Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes May 12, 2011

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

May 12, 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 and Michael King, Assistant Law Director.

Visitors: Nick & Melanie Schott, and Lawrence & Judith Howland 

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. 

New Business:

Nick and Melanie Schott, 660 West Broadway, Application #2011-42

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

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required frontage to a right-of-way from sixty-five (65') feet to zero (0') feet to allow for a lot split.  The applicant will be providing a full driveway access easement to this property as a part of the variance and lot split approval.

 (Alison Terry and Nick & Melanie Schott were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.) 

Discussion: 

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that he has been a resident of Granville for 14 years and that he is the owner of the property adjacent to his residence at 660 West Broadway, which is 664 West Broadway, also known as the Broadway Guest House. Mr. Schott is proposing a lot split that would result in 2 half-acre lots by way of a permanent driveway easement. Mr. Gill asked for clarification on how a permanent easement was defined. Mr. Schott replied that a sample easement was included in the submittal information. Mr. Schott went on to say that they are seeking to split the existing lot; sell the front house (which is their current residence), and would like to build a new residence on the rear lot. The new residence would be compatible in size, scale and character with the neighborhood. Mr. Schott noted that   a landscape mound with evergreen screening would be included in the plan and would be located between the two properties that would be split. Mr. Schott relayed the fact that he had spoken to all of his neighbors and had received no opposing opinions. He further stated that he had been in contact with the Villages’ sewer and water providers and had received favorable feedback from them as to the ability to provide service to the new structure. Mr. Montgomery asked whether the access to the property at 664 West Broadway would be shared with the front lot (660 West Broadway). Mrs. Schott explained the history of the three adjoining lots. Mr. Montgomery asked about ownership of the easement and who would be party to it. Mr. Schott explained that the easement would be between the Granville Guest House and the resulting rear lot, both of which they would own and therefore the easement would be held by just themselves. Mr. Manno posed the question as to whether or not allowing this lot split would encourage other similar lot splits throughout the Village? Mrs. Schott explained that there are other similar situations in the neighborhood as it exists now. Mr. Schott went on to explain the topography of the lot, described how the new house would be sited on the lot, and why the lot split would work. Mr. Ashbaugh inquired as to what the two lot lines illustrated on the site plan represented. Mr. Schott explained that the actual future lot split line would be located approximately in between the two illustrated lines and that the new house would sit back on top of the hill. Mr. King indicated that there were no legal issues with the split, as long as there is an access easement.  He also reminded the Board that their decisions were not precedent setting and that all other future applications would be reviewed on a case by case basis. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-42: 

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.  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.  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. Gill made a motion to approve Application #2011-42 as presented by the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Mannos. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-42: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (ABSENT), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2011-42 is approved. 

Mr. Ashbaugh recused himself from the review of Application #2011-43 and was seated in the audience at approximately 7:28 p.m. 

Lawrence and Judith Howland, 129 North Pearl Street, Application #2011-43

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

The request is for a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to seventy-two (72%) percent to allow for the construction of a ten (10') foot by ten (10') foot concrete patio on the southern side of the home. 

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Lawrence & Judith Howland were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Lawrence Howland, 129 North Pearl Street, stated that the photos included in the submittal materials illustrate the situation at hand - the repair of the existing deteriorated sidewalk and installation of a 10 by 10 seating area. Mr. Gill asked Mr. Howland whether or not he had spoken to the neighbor to the south regarding the proposal and identified Mr. Ashbaugh as the neighbor to the south. Ms. Terry offered that replacement walk and new patio had already gone before the Planning Commission and had received approval. Mr. Montgomery inquired as to the existing total lot coverage and the size of the lot. Ms. Terry stated that the lot was approximately 60’ by 55’, that the coverage was currently 69%, and that the lot was the result of a larger lot split some time ago resulting in the higher existing lot coverage figure.  Mr. Gill suggested moving on to the criteria for approval.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-43: 

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 members voted; Mr. Montgomery (FALSE), Mr. Gill (FALSE), Mr. Manno (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.  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.  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 members of the BZBA voted; Mr. Montgomery (FALSE), Mr. Manno (TRUE), Mr. Gill (TRUE), Mr. Ashbaugh (recused). 

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. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2011-43 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-43: Smith (absent), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (recused), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-43 is Approved. 

Mr. Ashbaugh returned at approximately 7:43 p.m. 

Finding of Fact

Nick and Melanie Schott , 660 West Broadway,  Application #2011-42

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 gives their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-42. Seconded by  Mr.Gill. Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Smith (absent), Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-42 are approved.  

Lawrence and Judith Howland, 129 North Pearl Street,  Application #2011-43

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 #2011-43.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Smith (absent), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Ashbaugh (recused).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-43 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Gill made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith from the BZBA meeting on May12, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.     

Approval of the Minutes

April 14, 2010

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 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. Gill made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Montgomery. Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.     

Next Meeting:

June 9, 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.