Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes July 14, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

July 14, 2011

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Fred Ashbaugh, Scott Manno, Bradley Smith.

Members Absent: Jeff Gill and Rob Montgomery.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner, and Assistant to the Planner Debi Walker.

Visitors: Mary Thurlow-Collen, John Noblick, Chris Lucas, Miller, Barb Hinterschied, and Dustin Gerkin. 

Description of Procedure:

Ms. Terry provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not a public hearing.  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:

Chris Lucas-Miller & Mary Thurlow-Collen, 329 East College Street, Application #2011-66

Village Residential District (VRD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to six feet eight inches (6’8”) feet to allow for the construction of a second story addition.  

(Alison Terry, Chris Lucas-Miller, and Mary Thurlow-Collen were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.)

Discussion:

Chris Lucas-Miller, indicated that this project would add a second floor bedroom and bath addition to the existing home.  This addition would reestablish the original exterior architectural design of the home.  The current first floor addition was not architecturally compatible to the home. 

Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission approved the architectural plans.  

Mr. Smith confirmed that this addition would not be extended beyond the current footprint.  Mr. Miller responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Miller indicated that the roofline of the addition would be designed to be more compatible with the home.  

Mr. Smith asked if there were any comments from residents.  Planner Terry indicated that one resident reviewed the plans and requested an explanation of the how the setbacks were handled. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of application #2011-66: 

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 and was FALSE. 

(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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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 #2011-66 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote to approve application #2011-66:  Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-66 is approved. 

Bruce and Julia Rooke, 96 Briarwood Drive, Application #2011-83

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

a)   To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty-five (35') feet to twenty-three (23') feet; and

b)   To increase the lot coverage from fifteen (15%) percent to eighteen and three-quarters (18 3/4%) percent to allow for the construction of a one story addition.

c)   To increase the maximum height of a fence between the front yard setback line and the street from forty-two inches (42") in height to sixty inches (60") in height, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence; and

d)   To remove the requirement that no chain link, wire mesh, or other similar type material can be installed fronting a street as a decorative landscape wall or fence, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence. 

(Alison Terry, John Noblick and Barb Hinterschied were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

John Noblick, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He indicated that the wooden fence was

predominantly decorative with the mesh fencing added to keep the resident’s animals in their yard and the wildlife out.  The property topography drops off so the height of the fence has been adjusted to allow the fence to look aesthetically pleasing.  

Mr. Smith asked if the fence was split rail or a three rail fence.  He was confused by the various photos.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the fence would be rail.  The photo showing a split rail fence depicted the type of mesh fence being used.  Mr. Smith asked that the photos be included as exhibits. 

Mr. Manno asked if the fence could be continued all the way around the property.  Mr. Manno expressed concerns about the look of a partial fence during the winter months.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the back of the property was heavily wooded, so the homeowners were just planning to use the mesh fence to all the wooded area to remain natural, but he indicated that he could check with the homeowner about extending the fence.  

Mr. Manno commented that the lot coverage was already over the permitted coverage.  Planner Terry indicated that the lot coverage was being increased by an additional one and three-quarter percent. 

Mrs. Hinterschied, 143 Briarwood, spoke in opposition to the installation of the fence.  She indicated that there were no other similar fences in the area.  The Rooke’s current backyard was an open vista and she felt that the vista should be maintained.  She was especially not supportive of the fence in the front portion of the property.  She indicated another neighbor was required to keep their fence behind their house.  Mr. Smith asked Mrs. Hinterschied if Mr. Noblick’s description of the property was correct.  Mr. Hinterschied responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Smith asked Mrs. Hinterschied what she objected to the most regarding the application.  Mrs. Hinterschied indicated that she objected to the height of the fence. 

Mr. Smith indicated that he felt there was substantial difference between a 42” and a 60” fence.  Mr. Smith suggested tabling the fence portion of the application and holding it over the next meeting when a full board would be available.  Planner Terry indicated that the Board could vote to approve the variance and allow the applicant to amend the fence portion of the application. 

Mr. Smith moved to amend and approve the variance to reduce the required front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to twenty-three (23’) feet, to increase the lot coverage from fifteen 915%0 percent to eighteen and three-quarters (18¾ %) percent to allow for the construction of a one story addition and to table the request to increase the maximum height of a fence between the front yard setback line and the street from forty-two inches (42") in height to sixty inches (60") in height, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence and to remove the requirement that no chain link, wire mesh, or other similar type material can be installed fronting a street as a decorative landscape wall or fence, to allow for the construction of a green coated wire mesh fence until the next Board meeting.  Second by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote to approve application #2011-83 as amended:  Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-83 is approved as amended.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of application #2011-83:

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 – FALSE. 

(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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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.   

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, Application #2011-85

Village Residential District (VRD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

a)      To reduce the required side yard setbacks from ten (10’) feet to eight (8’) feet;

b)      To reduce the required rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five (5’) feet; and

c)      To increase the total lot coverage from fifty-seven (57%) percent to fifty-nine (59%) percent; to allow for the construction of a greenhouse addition on the rear of the accessory structure. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

(Alison Terry and Dustin Gerkin were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

Dustin Gerkin, 178 Thurman Avenue, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He indicated that

this request was to add a lean-to glass, greenhouse to the back of the accessory structure previously approved by the Planning Commission and BZBA.  The glass that would be used was vintage greenhouse glass.

Mr. Manno asked if the fence could be continued all the way around the property.  Mr. Manno expressed concerns about the look of a partial fence during the winter months.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the back of the property was heavily wooded, so the homeowners were just planning to use the mesh fence to all the wooded area to remain natural, but he indicated that he could check with the homeowner about extending the fence.  It would be a two (2%) percent increase in lot coverage. Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission and BZBA approved the accessory structure. 

Mr. Manno asked if this greenhouse and the accessory structure would be used as part of Mr. Reiner’s business.  Mr. Gerkin indicated that it would not.  Planner Terry indicated that using either structure as part of his business would be in violation of Village Code..  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-85: 

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 agreed 2-1 that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ashbaugh and Smith voted FALSE, while Mr. Manno voted TRUE. 

(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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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. Mr. Smith expressed concern that the backyard would now be full of buildings, but with no comments filed by neighboring residents, he agreed with 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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. 

  1. 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 #2011-85 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote to approve application #2011-85 as amended:  Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-85 is approved as amended. 

Finding of Fact

Sara Lee & Mary Thurlow-Colleen, 329 East College Street, Application #2011-66

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for application #2011-66.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Roll call vote: Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for application #2011-66 are approved. 

Bruce and Julia Rooke, 96 Briarwood Drive, Application #2011-83

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for application #2011-83.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for application #2011-83 are approved.  

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, Application #2011-85

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for application #2011-85.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll call vote: Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for application #2011-85 are approved.  

Motion to Excuse  BZBA Member(s):

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Jeff Gill and Rob Montgomery from the BZBA meeting on July 14, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Motion carried 3-0.     

Approval of the Minutes:

The minutes from the June 9, 2011 meetings were tabled as there was not a quorum. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:12pm.     

Next Meeting:

August 11, 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.