Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes November 8, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

November 8, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director.

 

Visitors: Mary Jane Dennison and Jamie Ciminello.

 

Description of Procedure:

 

Mr. Gill 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 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:

Mary Jane Dennison, 127 South Mulberry Street, Application #2012-170

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

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a replacement accessory structure. 

 

(Alison Terry, Mary Jane Dennison, and Jamie Ciminello were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

 

Discussion:

Jamie Ciminello, 597 Alpine Circle, Heath, stated a shed was previously located on the property and encroached on setbacks.  He explained the shed was heavily damaged by a recent storm and now needs replaced.  Mary Jane Dennison, owner of the property, indicated she has owned the property since 1969.  Mr. Gill questioned if the zoning code regulations go back this far.  Ms. Terry stated there are zoning records dating back to the 1970’s and Ms. Dennison owned the property prior to the zoning code restrictions.  Mr. Ciminello explained the new shed would be within five foot of the property line in the rear and meet code requirements with a ten foot setback from the north property line.  He stated the north property line setback would come into compliance with the new shed placement.  Mr. Ciminello explained there is a natural shelf in the land that prohibits the shed from being moved forward and outside of the rear yard setback requirement.  He stated the homeowner would have to haul in a lot of dirt to change the contour of the land and this would be cost prohibitive.  Mr. Gill asked if there were any comments by neighboring property owners.  Ms. Terry stated there were a few neighbors who stopped in to review the plans. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their

discussion of Application #2012-170:

 

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.  Mr. Manno stated TRUE, because of the topography/slope on the rear of the lot.  All other BZBA members concurred.

 

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.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith stated FALSE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

 

(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 stated FALSE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Manno stated FALSE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Manno stated FALSE, the homeowner purchased the property prior to the existence to the zoning code.      

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Smith stated FALSE.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Manno agreed with Mr. Smith.  Mr. Burge 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 stated TRUE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Manno stated FALSE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

 

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 FALSE.  All other BZBA members concurred. 

 

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 #2012-170 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-170: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-170 is Approved as Presented.

 

 

Finding of Fact

Mary Jane Dennison, 127 South Mulberry Street,  Application #2012-171

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-171.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-170 are approved. 

 

Synopsis of the Joint Council, Planning Commission, and BZBA meeting: 

Mr. Gill stated the document before the BZBA discusses how to best move forward and this is essentially a working outline on suggested improvements.  The BZBA unanimously agreed the outline document should be signed by Mr. Gill and it is a good synopsis going forward.  Mr. Gill indicated he and Mr. Manno questioned some issues brought up at the joint meeting and had met with Alison Terry and Steve Stilwell to discuss them.  Mr. Gill stated that following the Joint Meeting he had reviewed his signed Oath, Granville Charter, and the Ohio Revised Code and had come to the conclusion that BZBA members are appointed and asked to use their judgment in rendering decisions regarding variances.  He stated if Council disagrees with decisions being made by the Board the certainly have the authority to decide whether or not to reappoint a member. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes as presented for September 13, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (abstain), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn:

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

December 13, 2012

BZBA Minutes September 13, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

September 13, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call To Order:  (by Chairman Gill at 7:01 pm)

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Scott Manno.

 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Department, Michael King, Assistant Law Director.

 

Visitors:  Bill Kirkpatrick, Dianne McDonald, Tim and Kathy Klingler, Josh Whittington, and Bob Gardner. 

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill 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 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:

Tim and Kathy Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, Application #2012-144

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District

The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of the cupola on a detached accessory structure from thirty-four (34’) feet to thirty-four feet-eight-inches (34’8”) in total height. 

 

(Alison Terry and Tim Klingler were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, stated he needs a variance to install a cupola on top of an accessory structure.  He stated the height of the proposed cupola exceeds the code requirement for height by eight inches.  Mr. Klingler stated he has submitted similar pictures of cupolas around town.  He explained the cupola with windows on each side is actually referred to as a “lantern.”  Mr. Klingler stated lanterns are very common around Granville and he would like to install this to mirror the age of the house and create a carriage house or barn that would have been in place at the time the primary structure was originally built.  Ms. Terry stated the remainder of the accessory structure meets the height requirements.   

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-144:

 

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.  Mr. Gill stated FALSE, the cupola is not intrinsic to the structure.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

            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 this was TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated FALSE, eight inches is not substantial.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

(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 stated FALSE, the applicant has presented information indicating the cupola does fit into the neighborhood.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Kemper and Mr. Burge stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill 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. Gill stated TRUE, the variance would help keep the structure historically accurate in this zoning district.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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 #2012-144 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-144: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-144 is Approved as Presented.

 

Bill Kirkpatrick/Anna Nekola, 315 East Elm Street, Application #2012-148

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

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to two (2’) feet to allow for the construction of a new detached accessory structure. 

 

(Alison Terry and Bill Kirkpatrick were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Bill Kirkpatrick, 226 South Mulberry Street, indicated he has received approval for a new shed from the Planning Commission for the AROD approval.  Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the new shed would be slightly larger than the previous shed and he would need a variance to place the shed in the location indicated on the application.   Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that without the variance they would have to place the shed in the middle of the yard and this would take away from the use of their yard space.  Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he has spoken with each neighbor to the east, west, and rear and he was not aware of any concerns.  Mr. Gill questioned if the shed location would be an obstacle for the neighboring properties if the variance was not granted.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-148:

 

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 this was 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 BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

            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 this was TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this is TRUE, 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Gill 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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 #2012-148 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-148: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-148 is Approved as Presented.

 

Dianne McDonald, 227 Sunrise Street, Application #2012-149

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to six (6’) feet to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure. 

 

(Alison Terry and Dianne McDonald were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Dianne McDonald, 428 East College Street, stated she is representing the owner’s of the property located at 227 Sunrise Street - John and Donna Lawrence.  Mrs. McDonald stated a large tree destroyed a shed on this property during the June 29th storm and the property owner would like to replace the shed.  Ms. McDonald stated the shed would have flower boxes and would be placed in the same exact location that it has been for at least ten years.  She stated the new shed would be the same size as the old shed, but much nicer.  Ms. McDonald explained the entrance to the shed would face the gardens, rather than Sunrise Street, like the previous shed.  She indicated the shed would be painted white, like the house, with a forest green roof and black shutters.  Mr. Burge confirmed the shed would be the same size, but have a different orientation for the placement.  Mrs. McDonald agreed.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-149:

 

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 this was 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 BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

            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 this was TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated FALSE, the footprint of an existing structure will be repeated.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

(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 this was FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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 #2012-149 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-149: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-149 is Approved as Presented.

 

Brad and Kristi Pfau, 1125 Newark-Granville Road, Application #2012-150

Open Space District (OSD)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to eliminate the requirement that a swimming pool, or the entire property on which it is located, shall be required to be walled or fenced so as to prevent uncontrolled access from the street or adjacent properties.  The applicants are proposing a replacement of the wall/fence requirement with a locking pool cover.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Gill indicated he has reviewed the application and it is unclear to him as to the  nature of what the board is being asked to do.  He indicated the request does not seem to be for a variance that the BZBA has given in the past.  Mr. Gill stated the applicant essentially is applying for a horizontal variance for a fence.  Mr. Gill questioned if the request is actually to not have a fence located on the property.  He went on to say that the BZBA does not have the authority to change the zoning code, which indicates a fence should be located around all pools.  Law Director King indicated he would review this specific request and get back to the board with more information.  Mr. Gill stated the application would have to be tabled until they receive further information from the Law Director.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to Table Application #2012-150.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-150: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-150 is Tabled.

 

Coppertree Homes/Josh and Robin Whittington, 120 Shepardson Court, Application #2012-151

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-one-point-seven (21.7%) percent. 

 

(Alison Terry, Bob Gardner, and Josh Whittington were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Bob Gardner, 6126 Mel Circle, Dublin was present to address any concerns.  He questioned how the calculation was done resulting in the need for a variance.  Ms. Terry reviewed the application and stated the calculation was done incorrectly and the applicant did not need a variance.  She apologized to Mr. Gardner and the Board for the error.  Mr. Gardner stated they would like to withdraw Application #2012-144. 

 

Application #2012-144 is withdrawn by the applicant. 

 

Finding of Fact

Tim and Kathy Klingler, 120 East Elm Street,  Application #2012-144

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-144.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-144 are approved. 

 

Bill Kirkpatrick/Anna Nekola, 315 East Elm Street, Application #2012-148

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. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-148.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-148 are approved. 

 

Dianne McDonald, 227 Sunrise Street,  Application #2012-149

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. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-149.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-149 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse Scott Manno from the BZBA meeting on September 13, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.   

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for August 9, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

September 27, 2012 (Special Joint Meeting)

October 11, 2012

November 8, 2012

BZBA Minutes August 9, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

August 9, 2012

7:00pm

 

Call To Order:  (by Chairman Gill at 7:01 pm) 

Members Present: Larry Burge, Jeff Gill, Kenneth Kemper, Scott Manno and Bradley Smith. 

Members Absent: None. 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Mike King, Assistant Law Director. 

Visitors: John Wilson, Carlo LoRaso, Brian Davis, Tim Riffle. 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill 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 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 was the subject of the application, if the owner was not the applicant or appellant;

(3)    The owner of property that was adjacent or contiguous to the property that was 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 was 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. 

Old Business:

Mr. Kemper recused himself from the meeting and review of Application #2012-108. 

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive, Application #2012-108

Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request was for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To allow for an accessory structure, more specifically a fifty-six (56') foot by seventy-six (76') foot basketball court with fencing to be located within a recorded easement, specifically within a fifteen (15') foot sanitary sewer easement, an eighty (80') foot Ohio Power Company easement and a thirty (30') foot Allegheny Pipeline easement;

2)         To remove the requirement that an accessory structure shall be constructed within the permitted buildable area of the lot, more specifically to allow a portion of the fifty-six (56') foot by seventy-six (76') foot basketball court to be built across the property line to the south onto a vacant lot (Lot #107); and

3)         To increase the maximum height of a fence from seventy-two (72") inches to one hundred forty-four (144") inches along the south and eastern sides of a full basketball court in the rear yard of the property. 

Mr. Manno moved to remove Application #2012-108 from the table.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll call vote to remove Application #2012-108 from the table:  Burge ( yes), Gill ( yes),  Manno ( yes), Smith ( yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-108 was removed from the table. 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, John Wilson, Carlo LoRaso and Kenneth Kemper. 

