Lisa McKivergin was sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh on January 6, 2011.)
(Application #2010-177 was previously Tabled. Ms. Terry asked if the absent BZBA members (Jeff Gill and Rob Montgomery) had listened to a copy of the tape and read the meeting minutes pertaining to Application #2010-177. Mr. Gill and Mr. Montgomery acknowledged that they reviewed the information (read the minutes and listened to the tape) pertaining to Application #2010-177 and felt as though they were able to gather the information needed to render a decision on the application.)
Mr. Smith made a motion to remove Application #2010-177 from the Table. Ms. Hoyt seconded. Roll Call Vote to remove Application #2010-177 from the Table: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #2010 is removed from the Table.
Mr. Gill asked if there were any questions or comments from the owners of the neighboring property – Denison University. Ms. Terry indicated that she did not receive any comments back from Denison University and they should have received a formal notice pertaining to this application.
Tony Beckerly, Granville Hospitality, stated that he has been in contact with Denison the whole time they have considered putting the property up for sale. Mr. Gill asked if there were any comments by them regarding the shared access driveway. Mr. Beckerly stated no.
Mr. Montgomery clarified if the front yard setback from West Broadway is required to be set back as far as the College Town House due to the Village Code. He indicated that this setback is approximately eighty feet. Mr. Montgomery shared that he prefers the presented layout to have the house set back with the Granville Inn and the College Town House. Ms. Terry stated that according to the Code, the house would have to setback the same amount as the other properties on that block. Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that the applicant is meeting all of the requirements and the BZBA is only deciding of the proposed Conditional Use. Mr. Montgomery indicated that he is pleased that this setback is a requirement. Ms. Terry stated that she reviewed the access management guidelines since this was brought up at the previous meeting. She stated that the driveway access points are required to be 150 feet from any other driveway - without a variance. She explained that this applies more to newer subdivisions, but it is a blanket designation and doesn’t exclude this area. She indicated that if there is a roadway within 300 feet then there couldn’t be a driveway access point. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant cannot meet either of those criteria and it appears as though a change in the access point would require two Variances. Ms. Terry stated that the Service Director thought that the best solution would be to keep the access point where it currently is and widen it. She stated that he felt this would be better than trying to separate it completely. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the Planning Commission would ultimately review the driveway access points. Ms. Terry stated yes. Mr. Gill indicated that as a board member he always likes to hear what a neighboring property owner has to say and he really has no problem with where the home would be located.
Bryon Reid, 134 Stone Valley Drive, stated that the presented use of the property would be considered “a lesser use” and there would be less traffic in terms of the driveway being shared.
Ms. Hoyt questioned if there is a written and recorded agreement for maintenance of the shared driveway. Ms. Terry stated that there is not an agreement required by the Village and they are only concerned with the driveway apron because it is within the right of way. Ms. Hoyt indicated that many finance companies and title companies would require a written agreement for a shared driveway.
Lisa McKivergin, 329 East College Street, stated that she owns two contiguous properties near the parking lot that is being reviewed. She clarified that the Licking County Auditor would require a shared driveway agreement through the Title process for the property.
Ms. McKivergin indicated that she appeared at another meeting where the applicant was present and she stated that she informed the Village that it would be wise for them to consider the townhouse concept because it is more appropriate for the area. Although, she indicated that she is in favor of a single family home, rather than a parking lot.
Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he had a conversation with Village Planner Terry regarding the use of the driveway and he is more in favor of _______________, rather than staying a parking lot.
Mr. Smith stated that the shared driveway matter doesn’t involve the BZBA and they are being charged with a Conditional Use. He indicated that the applicant could potentially need additional Variances if they reorient the house and this is independent of the consideration for the Conditional Use. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he doesn’t like the presented garage access, but this can’t be considered at this meeting. Mr. Montgomery stated that he heard several times on the tape the concerns that this is one of the last buildable lots in the Village Business District and this may be relevant to a certain extent. He stated that the reason this application is before them is for consideration of the Conditional Use. He stated that there is 2,950 square feet of parking lot space and this could allow for potentially up to 20 parking spaces. Mr. Montgomery stated that he is in favor of the Conditional Use because if a residential customer wants to change to a business - then the presented layout by the applicant would accommodate this. Mr. Montgomery stated that the residential use could always revert back to a business use.
