Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes March 10, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

March 10, 2011

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director, and Deb Walker, Planning and Zoning Assistant.

Visitors: Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Brian Miller, Lisa McKivergin, Jeff Brown, Jurgen Pape, and Dave Agosta.

Swearing in of New Members:

Mayor Hartfield swore in Fred Ashbaugh, Jeff Gill, Bradley Smith, and Scott Manno to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. 

Appointment of Chair to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals:

Mr. Smith made a motion to elect Fred Ashbaugh as Chair to the BZBA.  Seconded by Jeff Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Appointment of Vice-Chair to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals:

Jeff Hill motioned to elect Rob Montgomery as Vice-Chair to the BZBA.  Seconded by Bradley Smith.  Motion carried 5-0.  

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 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:

Terra Nova Partners, 384 East Broadway, Application #2010-177

Village Business District (VBD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for an amendment to the original conditional use approval for a single family residential structure to allow for two (2) single family residential structures on two separate lots.  

Swearing In:  Herach Nazarian, Bryon Reed, Jeff Brown, Alison Terry, Dave Agosta, Lisa McKivergin, and Jurgen Pape were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.  

Discussion: A court reporter was present to record comments pertaining to Amended Application #2010-177.  Ms. Terry indicated that this amended application is before the BZBA because Staff felt that the request will be an increase in the intensity of the original approval of the application.  Mr. Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Granville, gave a presentation to the BZBA regarding the request for the lot split.  He indicated that they meet all of the performance development standards.  Mr. Reed referred to the split lots as ‘Lot 1’ and ‘Lot 2.’  Mr. Reed stated that the two lots are pretty close to being the same size and that they are requesting a variance to move the home up fifty feet for the front yard setback.  He stated that ‘Lot 2’ meets the requirement on Granger Street because it aligns with the York property.  He stated that they are requesting that the driveway access come off of Granger Street, rather than Broadway and this will allow for additional parking behind the garage if they move the structure up.  Mr. Reed stated that there are various lot sizes throughout town, and this proposal would not be a burden on existing facilities.  He stated that they currently have approval from the Water Department for five units to service.  Mr. Reed stated that their plan is consistent with the Village Business District.  He stated that there are twelve apartments next door and three in the College Town House, so they are not proposing a more intense use of the property.  He indicated that they see no problem with property values and they estimate the homes will sell somewhere around the low to mid $300,000 range.  Mr. Reed stated that they are still working with the Planning Commission on the architectural detailing.  Ms. Terry explained that the BZBA is discussing the amendment to the application, for two single family units, rather than one single family unit, even though Mr. Reed spoke somewhat in regards to the reason for requesting a variance.  She stated that the variances will be considered in the application directly following this one.  Mr. Manno asked the square footage difference between the originally approved single family home and the two single family houses.  Mr. Reed stated that the one home would have been somewhere around 2900 square feet and the two homes would be in the 2000 square foot range each. 

Mr. Manno asked if these are contract homes or spec builds.  Mr. Reed stated that this is really not known at this time, but that they have had some interest in looking at the plans.   Mr. Ashbaugh asked how far in front of the College Townhouse are these units proposed to be.  Mr. Reed stated that they are proposing to align them with the school district office across the street and the homes would be a few feet in front of the College Town House.  Mr. Reed indicated that their discussions with the neighbors encouraged them to align the structure with the school building.  Mr. Reed went on to say that if they move the structure up it would allow them to save the tree buffer between this property and the York property to the north. 

Jurgen Pape, 403 East Broadway, stated that he lives across the street from the proposed property.  Mr. Pape stated that he feels it is a good idea to get residents back in the Village and he is in favor of approval of the application.  Furthermore, he stated that he is in favor of approval of the applicant’s second application for variances.  