Discussion:

Planner Terry indicated the BZBA had requested further information regarding who would be responsible for making repairs in the easement area if the basketball court and fencing were disturbed in the future.  The issue that needed to be addressed was the easement encroachment and the variance to increase the maximum height of the fence. 

Assistant Law Director King indicated the Planning Commission questioned, during the previous meeting, whether a variance could be granted in an easement area and could the applicant build on an easement area.  He indicated a variance may be granted in an easement area.  Also, an applicant may build on an easement area; however, there should be an agreement stipulating the area to be built upon, permission to build and an outline for the rights and responsibilities of both parties.  Assistant Law Director King asked the status of the building location.

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive, indicated that he had spoken with the Allegheny Pipeline Company.  Mr. Wilson stated that Allegheny indicated he could build on the easement as long as the court was twelve and one half feet (12 ½') from the pipeline.  He showed the Board how he was now intending to rotate the location of the court to meet that requirement. 

Mr. Burge asked if the neighbors were consulted.  Mr. Kemper indicated this request had been reviewed by the Homeowner's Association and received their approval. 

Carlo Loraso, 119 Kilkenny Court, expressed concern regarding this projects impact on how ground water will flow and if ground water will be directed onto his property.  His property currently receives increased water during the spring thaw.  Could this project cause additional water flow to his property?  He also questioned if the court would be lit for night games. 

Mr. Wilson indicated there would be no outdoor lighting at this time.  Regarding the water issue, Mr. Wilson explained the portion of the court above Mr. Loraso’s property would be below ground level with an earthen mound.  His contractor stated that a French drain would not be needed for the project.  Mr. Gill asked Assistant Law Director King how the Commission should address Mr. Loraso’s concern regarding water run-off.  Assistant Law Director King stated the easement restrictions were the main issue.  The water run-off issue would be difficult to deal with as it was only a potential, possible issue, not an issue normally handled by the Board. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their Discussion of Application #2012-108: 

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 as the contour of the property impacts the court’s location. 

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 this was TRUE, as the court was an addition to the property.   

(2)        Whether the variance was substantial.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Manno agreed the proposed variance was substantial regarding the variance for the fence.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith agreed the proposed variance was 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. Mr. Gill stated FALSE, this project would not substantially alter the neighborhood or be a detriment to adjoining properties.  The BZBA unanimously agreed with Mr. Gill this was FALSE.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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 prior to construction, the applicant must provide Village staff documentation from the easement holder(s) that the project does not infringe on an easement or documents stating that the easement holder was amenable to building on the easement and all rights and responsibilities have been properly outlined.   

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2012-108 with the condition that prior to construction, the applicant must provide Village staff with documentation from the easement holder(s) that the project does not infringe on an easement or documents stating that the easement holder was amenable to building on the easement and all rights and responsibilities have been properly outlined.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-108:  Burge (yes), Gill (yes),  Manno (yes), Smith (yes).   Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-108 was approved with conditions. 

Mr. Kemper returned to the meeting. 

New Business:

Brian Davis, 325 East Maple Street Application #2012-120

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

The request was for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for a driveway from five (5’) feet to two and a half (2 ½’) feet. 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Brian Davis. 

Discussion:

Brian Davis, 3391 Battee Road, indicated that he was requesting a variance for a driveway.  The variance would reduce the set back from five (5’) feet to two and one half (2 ½’) feet so the driveway can be centered and not against the building foundation.   Providing this driveway would increase the value of the property and provide off-street parking for the tenant.  The driveway would be concrete.  Mr. Davis indicated that the neighbors have been advised and have not objected to the installation.

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 this was 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 this was TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance was substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed the proposed variance was not substantial as it would improve the value and look of the property. 

(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 this was FALSE, as it would improve the neighborhood. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno and Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE.  Mr. Kemper 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE as the variance would provide a benefit to the neighbors and homeowner. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE as it was in keeping with the other existing drives.

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. The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE as it would reduce street congestion. 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-120:  Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-120 was approved as presented. 

Tim Riffle, Denison University, 1000 North Pearl Street, Application #2012-124

Institutional District (ID).  The request was for review and approval of a conditional use for a press box to be located at the softball fields.  

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle. 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, representing Denison University, indicated the University was building a press box for the softball field.  It would be an exact replica of the current baseball press box.  

Planner Terry indicated this application needed conditional use approval only.  The Planning Commission had already reviewed a request for architectural approval. 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-124 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-124:  Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-124 was approved as presented. 

Finding of Fact 

Old Business: 

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive,  Application #2012-108

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. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2012-108 with conditions.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-108: Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-108 was approved with conditions.  

New Business: 

Brian Davis, 325 East Maple Street Application #2012-120

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. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-120:  Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-120 was approved as presented. 

Tim Riffle, Denison University, 1000 North Pearl Street, Application #2012-124

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. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2012-124 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-124:  Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-124 was approved as presented.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for June 14,  2012.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper   Vote to approve June 14, 2012 minutes   Motion carried 3-0.    

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for July 12,  2012.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.   Vote to approve July 12, 2012 minutes   Motion carried 4-0.   

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried.  The meeting adjourned at 8:15pm.    

Next Meeting:

September 13,  2012

October 11, 2012

BZBA Minutes July 12, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

July 12, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call To Order:  (by Vice-Chair Smith at 7:02 pm)

 

Roll Call:  Those responding to the roll call were Bradley Smith (Vice-Chair), Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge and Scott Manno.

 

Members Absent: Jeff Gill (Chair).

 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant; and Mike King, Assistant Law Director.

 

Visitors: Fred Abraham, Robin Feil, Mark Morrow, Luke Baus, John Wilson, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Rosato, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Rosato, Roger and Charlene Lossing, Geoffrey Hiler, P.J. Kadlic, Scott Kadlic, John and Dottie Vaughn, and Mr. and Mrs. Mike Lafferty.

 

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Smith called the meeting to order and 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 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.

Old Business:

 

REMANDED, Terra Nova Partners, LLC, 198 Welsh Hills Road, Application #2012-34:  Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         Lot 1 (Front Lot):  To reduce the required road frontage to a public right-of-way from ninety (90')         feet total to eighty-two (82') feet total; and

2)         Lot 2 (Rear Lot):  To reduce the required road frontage to a public right-of-way from ninety (90') feet to zero (0') feet; and contingent upon the Planning Commission approving a 50/50 lot split for two (2) lots total.

 

This application was appealed to the Village Council and has been remanded back to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, by the Village Council, for further consideration.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Smith swore in Alison Terry, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, John Vaughn, Geoffrey Hiler, Mike Lafferty, and Roger Lossing.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 136 Stone Valley Drive, stated he would like to read aloud portions of the Council meeting transcript regarding the appeal of this application.  This portion of the transcript is provided as part of these minutes, marked ‘Exhibit A.’ Mr. Reed stated the matter before the BZBA is a remanded application from Village Council requesting further information regarding the set criteria they need to review.  He stated his comments this evening will pertain to how their application meets the variance criteria.  Mr. Reed stated regarding criteria:

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.  Mr. Reed staated the property was previously subdivided; the adjacent properties have variances; this is a small cottage on a property that has a small area; and the applicant is meeting the setback requirements.  He indicated the answer to criteria ‘a’ should be 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 whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Reed stated this should be false because the applicant would have a detrimental loss without the variance. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Reed stated the applicant meets the setback requirements and lot size and lot coverage for SRD-A designation, so this should be false.  Mr. Reed stated the proposed lot is larger in size than the adjacent lots, so the answer should be false, which supports approval of the variance.

 (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. Reed stated this criteria talks about the character of the neighborhood.  He stated it is possible they will have to remove all of the pine trees due to damage from the storm. He questioned if this would be considered an enhancement or a detriment and that is a matter of opinion.  He agreed the removal of the trees would change the neighbor’s view, but the question for this criteria is if this is detrimental.  Mr. Reed stated he has walked the property and he does not believe the neighbor views will change due to the building of the homes.  He stated he superimposed where they are proposing the houses to be located with Google map and in the whole back yard – there is nothing changing.  He stated the neighbor’s will not have use of the yard because there will be structures located in this area.  Mr. Burge asked the location of Mr. Hiler’s living room from where the homes would be built.  Mr. Reed stated the front of the house being built would come to the corner of Mr. Hiler’s house.  Mr. Reed stated the shed/barn could potentially come down and the neighbor views could actually be enhanced.  Mr. Reed stated each property would have nice views and additional landscaping would be provided.  He went on to say they expect the new home values to improve the value of each home in the surrounding area. 

  (4)      Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Reed stated this speaks to governmental services.  He stated they have provided “will serve” letters for three homes from the water and waste water departments. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Reed stated this deals with zoning restrictions.  He stated they were aware of the requirements for SRD-A zoning when they purchased the property, but they were not aware that they needed Council approval for demolition of the existing structure on the property.  He stated they feel Council would be more likely to grant a demolition permit with the approvals to build something as a replacement in this area.  Mr. Reed stated if they do not receive a demolition permit this would be an economic hardship for them.  He stated this is a concern since Council has been reluctant to approve anything they have had before them in the past. 

 

Mr. Manno asked the applicant to clarify their economic hardship.  Mr. Reed stated they would have a loss.  He estimated they could get $650-$750 in rent and with the amount they paid for the property, this is a substantial loss.  He stated they could potentially build a $750,000 home, such as that they built on Jones Road.  Mr. Reed stated he could assure them they would be at a loss and he has been doing this for over twenty years. 

 

Mr. Manno asked if the applicant was looking to develop the property when they purchased 198 Welsh Hills Road.  Mr. Reed confirmed yes.  He stated they wanted to have a survey done to see the possibilities with the property.  He added they knew it didn’t make sense to rent the existing home on the property.  Mr. Manno asked if the applicant checked with the Village regarding zoning and development possibilities prior to the purchase of the property. 

 

Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill Road, stated they had to make a decision in less than two days because there was someone else interested who actually offered more money for the property.  He explained they made an offer the next morning.  Mr. Manno stated the applicant “rolled the dice.”  Mr. Nazarian agreed, but knew they had the ability to build something on the property.  Ms. Terry explained the zoning law related to non-conforming structures and that if more than 60% of the value of the home is improved the applicant would be required to meet current setback requirements or apply for a variance.  Mr. Manno asked if the property is currently rented.  Mr. Reed stated no. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Reed stated they strongly believe "no" and this criteria to be false for the same reasons mentioned with criteria "b.(1)" and "b.(5)."  He stated this would be a severe economic hardship for them without the granting of the variance. 