The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-177:
a) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The proposed use is a conditional use within this zoning district and does meet with the applicable development standards as outlined. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.
b) The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.
The 2001 Comprehensive Plan states the following:
“Downtown is one of the most treasured aspects of Granville. The Village Council and the Granville Business and Professional Association should collaborate on a study to make specific recommendations for the preservation and enhancements of this important resource. Granville is confronted with a number of issues which are specific to downtown: parking, expansion of its commercial area, types and mix of stores and services, ratio of office space to retail, the use of first floor space for offices, and more broadly, fire, police, and utility systems. The Committee’s conclusion is that these issues are beyond the scope of this Comprehensive Plan review and should be addressed by Village officials and citizens who are involved with them on an ongoing basis.” There is an existing parking lot on the property that will be removed if a Conditional Use is approved for a single-family house.
Mr. Montgomery stated that this is in accordance with the existing land use on the same property and the parking lot is not a public parking lot. Mr. Gill stated ‘No’ to this criterion, “but not with great emphasis.” Mr. Smith, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Ms. Hoyt all stated ‘Yes.’
c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as street, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.
Please refer to letters submitted by Erik Holmquist, Wastewater Superintendent and Larry Fruth, Water Superintendent. Both have indicated that the Village has the ability to service this property with public water and sanitary sewer. 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 #2010-177 as amended as it stands. Seconded by Mr. Smith.
Ms. Hoyt questioned if any BZBA member had any conditions beyond the requirements. Mr. Montgomery indicated that he is satisfied with the front yard condition (setback) as it stands and didn’t see the need for any additional conditions. Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-177: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #2010 is approved.
Keith and Courtney McWalter, 223 East Elm Street, Application #2010-182
Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)
The request is for review and approval of the following variances: to reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to six (6’) feet on the western side, and to reduce the required rear yard setback from (10’) feet to five feet eight inches (5’-8”) to allow for the construction of a two-story detached accessory structure.
(Alison Terry, John Noblick, Kevin Reiner, Steven Katz, and Keith McWalter were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)
John Noblick, 53 North 2nd Street, Newark, stated that he is the builder representing the homeowner. He indicated that the applicant would like to tear down the existing barn and rebuild a barn with the very same footprint. Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission approved the architectural plans contingent upon the BZBA approval for the needed Variances.
Mr. Montgomery asked the height of the new structure compared to the previous height of the building to be demolished. Mr. Noblick stated that the new structure will be three foot higher and this is due to a short header and taller floor joists. Mr. Montgomery asked if the new structure is taller than the two-story home. Mr. Noblick stated no because the garage sidewalls are 5’8 and the house is a story and three quarters. Mr. Gill asked if the applicant has spoken to the property owners to the east and west. Keith McWalter stated he spoke with the neighbors to the immediate east and west.
Mr. Montgomery asked if the second story on west elevation stick out further. Ms. Terry explained that this is due to the eaves and canopies which can stick out an additional two feet. Mr. Montgomery questioned if this will have any affect on the alley in this area. Mr. Noblick stated that there is an existing roof overhang and they anticipate the new construction to improve and be better than it currently is. Ms. Hoyt indicated that she noticed that there will be a furnace in the structure and she questioned if there would be an air conditioning unit that needs to be considered. Ms. Terry stated no.
Steven Katz, 221 East Elm Street, stated that he lives to the west of the McWalters. He stated that they are fully aware of the plans presented by the applicant and they like the design and the contractor. He stated that this would be a quality job that will enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Katz stated that the proposed setbacks are the same as what exists now and they’ve been used to this for thirty some years. He stated that he encourages the board to approve this plan.
The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-182:
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. Mr. Gill stated that they would be losing the equivalence.
(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 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 #2010-182 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-182: Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #2010-182 is Approved.
Finding of Fact
Terra Nova Partners , 219 West Broadway, Application #2010-177
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 Business District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-177. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-177 are Approved.
Keith and Courtney McWalter, 223 East Elm Street, Application #2010-182
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 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 #2010-182. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-182 are Approved.
Approval of the Minutes
December 9, 2010
Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (yes). Motion carried 3-0. The minutes are approved as presented. (Mr. Gill and Mr. Montgomery abstained because they were not present at the meeting.
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
February 10, 2011