Lisa McKivergin, 329 East College, stated that she is there on behalf of property owner, Tony Beckerly/Granville Inn, who was unable to attend the meeting.  She stated that she is acting as his real estate agent in this transaction.  Ms. McKivergin stated that Mr. Beckerly is all for the single family proposal and the multiple family proposal.  She indicated that he would prefer two units on the property rather than just one.  Ms. McKivergin also stated that she is a contiguous property owner at 329 East College Street and as a property owner, she is also in favor of the proposal.  She stated that an empty lot is not in the best interest of anyone that believes in a thriving downtown.  Ms. McKivergin stated that as a local realtor, she is aware that they are in need of housing in the downtown area.  She added that the setbacks are acceptable in her view.  Mr. Gill asked if as a realtor in the community, and given that the Comprehensive Plan statement discusses having more parking located in the downtown, does she feel that a better use for this property is for parking long term.  Ms. McKivergin stated that this is a private - not public – lot and it has a tax base of a quarter of a million dollars.  She stated that the lot was offered to the Village for purchase for public parking and they declined.  She stated that it is not the property owner’s responsibility to provide parking for the neighbors. 

Jeff Brown, Superintendent of Granville Schools, 130 North Granger Street, stated that the school district has concerns with the proposed variances due to the overall lack of parking and congestion in the area.  He stated that if approved the congestion would be exacerbated with the high volume of traffic seen on this street.  Mr. Ashabugh questioned if the school district would be opposed due to taxing ramifications.  Mr. Brown stated that he cannot comment on this until the units would be built and tax evaluations are shown. 

Mr. Smith questioned if the opposition is due to parking and he questioned if there could really be congestion with two more houses.  Mr. Brown stated that the location of the driveways would conflict with the in and out movements which would cause a congestion issue.  Mr. Reed stated that regarding congestion, they feel that they would have more congestion problems with the driveway on Broadway and that location does not require a variance.  He stated that they are targeting empty nesters for the sale of this property.  Herach Nazarrian stated that there are currently thirty (30) parking spots on this property and he would think that the existing traffic would generate more congestion than what they are proposing.  Jurgen Pape commented that he comes from a background dealing with parking and parking requirements, and “they are overrated.”  He indicated that he doesn’t think parking is a problem, especially not at the cost of getting residents back in the Village.  Dave Agosta, 410 East Broadway, asked why the proposal went from a single family to two single family houses.  Mr. Reed stated smart growth and economics.  Mr. Nazarian added demand for this type of housing also played a role.  Mr. Manno asked the applicant to clarify his statement, was he stating that the need for the two houses was an economic decision.  He questioned if the applicant feels two houses are more marketable to sell than one single home.  Mr. Reed asked Lisa McKivergin to answer this on his behalf.  Ms. McKivergin stated yes, there is a real need for this type of housing. 

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 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.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Mr. Manno all stated ‘TRUE.’  Mr. Montgomery stated ‘FALSE.’ 

c)                  The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as street, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Mr. Manno all stated ‘TRUE.’  Mr. Montgomery stated ‘FALSE.’ 

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 Amended Application #2010-177, as amended and presented this evening.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote to Approve Amended Application #2010-177: Gill (yes), Montgomery (no), Smith (yes), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  Application #2010-177 AMENDED is approved. 

New Business:

Terra Nova Partners, 384 East Broadway, Application #2011-10

Village Business District (VBD) - Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

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

1)        To reduce the front yard setback requirement from sixty-five (65') feet to fifty-five (55') feet;

2)        To reduce the required driveway spacing requirements for a driveway access on North Granger Street from one hundred fifty (150') feet to seventy (70') feet on the western and eastern sides of North Granger Street; and

3)        To reduce the required intersection spacing requirements for a driveway access on North Granger Street, from the corner of North Granger Street and East Broadway, from three hundred (300') feet to one hundred thirty (130') feet;  to allow for the construction of two (2) single family structures on two (2) separate lots. 

Swearing in of Witnesses:

Herach Nazarian, Bryon Reed, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh. 