 

(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. Reed stated this means the Village could increase money from the tax base and additional water and sewer tap fees, so they view this criteria as true. 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Reed stated this should be true.  He stated they were not aware of the need for a demolition permit, but they did know about the SRD-A zoning restrictions. 

 

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. Reed stated they do not believe the health, safety, and general welfare are compromised by granting the variance as referred to in this criteria.  Mr. Reed stated when referring to criteria "d" they feel they would be improving the property values of each property in the area.  He stated they will likely remove the shed in the rear and this could improve the site views.  He also stated they will be cleaning up the street and improving drainage in the area.  Mr. Reed stated one additional home on the street should not create a problem with congestion. 

 

Mr. Smith asked about the comments Mr. Reed made regarding there being special circumstances involved as the adjacent property had received the same variance the applicant is requesting.  He asked Village staff if they are aware of any variances.  Ms. Terry stated they do not have this information on record and she reminded the BZBA that this area was previously located within the Township.  Mr. Reed stated the adjacent lot is less than fifty-nine feet wide.  Mr. Smith stated the applicant is actually referring to “conditions” rather than “circumstances.”  Mr. Reed agreed.  He stated the properties are grandfathered in and variances may not be on file with the Village.  Mr. Reed stated they are asking for the same thing that exists next door with the lot splits.  He stated they meet the lot coverage size requirement and all of the setback requirements.  Mr. Smith questioned if one home were to be built on the lot – could the applicant build a garage on the back portion of the lot.  Ms. Terry stated if the property is used as one lot the owner could place a detached garage limited to an 864 square foot footprint for a detached structure.  Mr. Smith stated in this case he is not sure this type of footprint is any different than what is being proposed by the applicant.  Mr. Manno asked the distance from the back lot to the property line.  Mr. Reed stated he is unsure, but it is close to 125-150 feet in total distance.  Mr. Manno asked if fifty (50') feet is the minimum setback.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Manno stated the applicant could actually place the house all the way back on the lot.  Mr. Burge agreed.  Mr. Reed stated this is certainly a possibility and why they felt the reduction to two lots was a good compromise. 

 

Roger Lossing, 54 Pinehurst Drive, questioned if adequate notification was provided by the Village.  He stated he is aware three of five neighbors didn’t get a notice for this meeting and he knows at least one person was not here because they had no idea there was a meeting.  Mr. Lossing stated he has sat through these meetings for a few months and he thought zoning variances and lot splits were not readily handed out unless there is an exceptional reason why they are needed.  He explained this is not what they’ve seen, particularly with the Planning Commission.  Mr. Lossing read aloud the Anderson definition of a ‘variance.’  Mr. Lossing stated this is not a circumstance where a variance is warranted and he is not sure why they are still discussing this.  He stated the property is located in the SRD-A zoning district and this is zoning that allows for a transition from the density of the Village to the less dense – ½ to 2 acre lot sizes.  Mr. Lossing stated the applicant was initially proposing three homes on a one acre lot, and now it is two.  Mr. Lossing stated this decision goes against the zoning in the Granville Comprehensive Plan that has already been laid out.  He stated the BZBA and Village “need to be judicious in granting variances against the Comprehensive Plan you have laid out for the community.”  Mr. Lossing stated the cottage has been there for many years when this area was farmland.  He stated the neighbors assumed it would go away and a modern house would go in its place.  He stated there is not a practicality problem – the home is on a golf couse and the going rate for the property was $100,000, which seems to be in line with what other lots in the Village are going for.  Mr. Lossing stated the developer has bought other properties in the Village without getting the variances they want so they have been down this road before.  Mr. Lossing stated the big picture in this matter is there is no reason to grant exceptions that undermine zoning.  Mr. Lossing stated he does not feel they need the Duncan Standards to tell them this, but he will review them individually.  Mr. Lossing stated no special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structures in the neighborhood.  He indicated the property owner could yield a reasonable return without the granting of the variance.  Mr. Lossing stated the variance is substantial for road frontage.  He stated the essential character of the neighborhood is altered because they do not want to stack houses in neighborhoods.  Mr. Lossing stated the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions.  He stated Councilmember Montgomery is correct and this application clearly should not be approved. 

 

Geoffrey Hiler, (212 Welsh Hills Road, was sworn in at this time as he was not yet present when other members of the audience were sworn in).  He stated Councilmember Montgomery directly pointed out at the Council hearing that the applicant can yield a reasonable return without this variance.  Mr. Hiler stated the developer can tear down the house and build another house without any variances at all because they own a grandfathered lot.  He went on to say the owner of the property can make a reasonable return, but it may not be a million dollars.  Mr. Hiler stated the zoning is there for a reason and the applicant was aware of the zoning restrictions before they bought the property.  Moreover, he stated the applicant ran into the same type of problems trying to do similar things in the Village and they were aware more than likely that there would be a problem.  Mr. Hiler stated the developer didn’t consult the neighbors beforehand and they played Vegas style roulette when purchasing the property not knowing what exactly could be done.  Mr. Hiler stated it is not the BZBA’s responsibility to deal with the developer’s good/bad business decisions. 

 

Mr. Burge asked Mr. Hiler how he feels he has been impacted by the application and what is his hardship.  Mr. Hiler stated the removal or keeping of the shed isn’t an issue for him.  He explained he has one window in this area and his site line is not increased with the removal of the shed.  Mr. Hiler stated his living room and dining room face the areas most affected with site lines.  Mr. Burge stated the property owner can build just one house without any variances and it would still impede site lines.  Mr. Hiler agreed, and indicated he would guess if one house is built it would be located closer to Welsh Hills Road. 

 

Mike Lafferty, 195 Welsh Hills Road, stated Council made the right decision to send this application back to the BZBA for further review.  He stated the applicant’s request is not good use of the land and they are requesting significant changes.  Mr. Lafferty stated the neighbors think allowing for the variances are not within the spirit of the master plan.  He went on to say there would be a net loss of tax dollars to the school district because these houses will have kids whether they are marketed to empty nesters or not.  Mr. Lafferty stated one house has to be $750,000 to pay for a child in the school district.  Mr. Lafferty stated this is a flood area even though there isn’t a map indicating it floods there.  He stated he has lived there many years and it most certainly floods in the proposed location.  Mr. Lafferty stated they live upstream and anything that is affected downstream is a hazard.  He stated the applicants didn’t do their due diligence and their business decisions are not the BZBA’s problem.  He added the applicant’s plan for development shouldn’t cost the neighbors anything.  Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant’s proposal is dangerous and one extra house and extra cars constitutes a hazard on a little street within a couple hundred feet of an intersection.  He stated this adds congestion.  Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant’s proposed homes will not add to his property value at all and their line of site to the golf course will be negatively affected.  Mr. Lafferty stated there are no special considerations in this situation and the developer’s costs are irrelevant to the decision because they knew they needed special approval going in.  Mr. Manno asked the location of Mr. Lafferty’s home to said property.  Mr. Lafferty stated he is directly across the street from 198 Welsh Hills Road.

 

John Vaughn, 188 Welsh Hills Road, stated he and his wife do not object to one house because his views and his neighbor's house wouldn’t be obstructed.  Mr. Vaughn stated they know the value of their property and he questions why the applicant would choose to build a $400,000 home in an area of $100,000 to $200,000 homes.  Mr. Vaughn stated they moved to 188 Welsh Hills road in 1977 because of the green space and wildlife they wanted for their retirement.  He stated he respects the builders, but these homes are unnecessary and not fitting for the neighborhood/zoning.  Mr. Vaughn stated Village committees have suggested the neighbors sit down with the developer to come to some type of conclusion and this hasn’t happened due to the applicant ignoring the neighbors.  Mr. Vaughn stated the property owner was aware of these problems prior to purchasing the property.  He also stated his health has been impaired due to the stress of this situation. 

 

Bryon Reed stated they are requesting one variance for each lot, which he does not view as excessive.  Mr. Reed stated if some of the land in this zoning area wasn’t subdivided, some of the neighbors might not be living in Granville.  Mr. Reed questioned what is considered a “reasonable return.” 

 

Mike King, Assistant Law Director, stated the BZBA is charged with determining if this is a reasonable request.  He reviewed some case law related to the Duncan standards, as well as some other court decisions, and discussed how to interpret some of the specific criteria with the Board.

 

Mr. Hiler stated the Planning Commission asked him why he didn’t purchase the property or the lot in the rear.  He stated he was not in a position to purchase the property and whether or not the property is cheap or expensive has nothing to do with this.  Mr. Smith agreed the neighbors’ ability or inability to purchase the property does not pertain to this matter.  Mr. Lafferty stated the neighbors were not really aware the property was for sale.  

 

Herach Nazarian stated theoretically they could put in a six foot fence with a zoning permit that would affect the neighbor’s site lines.  He stated they worked hard in the architectural plans to ensure the neighbor’s view was considered.  He stated they are not responsible for protecting everyone’s 360 degree view.   

 

Mike King explained this application was remanded from Village Council with specific instructions to determine if a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  He stated in applying Ohio law the Ohio Supreme Court cases have shown practical difficulties cannot always be an easy thing to define.  He stated there is no litmus test.  Mr. King stated the guidance that the court did provide is related to whether a property owner has encountered practical difficulties which unreasonably deprive them of use of their property. 

 

Mr. King questioned if it is reasonable to apply the frontage requirement to this property?  He stated the court stresses no single factor can control with the criteria.  He stated a variance may be denied even if some factors are in favor of the landowner or are inconclusive.  He explained if you find that some weigh in favor and some against - when done the Board should step back and determine how they balance and weigh the criteria and is it reasonable. 

 

Mr. Kemper asked if it is true that SRD-A was set up to be less dense zoning.  Ms. Terry stated there is transitional zoning within this area as you move away from the central village core. Ms. Terry stated the property located between this and the village core is the golf course which is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development), and which allows for a total of six units per acre. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-34:                                                                                                                                                                                          

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.  Mr. Kemper stated false, there are other properties that are similar to this request and this situation is a common occurrence throughout the Village; all other BZBA members concurred.

                       

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Smith stated overall this is true, there would be practical difficulties for the property owner without the variance.  The neighbors concerns are related to the development of the property, instead of a concern related to the requested variances; all other BZBA members concurred.

           

            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.  Mr Kemper stated true, there may be a reasonable return without the variance; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Burge stated true; Mr. Kemper stated true because there is no frontage to the back lot; Mr. Manno and Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered  Mr. Burge stated false; Mr. Kemper stated false, it would not alter the character and there is the same situation next door; Mr. Manno and Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper.

            or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Smith stated false, many of the objections of the neighbors would apply whether there were two homes or one home built on the property; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

 (4)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Kemper stated false, it would not adversely affect the delivery of any of these services; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Kemper stated true, based on the testimony of the applicant; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Smith stated false, there are not other alternatives; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(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. Kemper stated false, substantial justice would not be done by granting the variance; Mr. Burge and Mr. Smith stated true; Mr. Manno stated true, he feels this would be in keeping with the nature of the area and the transitional zoning between SRD-A and PUD.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burge stated false; Mr. Smith stated false; because the applicants purchased the property knowing they wanted to subdivide it; Mr. Manno and Mr. Kemper concurred with Mr. Burge and Mr. Smith.

 

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 Mr. Burge stated true, it will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare; all other BZBA members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and Mr. Smith stated true, it will not diminish or impair established property values; all other BZBA members concurred.

not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Smith stated true, these are rather large lots so it would not impair an adequate supply of light; all other BZBA members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Mr. Smith stated true, there would not be a significant increase in traffic or congestion; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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 additional conditions were imposed by the Board.

 

Discussion regarding the weight of each of the above factors: 

Ms. Terry stated the BZBA answered the criteria 50/50.  Ms. Terry stated given the seven factors in criteria ‘b,’ the BZBA agreed that overall "b" was true and that "d" was true as well.  She stated criteria "a" and "c" were answered as false by the Board.  She indicated that the Board would need to clearly determine how they were weighing the different criteria in making their decision. 

 

Mr. Manno indicated that he was weighing criteria's "b" and "d" more heavily than "a" and "c"; Mr. Burge concurred with Mr. Manno; Mr. Kemper stated he is supporting approval of the variance based on existing surrounding conditions. He stated he does not feel the frontage is unreasonable and is not sure the granting of the variance unreasonably deprives the neighbors; Mr. Smith stated "a" and "c" are less important to him and "b" and "d" should be weighed more heavily and approval is appropriate based on the Board's review of the criteria. He stated he was wrong before on his thoughts regarding congestion on the street.  He stated he does not feel just one more house will alter the character of the neighborhood in a negative way; Mr. Manno stated he agreed with Mr. Smith and Mr. Burge's comments.

 

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Remanded Application #2012-34 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-34: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Remanded Application #2012-34 is Approved as Presented.

 

New Business:

 

Corla Morrow, 736 Mt. Parnassus Drive, Application #2012-103

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty-two (22’) feet to allow for a front porch expansion.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Smith swore in Alison Terry, Art Morrow, and Luke Baus.

 

Discussion:

Art Morrow, 736 Mt. Parnassus Drive, stated he is an attorney representing this application submitted by his wife.  Mr. Morrow provided history (‘Exhibit A’) of the property, which was built in 1975.  He stated the subdivision plat indicates his setbacks to be 20 feet and 30 feet across the street from him.  Mr. Morrow stated there is a difference because there is a significant drop off on his side of the street at the rear of the homes.  Mr. Morrow stated they aren’t looking to go toward the road.  He stated his architect, Luke Baus, would explain the architecture for the proposed entryway. 

 

Luke Baus, 1121 Conway Drive, Hebron, Project Construction Company, Hebron, stated he is representing the applicant, Corla Morrow. Mr. Baus stated the applicant would like to remodel their front entry by widening it and extending the sides out to the front.  He explained the roof structure and columns would have to be redone, along with the gable.  Mr. Baus stated this would be no closer to the property line than it is now and the only thing they would be doing is adding to the roof line.  

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-103:

 

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.  Mr. Burge stated true because of the place it sits on the property; Mr. Smith stated true because this was platted before the zoning restrictions that are in place now; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Smith stated true, there would be practical difficulties; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Manno agreed TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated the applicant has lived at this location for many years.  He indicated he puts little weight on this factor.  Mr. Manno stated the applicant’s project will have little impact, FALSE.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith stated false, the proposed variance is not substantial; all other BZBA members concurred.. 

 

(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. Smith stated false, it would not alter the essential character and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment; all other BZBA members concurred

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Smith stated false; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Smith stated false, the zoning regulations changed after they built their home; all other BZBA members concurred. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Smith stated false, the zoning changed after the applicant purchased the property.  Mr. Smith stated a variance is needed to build on to the front porch; all other BZBA members concurred. 

   

(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. Smith stated true, justice would be done; all other BZBA members concurred. 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated true, the zoning changed after construction ; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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 true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-103 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-103: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-103 is Approved as Presented.

 

Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway, Application #2012-106

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To increase the maximum height of a fence from seventy-two (72") inches to ninety-six (96") inches;

2)         To increase the maximum height of two (2) wood gates on a fence from seventy-two (72") inches to one hundred-eight (108") inches; and

3)         To increase the maximum height of one (1) wood gate on a fence from seventy-two (72") inches to ninety-six (96") inches.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Smith swore in Alison Terry and Robin Feil.

 

Discussion:

Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway, stated she has put in a deer fence around the back yard that is black plastic mesh.  She stated there are three gates.  Ms. Feil stated she was made aware the fence is not in compliance with the zoning.  Mr. Manno asked how tall the fencing and gates are.  Ms. Feil stated eight feet.  Ms. Terry explained fencing in this zoning district is allowed to be six feet high.  Ms. Feil stated she has done research and seven and a half feet is required to keep the deer out.  Mr. Smith asked where she received this information.  Ms. Feil stated she receives numerous gardening magazines.  Ms. Terry explained the application for a variance is for the height of everything that has been installed.  She explained the code allows for a maximum height of seventy-two inches and Ms. Feil’s fence was constructed to be one hundred and eight inches high.  She stated the BZBA is to review the application as though the fence is proposed and not already installed.  Mr. Smith asked if anyone in the neighborhood has a nine foot mesh deer fence.  Ms. Feil stated she can think of several deer fences on Broadway and Maple Street.  Mr. Burge questioned if the fence would be used seasonally.  Ms. Feil stated it would be kept up year round. 

 

Mr. Smith indicated he would be much more comfortable approving the application on the condition if changes need to be made to the fence the application is reconsidered.  Mr. Manno suggested the approval should be broken up for the fence itself and the gates. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-107:

 

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.  Mr. Burge stated false, the deer issue affects multiple properties within the Village; all other BZBA members concurred.  

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Smith stated true, there would be practical difficulties; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

            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.  Mr. Smith stated this is not an investment situation and the applicant is not deprived of any benefit.  There would be a reasonable return and beneficial use without the variance; all other BZBA members concurred. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith stated true, the variance is substantial going from six (6') feet to eight (8') feet; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Manno agreed. Mr. Burge stated false, and there have not been any objections by neighbors.   

 

(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. Smith stated false, it would not alter the character and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Smith stated false; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Smith stated true, they did; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Smith stated false, the applicant cannot build an eight foot fence for deer without a variance; all other BZBA members concurred.     

 

(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. Burge stated true, justice would be done; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated true, the special conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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 true, it will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare or any of the other property values; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-106 with the stipulation that the current fencing must remain the same and a new variance must be sought if the fencing changes since the applicant has already built the structure prior to approval.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Mr. Manno indicated he would like to add to the motion by Mr. Burge.  It was decided that Mr. Burge could withdraw his motion and Mr. Manno could do a separate motion. 

 

Mr. Burge withdraw his motion to approve Application #2012-106. 

 

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2012-106, Items #2 and #3 only.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-106, Items #2 and #3 only: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-106 is Approved as Presented.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-106, Item #1, with the stipulation that the current fencing must remain the same and a new variance must be sought if the fencing changes since the applicant has already built the structure prior to approval.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-106: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (no), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.  Application #2012-106 is Approved as Presented.

 

Fred Abraham, 545 West Broadway, Application #2012-107

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To reduce the required side yard setback from ten (10') feet to six (6") inches to allow for the construction of a forty-foot-five-inch (40'5") deep by twenty-four-foot-ten-inch (24'10") wide garage addition; and

2)         To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30') feet to seventeen (17') feet to allow for the construction of a front porch. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Smith swore in Alison Terry and Fred Abraham.

 

Discussion:

Fred Abraham, 545 West Broadway, stated he would like permission to build an attached garage six inches from the lot line.  He indicated he has talked to neighbors in the area and no one has said anything negative.  Ms. Terry explained the garage would have head in parking and would be stacked parking within the garage.  She stated there is no way to get to the other side of the garage.  Mr. Manno questioned how far from the porch would the extension be.

 

Mr. Abraham stated the garage would be extended by forty feet.  Mr. Manno asked if there is an addition above the garage.  Mr. Abraham stated yes.  Mr. Burge asked the use of the extra space.  Mr. Abraham stated he has several cars and he would like to have the ability to park them in the garage, rather than pay for storage. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-107:

 

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.  Mr. Burge stated false, it is applicable to other lands or structures; all other BZBA members concurred.    

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Kemper stated true, it would result in practical difficulties; all other BZBA members concurred. 

 

            The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Kemper stated true, it will yield a reasonable return; all other BZBA members concurred.

            or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Smith stated true, there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Kemper stated true, because of the setback reduction; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(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. Burge stated false; Mr. Manno stated false, because it's set back so far; Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper agreed.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Smith stated false; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Smith stated true; all other BZBA members concurred. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Kemper stated false, not if the applicant wants to build a garage this large; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(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. Smith stated true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Manno stated true, they do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Kemper 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.  Mr. Smith stated true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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 #2012-107 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-107: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-107 is Approved as Presented.