Discussion:  A court reporter was present to take testimony regarding Application #2011-10.  Bryan Reed indicated that the request for variances is related to conversations and recommendations by the Planning Commission during an informal work session.  He indicated that the Planning Commission had a preference that the driveway location should be from Granger Street instead of Broadway.  He presented examples of other   homes in the Village with similar variances.  He presented examples of Granville homes that have received front yard and side yard setback variances that are consistent with their request tonight.  Mr. Gill questioned if the applicant is aware that the BZBA is not bound by precedence.  Mr. Reed stated yes and stated that they just want to be consistent with other homes in the Village.  He stated that they have received feedback from many people that aligning their homes with the front of the school building is a good idea.  He stated that the neighbors have indicated that they don’t particularly like the look of the school administration building and his proposal would enhance the eastern gateway into town.  Mr. Reed stated that they do not feel these variances are substantial and they see enhancements with there being less impervious surface by moving the driveway off of Broadway.  Mr. Reed stated that someone on this board originally asked if we had given any thought to moving the driveway off of Broadway to Granger for the single family home.  Mr. Gill questioned why the Access Management Standard mandates the driveway be located at least 300 feet from an intersection.  Ms. Terry stated that these were passed in 2005 so that basically any new driveway off of a street has to be 300 feet from an intersection and 150 from any other driveway access.  She stated that records indicate that these standards were proposed by the Village's traffic engineer.  Lisa McKivergin questioned if the front yard setbacks are to line up with the block in general or with that particular street front.  Ms. Terry stated that they are interpreting the setbacks from the same street frontage, so setbacks for Broadway align with Broadway, and setbacks for Granger Street align with Granger Street.  Mr. Manno stated that other homes on Granger Street have porches/patios facing the street, therefore he felt that this would be appropriate for the home.  Mr. Reed stated that this was considered, but they would only be able to install a 42” high fence, which would allow for little privacy if the side patio area were moved to the eastern side of the home facing Granger Street.  

Ms. Terry indicated that when reviewing the criteria for this application, the BZBA has the ability to weigh each variance request individually pertaining to the setbacks and driveway access.  The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-10: 

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. Mr. Smith indicated ‘TRUE’ pertaining to the driveway variances, and ‘FALSE’ for the setback variance. Mr. Montgomery indicated ‘TRUE’ pertaining to the driveway variance, ‘TRUE’ for front yard setback, and ‘FALSE’ for the side yard setback. Mr. Ashbaugh indicated FALSE, that the variance was not substantial. Mr. Manno and Mr. Gill indicated ‘TRUE’, that the variance was 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. Smith and Mr. Ashbaugh stated ‘FALSE.’  Mr. Manno, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Gill stated ‘ TRUE.’  

(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. Gill, Mr. Manno, Mr. Ashbaugh, and Mr. Smith stated TRUE. Mr. Montgomery stated ‘TRUE’ except for the front yard setback,  to which he stated ‘FALSE.’  

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.   Mr. Smith stated that he would say this is TRUE except for health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity, but he does not feel this is substantial.  He stated that he is concerned with traffic on Granger Street and he does question the Access Management Standards, and feels that the traffic engineer’s estimates are a bit off.  Mr. Manno –indicated that the driveway location can either be Granger Street or Broadway and he feels Granger Street is safer than Broadway.  Mr. Ashabugh answered ‘TRUE.’  Mr. Montgomery stated that he believes the driveway positioning relative to the other driveways and intersection are a concern, so ‘FALSE’ for the driveway and ‘TRUE’ for the setbacks.  Mr. Gill 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.  No Special Conditions were set by the BZBA.     

Mr. Manno questioned if the variance is given for the Granger Street driveway would this negate the need for a driveway on Broadway.  Mr. Reed indicated that it is their intention to only put the driveway location on Granger if the variance is granted.  

Mr. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-10 as amended as presented in the staff report.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-10: Smith (yes), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (no).  Motion carried 4-1.  Application #2011-10 is Approved. 

Finding of Fact

Terra Nova Partners , 219 West Broadway,  Application #2010-177 AMENDED

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 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (no), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2010-177 are Approved.  

Terra Nova Partners , 219 West Broadway,  Application #2011-10

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 #2011-10.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (no), Smith (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-10 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

January 6, 2011

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

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM.    

Next Meeting:

April 14, 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.