 

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive, Application #2012-108

Planned Unit Development (PUD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To allow for an accessory structure, more specifically a fifty-six (56') foot by seventy-six (76') foot        basketball court with fencing to be located within a recorded easement, specifically within a fifteen (15') foot sanitary sewer easement, an eighty (80') foot Ohio Power Company easement and a thirty (30') foot Allegheny Pipeline easement;

2)         To remove the requirement that an accessory structure shall be constructed within the permitted             buildable area of the lot, more specifically to allow a portion of the fifty-six (56') foot by seventy-six (76') foot basketball court to be built across the property line to the south onto a vacant lot (Lot #107); and

3)         To increase the maximum height of a fence from seventy-two (72") inches to one hundred forty-four (144") inches along the south and eastern sides of a full basketball court in the rear yard of the property.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Smith swore in Alison Terry and John Wilson.

Discussion:

Mr. Kemper recused himself from discussion and voting on Application #2012-108 at 10:05 P.M. and was seated in the audience.  He stated he is neighbors with the applicant. 

 

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive, stated he wants to build a basketball court for his son.  He explained there is only one way to fit this in the rear yard.  Ms. Terry stated the Village has a sanitary sewer easement in this area.  She stated there are other utility easements not associated with the Village as well.  Ms. Terry stated the Village Wastewater Department reviewed the request and indicated approval should only be considered with the property owner being made fully aware they would be responsible for any damages done to the area if the sanitary line needs to be dug up or during construction of the court.  Ms. Terry stated this would not only include the basketball court, but any fencing or lawn.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant also submitted information from the underground gas pipeline and indicated the court would shift slightly to avoid being in this right of way.  She stated the gas company asked the applicant to move the structure 4.5 feet to be outside of their easement.  Mr. Smith questioned if the court is being changed in size.  Mr. Wilson stated he was thinking it would be around 51.5 feet wide, but it just depends on how far he needs to move away from the pipeline.  Mr. Wilson stated he needs a variance for the fence because it is on a hillside and needs to be higher – 12 foot on two sides.  Mr. Manno questioned if there could be added costs to the Village if the property were sold to another party or if it went into foreclosure.  He explained the variance goes with the property and not the owner.  Mr. King agreed this should be researched if these conditions could be applied as a property lien.  Mr. Wilson stated the way this is being built could mean less of a cost for the Village because he would be digging out a huge portion of the hillside which would allow for easier access to the sanitary line in the future.  Ms. Terry stated the sewer line is approximately 10 feet-20 feet below grade typically.  Mr. Wilson stated he will already be digging down 10 feet already and if a problem arises only four inches of concrete needs to be removed in the future.  Mr. Manno questioned if they could request any new homeowner to receive a variance and accept any costs involved.  Mr. King agreed to further research this matter and suggested tabling the application.   

 

Mr. Manno made a motion to Table Application #2012-108 until further information is acquired regarding the easements in place and to get exact dimensions of the proposed basketball court.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-108: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2012-108 is Tabled.

 

Mr. Kemper rejoined the BZBA meeting at 10:30 P.M. 

 

Frank Rosato, 217 East College Street, Application #2012-109

Village Residential District (VRD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10') feet to seven-point-two (7.2') feet; and

2)         To reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to seven-point-nine (7.9') feet to allow for the construction of a rear addition, partially one-story and partially two-story. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Smith swore in Alison Terry, Frank Rosato, Joseph Rosato, and Demaris Rosato.

 

Discussion:

Joseph Rosato, 117 East College Street, stated there was an addition put on the home some time ago and they received approval from the Planning Commission to remove the addition and put a new addition on the back of the home, pending variance approval.  He stated the changes would mean the house sits as it currently sits and they want to keep the same plane on the addition.  Mr. Rosato confirmed they would move further back with a smaller foot print for the home.  He stated a variance for the east and west sides is required for the changes they wish to make. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-109:

 

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.  Mr. Smith stated false, it applies to almost every other property in the Village; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

            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.  Mr. Manno stated false, the change will not yield a different return for the property; Mr. Smith stated false because of the existing house setbacks and the property is in need of repair.  Mr. Kemper and Mr. Burge concurred with Mr. Manno and Mr. Smith.       
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Manno stated false, it is not substantial;  all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered Mr. Manno stated false, it would not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood; all other BZBA members concurred.

            or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Kemper stated false, the adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burge stated false, it would not affect the delivery of governmental services; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Manno stated true, they did know there were zoning restrictions; all other BZBA members concurred.  

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Smith stated false, there was no other way; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(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 stated true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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. Manno stated true; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-51 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-109: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-109 is Approved as Presented. 

 

Old Business:

 

Finding of Fact

 

REMANDED, Terra Nova Partners, LLC, 198 Welsh Hills Road,  Application #2012-34

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 remanded by the Village Council.

 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-34.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-34 are approved. 

 

New Business:

 

Finding of Fact

 

Corla Morrow, LLC, 736 Mt. Parnassus,  Application #2012-103

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. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-103.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-103 are approved. 

 

Robin Feil, 575 West Broadway,  Application #2012-106

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-106.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-106 are approved. 

 

Fred Abraham, 545 West Broadway,  Application #2012-107

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. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-107.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-107 are approved. 

 

Frank Rosato, 217 East College Street, Application #2012-109

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. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-109.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-109 are approved.

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Jeff Gill from the BZBA meeting on July 12, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Manno (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.   

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge 

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

August 9, 2012

September 13, 2012

 

BZBA Minutes June 14, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

June 14, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present: Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper.

Also Present: Alison Terry and Debi Walker, Village Planning Department.

Visitors: John Noblick.  

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill indicated there was a description of the procedure for the meeting indicated on the Agenda, as follows:

NoteThe 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:h

(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:

Jack and Miriam Dunham, 554 North Pearl Street, Application #2012-80

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

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

1)   To reduce the southern front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to twenty-three (23’) feet; and

2)   To reduce the eastern yard setback from fifty (50’) feet to twenty-six (26’) foot to allow for the construction of a covered porch addition on the rear of the home.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick. 

Discussion:

John Noblick, 1207 Bolen Road, Newark, indicated he is representing the homeowners as

their contractor.  He stated the applicant would like to rebuild the porch in the rear of the property.  Mr. Noblick indicated the house is set up to have two fronts.  He explained it would be hard to do anything in this area without a variance.  Mr. Noblick stated the existing structure does not currently meet the setback requirements.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Manno agreed this is a “cut/dry” application that requires little discussion.   

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-80: 

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 this was TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated the nature of an indent to the house footprint does not make this a problem. 

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 this was TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated the house is still a reasonably good home without a porch.     

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial because of the footprint of the home.  

(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 this was FALSE.  Mr. Gill stated the change will likely not be noticeable from neighboring properties. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with          knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE because the zoning requirement is not intended to block porches such as the one requested by the applicant. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated the impact is almost non-existent. 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed they would place no additional requirements or conditions on this application. 

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2012-80 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-80: Manno (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2012-80 is Approved as Presented. 

Finding of Fact

Jack and Miriam Dunham, 554 North Pearl Street,  Application #2012-80

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. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-80.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-80 are approved. 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith and Kenneth Kemper from the BZBA meeting on June 14, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.     

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for May 24, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.     

Next Meetings:

July 12, 2012 (Mr. Gill indicated he would not be available to attend this meeting.  Ms. Terry stated Council has remanded an application back to the BZBA for review and it will be heard that evening.)

August 9, 2012

BZBA Minutes May 24, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

May 24, 2012

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry and Debi Walker, Village Planning Department.

Visitors: Forrest Blake, Edith Shories, Glenn White, and Nora Corbett.  

Citizens Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizens Comments. 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill 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:

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, Application #2012-51

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

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

1)     To reduce the northern side yard set back from ten (10’) feet to zero-point-seven (0.7’) feet; and

2)     To reduce the eastern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to one (1’) foot to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure.    

(Alison Terry, Forrest Blake, Glenn White, and Edith Shories were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, indicated he is before the BZBA to request a variance from a ten-foot offset to the rear and side yard.  He stated his desire is to build a garage where the existing garage is located and the existing structure would come down.  Mr. Blake stated he has hired Mark Clapsadle to do the drawing plans for the new garage.  Mr. Blake stated he has done some digging and found a block wall for the foundation, but he is not sure of the condition or usability.  He stated if the foundation is good he would like to reuse it.  Mr. Blake stated one cannot even see the foundation until they start digging.  Mr. Blake stated his neighbor to the east, Edith Shories, is concerned about some trees on her property being damaged due to his plans.  He stated the garage has been in this location for a long time and the neighbor has allowed these trees to grow up in the last thirty to forty years.  Mr. Gill asked if the tree trunks are located on Mr. Blake’s property.  Mr. Blake stated the tree trunks are located on Ms. Shories property.  Mr. Gill asked if Mr. Blake is requesting Ms. Shories to remove the trees.  Mr. Blake stated no.  He stated he would request for the trees to be trimmed enough to allow for construction of the garage.  Ms. Terry stated there is not a variance on file for the existing garage because it was built so long ago.   Ms. Terry stated Council has authorized the demolition of the existing garage.  

Glenn White, attorney representing Ms. Shories, 33 West Main Street, Newark, stated the trees are within a few feet of the property line.  He explained the tree roots are shallow and extend from the base of the tree.  Mr. White stated the BZBA should also have information before them submitted by an arborist indicating their concern over damage done to the roots resulting negatively for the life of the tree.  Mr. Manno asked if Mr. White is a general attorney or a real estate attorney.  Mr. White stated he is a general law attorney.  Mr. Manno stated in his research he thought the tree owner owns vertical and to the ground and if a limb hangs over someone else’s property they have the legal right to remove it.  Mr. Manno questioned if roots are located on Mr. Blake’s property does he have the legal right to cut them.  Mr. White stated there is some dependence on whether the ten foot (10’) setback is enforced.  Mr. Gill clarified the applicant may request to build on the current foundation.  He stated damage could occur with the roots on Mr. Blake’s property with the demolition process.  Mr. White agreed and indicated further damage could occur with Mr. Blake’s proposal for a concrete pad.  He stated there are pavers inside the garage now.  Mr. Gill indicated he thought he saw a dirt floor.  Mr. Blake stated part of the foundation is dirt.  Mr. White stated they would have concern over a poured foundation.  Mr. White stated the applicant is requesting what he calls a “substantial change” with a variance to reduce the setback from ten feet (10’) to one foot (1’).  Mr. Gill indicated the applicant’s request for demolition has been granted and this structure was grandfathered.  Mr. Gill asked if Ms. Shories would like to see the garage built elsewhere.  Mr. White stated yes and presented an alternative position for the garage which would be four feet seven inches (4’7”) from the south property line.  Mr. White stated this alternative would only require one variance rather than the two being presented in Mr. Blake’s application.  Mr. Manno indicated it could be possible to construct what is there now without a variance or one variance to the south.  Mr. White agreed and indicated the applicant would have to trespass on Ms. Shories property to do maintenance.  He explained they are concerned about people going onto Ms. Shories property destroying vegetation.  Mr. Manno stated there is no guarantee the roots would not go ten feet and not hit Mr. Blake’s property.  He added Mr. Blake has the right to cut roots on his property.  Ms. Terry clarified the structure could not be rebuilt without a variance if the value of the structure is altered by more than 60% of its existing assessed value.  Mr. Burge asked if the submitted pictures were taken within the last month.  Mr. White stated yes.  He indicated the trees do not appear to have much foliage.  Ms. Shories stated the trees are lush and green and are worth maintaining.  Mr. Gill stated he did review the property and saw the trees.  Mr. Manno asked about the roots in question and if they are damaged due to the foundation work – who is liable?  Mr. White stated he doesn’t think there is liability there and it could be considered natural growing.  Mr. Manno questioned if there is a guarantee that if Mr. Blake builds in this location that the trees will die.  Mr. White stated they would like to see a location chosen that is less intrusive to the neighbors.  Mr. Manno stated if Mr. Blake removes the foundation he could tear up the roots because they are located on his property. Mr. Smith indicated the BZBA is charged with following the Ohio Revised Code Section 1147.  He questioned which criteria Mr. White would want the BZBA to use to deny the variance.  He asked if it would be Section 1147.03b – ‘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. White agreed the criteria would be a focal point to their objection, but they also feel damage to the trees would occur as a result to the applicant’s actions.  Mr. White stated the code requires a ten foot (10’) separation, but it didn’t when the garage was originally built there.  He stated the new garage would cut down on light and visibility.  Mr. Smith questioned if there are other grounds pertaining to this criteria in which the BZBA is asked review.  Mr. Smith stated he does not see anything else regarding Ms Shorie’s argument other than Section 1147.03b3.  Mr. White stated he has provided written answers to each one of the criteria on behalf of his client.  Mr. White questioned how the applicant could construct a new garage without trespassing on Ms. Shorie’s property?  He also stated the requested variance is substantial being 90% of the setback.  Mr. Gill stated there is a reason the BZBA is not bound by precedence.  He stated they are disposed to grandfathering.  Mr. White indicated he used to be on the Granville Township Zoning Board and he is familiar with the process.  Mr. Manno stated it has been the argument that damage of the tree roots could occur with the building of a new garage.  He stated there is no guarantee the trees will live even if the applicant builds the garage ten feet (10’) away.  Mr. White agreed and stated his client would like the ten foot (10’) strip between her property and Mr. Blake’s.  Mr. Manno stated the applicant has already been given permission to demolish the existing structure and there is no guarantee damage wouldn’t occur as a result of removing the foundation.  Mr. White agreed.  Ms. Shorie’s stated the arborist she hired indicated the old garage should be torn down carefully.  She stated the trees are good for all that live there.  Mr. Gill thanked Ms. Shorie’s for her comments.  He stated there appears to be a lot of concern as to what is done on ones own property and he questioned if this feels equitable.  Mr. Gill asked if Ms. Shorie’s feels it would improve the neighborhood if the garage comes down.  Ms. Shorie’s stated yes because there are groundhogs living in the existing structure.  Mr. Gill asked Mr. Blake how he feels about the alternative proposition by Ms. Shorie’s legal counsel for placement of the garage.  Mr. Blake stated he has looked at laying out the garage in a different location and it is not functional.  He stated he needs enough space to back his car out.  Mr. Blake stated this is a shared driveway.  He stated there is no point in reconstructing a garage if it is not functional.  Mr. Blake stated he needs twenty-five to thirty feet (25’- 30’).  He explained Ms. Shorie’s has a fence in this location and there is not enough room.  He stated he has a degree in civil engineering and does traffic patterns and he does not believe Ms. Shorie’s proposal is workable.  Mr. Blake stated other neighbors in the area are for his plans to rebuild a garage.  Ms. Terry stated she didn’t hear from any of the other neighbors in regards to this application.  Mr. Blake stated the building of this garage has been an ongoing discussion with Ms. Shorie’s for several years.  He stated he would attempt to build the garage on the existing foundation so it would not disrupt the roots, but it's not a guarantee this is possible.  He indicated he would do a gravel foundation and figured this was a compromise.  Mr. Blake stated his proposal shouldn’t be much different than what it is there today. Mr. Smith asked about the trespassing matter that was brought up.  Mr. Blake indicated this is the first time this has come up.  He stated there is certainly a problem if Ms. Shorie’s objects to anyone stepping foot on her property.  He indicated he would have to speak to the carpenter to see how much room they would require for construction.  Mr. Blake stated he would like the garage to be bigger, but he can’t due to the amount of space.  Mr. Kemper asked if Mr. Blake shares the turn around with other neighbors.  Mr. Blake stated yes.  Ms. Terry referred to the arborist report, included in the BZBA packets, which indicated the garage was recommended to be located at least four feet from the property line to protect the tree roots.  Mr. Blake stated the garage was there before the trees and the trees were allowed to grow a foot or two away from his property line.  Mr. Gill questioned if the BZBA could place a condition of approval on the application which was dependent on the existing foundation being found usable.  If it was usable, the applicant could place the structure in the existing location.  If it wasn't usable, the applicant would be required to move it further away from the property lines.  Ms. Terry stated this could be touchy because it would be left up to the Planning Department to interpret to what extent the foundation would be usable?  Would this be for one post?  Or a certain percentage?  She stated they do not know what the building code will require at this time and the applicant may have to dig new footers.  Mr. Manno stated the posts would be thirty-six inches (36”) in.  Mr. Smith stated the BZBA could ask for more information from the applicant to address this, but he can understand it would be difficult for staff to monitor.  Mr. Gill asked how open Mr. Blake would be to moving the garage three feet (3’) forward from the back property line, for a total of four feet (4’).  Mr. Blake stated the garage wouldn’t fit and there would not be enough room to turn around.  He stated he could live with two feet but he would have to cut a foot off his deck if the garage were to be moved closer to his house.  This would need to be done to make enough space to turn around.  Mr. White stated the arborist has recommended four feet (4’) from the property line to protect the trees and he has not discussed different than four feet (4’) with his client.  Ms. Shorie’s stated the applicant moved to this location five years ago and maybe he bought the wrong house.  Mr. Burge questioned if perhaps an arborist could be retained to ensure the demolition and construction was done with the utmost care.  Mr. Manno agreed the chances are pretty slim for Mr. Blake to use the existing foundation.    

Mr. Smith stated when reviewing the criteria and restrictions in the code, he feels taking down the grungy old shed and placing a much nicer garage in place is a good thing.  He stated the question is how the law plays out the liability in this situation.  Mr. Smith stated Mr. Blake can cut the tree roots off since they are on his property, which could force Ms. Shorie’s to take down the trees.  Ms. Terry stated any issues regarding the trees would be considered a civil issue and not a zoning issue.  She stated the Village cannot require anyone to keep a tree or remove a tree on private property.  

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-51: 

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. Mr. Smith stated this is common to the area and the lot is extremely small.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was 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.  Yes, there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper stated given the code requirements the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Manno stated that given the existing structures in the area and the fact that the applicant wants to reuse the existing foundation the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burge stated the applicant is requesting the same footprint.    

(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. Smith and Mr. Manno both stated TRUE the neighbor could have a substantial detriment, but this detriment could occur anyhow with or without the variance.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Burge stated FALSE because this would be an improvement to the property and essentially a reuse of the existing foundation. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE it would not affect the delivery of government services. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Manno stated TRUE the property owner did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE because the property owner indicated why other places on the property would not work. 

(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. Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno, and Mr. Burge stated TRUE Mr. Smith stated TRUE because the zoning code was not meant to prevent property owners from essentially repairing their structures.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno and Mr. Burge agreed this was FALSE. Mr. Kemper stated FALSE because this request for a variance is one foot (1’) from the property line.  

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE because of the nature of the existing garage and the rear lot layout there are special conditions and circumstances. 

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. Kemper and Mr. Manno stated FALSE because it will affect the trees and light on the adjacent property.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE because there is not a guarantee damage will be done to the trees.  Mr. Gill stated TRUE because it would improve the property values and the neighborhood would be enhanced.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE there is not other harm caused.        

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.  Mr. Manno stated he would suggest a two feet setback if a new foundation is required to be placed at the widest part of the structure, which would include the overhangs.  The BZBA agreed this was a recommendation to the applicant and not a condition of approval.    

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-51 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-51: Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-51 is Approved as Presented. 

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street, Application #2012-62:  Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a conditional use ford single family residential.  

(Alison Terry, Debi Walker, Nora Corbett and were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Nora Corbett, 122 South Prospect Street, stated she would like to use the space for residential purposes.  Ms. Terry stated Single Family Residential is a conditional use in the Village Business District and this property was previously used for commercial purposes.  Ms. Corbett stated she rented from the owners – Nancy Recchie and Mr. Darby.  She explained they were unaware the space couldn’t revert back to residential use.  Ms. Terry explained the owners were previously given a conditional use for residential use and then changed this back to commercial use.  She stated the owners of the property are overseas.  Ms. Terry stated the conditional use for residential has lapsed because it's been discontinued for more than two years.  Ms. Terry clarified any variances granted for parking for a conditional use is only for that use and not for future uses.  Mr. Burge asked if the applicant occupies the entire home.  Ms. Corbett stated yes she has lived there for two weeks.  Mr. Gill asked the applicant if one parking space would work.  Ms. Corbett stated yes.  Mr. Smith asked if the residential use that was previously granted was for one space.  Ms. Terry stated there is no parking requirement or variance on file for the previous residential use.  She stated there is a higher off-street parking requirement for commercial uses than there would be for a residential use within the Village Business District. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Conditional Use Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-62: 

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. Gill, Mr. Manno, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Burge unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE, it is in accordance.     

c)         The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, schools and refuse disposal. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE, it will not create a burden.  

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 board unanimously agreed TRUE it will not be detrimental.   

e)         The proposed conditional use will not significantly diminish or impair property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA board unanimously agreed TRUE it will not significantly diminish established property values.      

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-62 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-62: Smith (yes), Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-62 is Approved as Presented. 

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street, Application #2012-63Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

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

1)                  To reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for a single family residential use from two (2) parking spaces to one (1) parking space; and

2)                  To reduce the required dimensions of the one (1) off-street parking space from ten (10’) feet in width to seven foot six inches (7’6”) in width.  

(Alison Terry, Debi Walker, and Nora Corbett were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

See Above Application for Discussion. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-63: 

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, because the Village previously allowed Single Family Use for this property and it lapsed. 

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 FALSE there could not be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated the requested variance is minimal.  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.  Mr. Gill stated the alternative would be a vacant building in the downtown area.  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 it would not. 

(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 it could not.     

(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 because there would be usage of the structure and that is of benefit to a downtown property. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated the previous use lapsed resulting in the need for the variance.  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 FALSE it will not. 

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-63 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-63: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-63 is Approved as presented. 

Finding of Fact Approvals 

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street,  Variance Application #2012-51

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-51.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-51 are approved.  

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street,  Conditional Use Application #2012-62

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-62.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-62 are approved.  

Granville Historic Properties, LLC, 122 South Prospect Street,  Variance Application #2012-63

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. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-63.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-63 are approved. 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for April 12, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.     

Next Meeting:

June 14, 2012 (Mr. Kemper indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

July 12, 2012 (Mr. Gill indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

BZBA Minutes April 12, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

April 12, 2012

7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Bradley Smith, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Michael King, Assistant Law Director; Deb Walker, Assistant to Planning Department. 

Visitors: Deborah Barber, Tom Scoog, Herach Nazarian, Bryon Reed, Charlene Lossing, John and Dottie Vaughn, Jeffrey Hiler, Lisa Dietrich, and John Davis. 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill 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 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. 

Old Business:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2012-19

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard set back along the northern property line from twelve (12”) feet to one (1’) foot to allow for the detached accessory structure.  

(Alison Terry, Deborah Barber, and Tom Skoog were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Mr. Manno moved to remove Application #2012-19 from the table.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Application #2012-19 is removed from the table.  

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, stated she brought her neighbor to the meeting because of the BZBA’s request to have his opinion regarding the close encroachment to his land.  

Tom Skoog, 426 North Granger Street, stated he viewed this as the replacement of an old structure with a newer structure.  He stated the newer structure is “certainly better to look at than the old one.”  Mr. Manno asked if the structure was the same size as what was previously in place.  Mr. Skoog stated yes.  Mr. Smith indicated he was not present at the last BZBA meeting and was unable to review the minutes and would abstain from voting on the application.      

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-19: 

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.  Mr. Kemper, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Manno agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE.   
  
(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed the variance was 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.  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. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2012-19 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-19: Smith (abstain), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-19 is Approved as submitted. 

New Business:

Terra Nova Partners, 198 Welsh Hills Road, Application #2012-34

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

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

Lot #1 ~ (3 total variances):

1)    Frontage to a Right-of-Way: To reduce the Frontage to a Right-of-Way from the required 90’ to 82’;

2)    Minimum Lot Area: To reduce the required Minimum Lot Area from the required 20,000 square feet to 14,520 square feet;

3)    Maximum Building Lot Coverage: To increase the Maximum Building Lot Coverage on this (future) zone lot from 15% to 21.7%. 

Lot #2~ (3 total variances):

1)   Frontage to a Right-of-Way: To reduce the Frontage to a Right-of-Way from the required 90’ to 0’;

2)   Minimum Lot Area: To reduce the required Minimum Lot Area from the required 20,000 square feet to 14,042 square feet;

3)    Maximum Building Lot Coverage: To increase the Maximum Building Lot Coverage on this (future) zone lot from 15% to 22.5%. 

Lot #3~ (3 total variances):

1)   Frontage to a Right-of-Way: To reduce the Frontage to a Right-of-Way from the required 90’ to 0’;

2)   Minimum Lot Area: To reduce the required Minimum Lot Area from the required 20,000 square feet to 14,998 square feet;

3)   Maximum Building Lot Coverage: To increase the Maximum Building Lot Coverage on this (future) zone lot from 15% to 21%. 

 (Alison Terry, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Charlene Lossing, John Davis, Geoffrey Hiler, Dottie Vaughn, John Vaughn, and Lisa Dietrich were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Granville, stated he is a partner with Terra Nova Homes.  He stated the golf course next to the proposed property in question is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development).  He stated the golf course zoning technically means the property could be developed into condos.  Mr. Reed stated the surrounding uses to the Welsh Hills property are zoned PUD and their property is on the 5th hole of the golf course.  Mr. Reed explained PUD zoning allows six units per lot, but their zoning for this property is SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A).  Mr. Reed explained they are requesting multiple variances from the BZBA and they received approval for a lot split from the Planning Commission, and this is contingent upon BZBA approval for variances.  Mr. Reed stated it is important to note the surrounding PUD zoning because at one point the entire area was a farm.  Mr. Gill stated the property in question is not zoned PUD.  Mr. Reed stated he understands this, but the surrounding use is zoned PUD.  Mr. Gill stated the surrounding use does not governize the BZBA.  

Mr. Reed explained the three lots would have a shared driveway.  He stated they reviewed the proposed Granville Comprehensive Plan and it states one goal is to manage development towards the Village area and to manage the tax base.  Mr. Reed stated their development plan will be appealing to “empty nesters” who wish to have first floor living convenience.  Mr. Reed stated their plans also help alleviate issues with the existing high water table and water issues on this particular lot.  He explained this is the reason they have chosen to stay away from putting basements in and why they are requesting variances for the larger footprint.  Mr. Reed stated they purchased the property with the intent to subdivide it after having it surveyed.  He stated there is a house on the property that they intend to tear down and then they are proposing subdividing the lot into three lots total.  Mr. Gill stated he is unaware of any Ordinances in place that say a large family cannot move into a particular home.  Mr. Manno indicated they appreciate the chance to review the building plans, but their board does not govern design.  Mr. Gill asked if the applicant would object to smaller houses.  Mr. Reed stated this would mean a smaller footprint.  

Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill, stated a smaller footprint could mean building up higher and putting in a basement.  Ms. Terry reviewed each of the requested variances. She stated the lot 1 request is for a variance to reduce the road frontage from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’).  She stated the lot coverage request is to move from 20,000 square feet to 14,520 square feet.  Ms. Terry stated the lot 1 building coverage request is to go from 15% to 21.7%.  Ms. Terry stated the request for road frontage for lot 2 is from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’).  She stated the lot coverage request is to move from 20,000 square feet to 14,042 square feet.  Ms. Terry stated the lot 2 building coverage request is to go from 15% to 22.5%.  Ms. Terry stated the lot 3 request is for a variance to reduce the road frontage from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’).  She stated the lot coverage request is to move from 20,000 square feet to 14,998 square feet.  Ms. Terry stated the lot 3 building coverage request is to go from 15% to 21.%.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is also requesting shared driveway access along the entire northern side of the property and this does not require a variance.  Mr. Reed stated the maximum 15% building lot coverage is in place regardless of the size of the lot in SRD-A zoning.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is not requesting any variances for front, side, or rear yard setbacks.  Mr. Reed stated the next-door lot is sixty feet (60’) wide and is split.  Mr. Gill stated the BZBA is not a precedent setting board, so they do not need to consider how things have been done in other areas.  Mr. Nazarian stated their request mirrors what is already in existence next door to their property.   

Charlene Lossing, Pinehurst Drive, stated one of her biggest concerns is the proposed bigger house on a smaller lot.  She stated there are rules and regulations to protect the zoning of this area and the requested variances for this project to not make sense.  Ms. Lossing stated the existing houses are there and placed in this way – even if they shouldn’t be there. 

John Vaughn, 188 Welsh Hills Road, explained the layout of the land.  He stated they purchased their home almost 40 years ago when there was just surrounding farmland.  He stated this "may not mean much to all, but it does mean something to some of us."  He stated his property does not have road frontage.  He explained that right now they are not looking right at their neighbor’s house, but the new houses would be 25’-30’ away from his house.  Mr. Vaughn stated all of their views would be impacted.  He stated they currently have a lot of open space next to them and their neighbor’s house has open space.  Mr. Vaughn stated the developer has indicated they are targeting empty nesters with first floor living, but the proposed homes have upstairs bedrooms.  Mr. Vaughn stated Granville has a great school system and he feels it would be hard to prohibit families from moving into these homes.  Mr. Vaughn stated the proposed homes would have no yards for school aged children.  He also stated he has concerns with traffic, density, and continuous use.  Mr. Vaughn stated it was mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting if they had ever considered purchasing the property, and had they known the intent of building multiple homes – perhaps they would have purchased the property.  

Mr. Vaughn stated the builders keep changing what they are doing just to get the needed approvals by stating at first there would be no basements – because of water and now if the lot size changes they say they would be putting in basements.  He stated they don’t know what they want until they get an approval.  Mr. Vaughn stated he was irritated with one of the comments made by a Planning Commission member regarding the neighbors having to live with change.  He also asked if this is approved would a precedent be set for future development in the SRD-A zoning.  Mr. Gill stated the BZBA is a separate body from the Planning Commission and they are a non-precedent setting quasi-judicial board. Mr. Vaughn asked if he can request a variance to make his home bigger.  Mr. Gill stated he is able to make an application for this.  Mr. Vaughn stated that regarding the water in the area, there are issues and he has two sump pumps in place.  He indicated it would be wonderful if the developer could address all water issues in the area. 

Mike Lafferty, 195 Welsh Hills Road, indicated his property sits across the road from the proposed development.  Assistant Law Director King established that Mr. Lafferty’s property is only divided by the roadway and is considered a contiguous property to the property in question.  Mr. Lafferty stated he has never heard of Terra Nova Homes, but he does believe their plan is a bad idea for their neighborhood.  He stated “they are trying to shoe horn in too many buildings into one small property.”  Mr. Lafferty stated his  biggest concern is regarding the flooding problem.  He explained they have a meadow and it floods and they worry the proposed project would add to flooding on their property.  Mr. Lafferty stated he has lived at this home for 21 years.  Mr. Lafferty stated this area is located in a flood plain.  Ms. Terry clarified that the property is not designated as a flood plain by FEMA and this is what the Village references.  Mr. Lafferty stated this is not buildable acreage and it may not say on Village paper that it is not in the flood plain, but it is.  Mr. Smith stated he appreciates Mr. Lafferty’s comments.  He stated the property at 198 Welsh Hills Road is evidentially not absorbing water now.  He questioned how this could push water back to Mr. Lafferty’s property?  Mr. Lafferty stated the water could be pushed back if there is another major rain like what occurred in 1990.  He went on to say that three inches in an hour isn’t unheard of.  Ms. Terry stated that if the property is not designated as flood plain, the Village does not have the legal right deny an application based on this reason. Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant is also proposing to build a street that would open up two hundred feet from where Welsh Hills Road, Granger Street, and Cedar Street – a major intersection with a lot of traffic.  He stated there would be three driveways within twenty-five feet (25’).  He stated three homes in this area causes alarm and is a legitimate concern for safety.  Mr. Lafferty stated there would also be a significant loss of green space, and this is an important part of the neighborhood.  He stated they currently view this property and the existing green space in place.  Mr. Lafferty stated he maintains his property with green space in mind and this proposal will take a lot of green space from the immediate vicinity.   Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant’s plans would impact the school system and there is no guarantee empty nesters will purchase the property.  He added that an empty nester house wouldn’t have multiple bedrooms located on the second floor.  Mr. Lafferty stated the proposal is a bad idea all around.  Mr. Kemper stated he is not sure he understands the topography of the area enough to know where the water goes.  

Geoffrey Hiler, 212 Welsh Hills Road, stated his property was subdivided at one time when it was part of the Township.  He stated his home was built in 1964.  Mr. Hiler stated there is a safety issue with three houses on this small lot.  He stated Cedar Street, Granger Street, and Welsh Hills Road are all very close to the proposed driveway.  He stated traffic will be backed up.  Mr. Hiler stated the lot is eighty-two feet (82’) wide.  Mr. Hiler stated the houses proposed by the applicant cannot be built with the current code standards.  Mr. Reed stated this is not true.  Mr. Manno agreed the lots are buildable when subdivided.  Ms. Terry stated the existing lot is grandfathered.  Mr. Hiler stated the applicant indicated at a previous Planning Commission meeting they were not sure of the lot coverage standards being 15% or 20%.  Mr. Hiler stated the intention for zoning in the SRD-A area is to transition from the village proper to a rural area.  He stated he purchased his home in September of last year.  He went on to say he bought this house because he lived in German Village and he could lean out the window and touch the house next door.  He stated he purchased the home on Welsh Hills Road because it wasn’t in such a confined area and the openness drew him to the house.  Mr. Hiler stated his site line would be affected if these homes are built.  Mr. Gill asked if screening in this area could be a benefit.  Mr. Hiler stated of course he would want screening, but he would also just assume to not have anyone back there.  Mr. Gill stated the BZBA decides on variances only.  He asked when Mr. Hiler was made aware of the plans for Terra Nova to build.  Mr. Hiler stated Mr. Reed stopped by his home and spoke with his partner.  He stated Mr. Reed indicated there was an issue with a survey and part of their retaining wall is located on Mr. Reed’s property.  He stated his partner felt threatened by Mr. Reed’s comments indicated the retaining wall wouldn’t be an issue if they did not object to the variances.    

Mr. Manno stated even if the property was not split, the applicant could potentially still build their house fifty feet from the rear property line and this would still affect Mr. Hiler’s site line.  Mr. Hiler agreed.  Mr. Burge asked if Mr. Hiler’s driveway runs down the south side of the property.  Mr. Hiler stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated the plans call for the driveway to be located five feet from the property line, which meets the requirement.  Mr. Manno asked the width of the driveway.  Mr. Reed stated ten feet (10’).  Mr. Manno stated the applicant’s proposal doesn’t have to be referred to as an “empty nester” home for approval purposes.

John Davis, 40 Pinehurst Drive, indicated he is able to speak in regards to the application because of the 4th category listed.  The Assistant Law Director agreed.  Mr. Davis stated the average lot coverage for the three lots is 21.7%.  He stated this is 27% smaller than what is allowed in SRD-A zoning.  Mr. Davis stated it concerns him to have properties that close to his with the current density.  He asked what would stop his other neighbor from putting six or eight houses on a two-acre lot?  He stated he realizes the BZBA is saying they are not a precedent setting board, but if this is approved it “reduces the activation energy” or “reduces the energy to make that argument in the future.”  Mr. Davis indicated they moved into their home in July of last year.  He stated the only sure way to make sure there isn’t an influx of children placed in the school system is to place one house on the lot.  He added they cannot predict who will purchase the homes nor should they discriminate against who purchases them.  Mr. Davis stated if one house is put in place, there is no need to grant a variance for road frontage. 

Lisa Dietrich, 40 Pinehurst Drive, stated she doesn’t’ think these plans capture the spirit of what the board intended for the SRD-A zoning.  She stated the applicant is requesting too many changes that need to be made to fit the three homes in.  She stated the applicant has indicated they would like to keep the tall evergreens in place, but this could change depending on the placement of the homes.  She stated the removal of the trees could also affect drainage.  Ms. Dietrich stated the proposed lane is too long to wait in the back driveway and one can’t see if someone turns in the driveway.  She stated she can foresee safety issues.  Ms. Dietrich stated the more building that occurs on the land, the less area there is to absorb water.  

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Lafferty if he feels damage to his property value would occur, as he indicated in his submitted written testimony.  Mr. Lafferty stated he hasn’t yet talked to a realtor, but he does believe the entire neighborhood would be negatively impacted because of the loss of green space.  Bryon Reed stated the water issue is on the golf course and it is their intent to work with them to alleviate this problem.  He stated they prefer to not put in a basement and this is the reason for requesting a larger footprint and variance.  Mr. Reed stated he has done market research and his home would meet an empty nesters lifestyle.  The BZBA questioned whom Mr. Reed spoke to at the Granville Golf Course?  Mr. Reed stated he had a conversation with Rodney Butt and he thought the plans were a good idea.  Ms. Terry stated the Village has not heard anything from the Granville Golf Course.  Mr. Reed stated nobody likes change and no one wants green space to be developed, but it offers opportunity.  He stated the Village’s revised Comprehensive Plan is to develop property closer to the core of the downtown area.  Mr. Reed stated everyone has had the opportunity to live in Granville because their lot was at one time subdivided. He explained they are trying to provide an opportunity for people to live in Granville.  Mr. Reed stated driveways are shared in all communities, including Mr. Vaughn’s property next door.  Mr. Reed indicated he apologizes if Mr. Hiler or his partner felt threatened.  He stated he showed him exactly what their plans are and offered to work with them to help resolve the issue that arose from the survey.  Herach Nazarian stated the entrance for Pinehurst Drive is one hundred feet (100’) from the intersection and there are quite a few houses on this road.   Mr. Nazarian stated he doesn’t think adding three houses would make things any different.  Mr. Hiler stated the issue is not putting in another driveway, but more of where the driveway is located and it is very close to the intersection.  

Dottie Vaughn, 188 Welsh Hills Road, stated it was her understanding that the three homes would face the golf course.  She stated she will have to look at the back of a house from her house.  I will have a back door under my nose.  I don’t think three should be allowed like cracker boxes.  Ms. Vaughn stated she plans to retire soon and wishes to enjoy her home and property.   She stated they expected something to be built on this lot at some point, but not three homes.  Mr. Gill stated a home could be built on the lot in a way to affect site lines – even if there was just one home.  Ms. Vaughn stated she has a shared driveway and they can “be a pain.”  She indicated she may consider selling her home if this subdivision is approved.  Mr. Nazarian stated the proposed homes have four-sided architecture, and it’s difficult to pinpoint the back of the home.  He stated the side view would be visible from Ms. Vaughn’s home.  He stated they have shifted their plans for building at times because they were unsure as to what could be approved.  Mr. Lafferty stated there is a safety issue with this property and it is four or five feet below the grade of the road.  He explained the lane slopes upward.  Mr. Lafferty stated the proposed homes are close to the intersection and the traffic is an issue.  Mr. Reed stated a driveway is in this same location and he has never had a problem pulling out of this area.  He explained there is a clear view because of the homes sitting up high to the road level. Mr. Smith asked how close the last house would be to the back line of the property.  Ms. Terry stated this home would be sixty feet (60’) and the village setback is fifty feet (50’).  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Reed’s thoughts on the economic viability of the land if the variance is denied; He stated this is part of some of the criteria the BZBA will review this evening.  Mr. Reed stated it clearly diminishes the economic viability.  Mr. Manno stated the developer took this risk when they purchased the property.  Mr. Burge asked if all the homes would be built simultaneously.  Mr. Reed stated probably not.  He stated they still need a demolition permit for the cottage.  Mr. Reed stated that if the variances are approved then they will figure out the staging.  He guessed they would build one home and then try to sell other two.  John Davis stated he doesn’t think the neighbors are objecting to change.  He stated he does believe the applicant can improve this property.  Mr. Davis stated the proposed house is smaller than his garage, but he objects to the character of the change and to the density of the houses in this area.  Mr. Davis stated he thinks the developer can still turn a handsome profit by building one house.  He stated the BZBA needs to consider whether they want to increase the number of houses for the school system and Granville.  Mr. Davis stated his primary objection is to the building of three homes and he would object less to two homes being built.  Mr. Reed asked how he would feel if they built a 20,000 square foot house, because in reality it could be done.  Mr. Manno stated the applicant could have a legal right to build within the setback of that lot.  Mr. Gill stated they are not voting on density issues on this lot per say.  Mr. Smith questioned if staff had any further comments regarding safety from the driveway.  Ms. Terry stated there is an existing driveway and they can’t regulate the number of cars that enter or exit a driveway.  She stated it could be different if the applicant were proposing an additional access point off of Welsh Hills Road.  Ms. Terry stated the Village can’t have control over utilization of an existing access point.  She stated that this isn’t to say the BZBA can’t consider this in their variance review.  Ms. Terry stated she is the flood plain regulator for the Village of Granville.  She stated the proposed lot is not within the FEMA flood plain, nor is it close to the floodplain, and therefore is a buildable lot.  Ms. Terry stated the Village cannot legally stop a house or houses from being built on the property, so long as they meet the zoning requirements.        

Mr. Mannos moved to discuss Application #2012-34 in closed session.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes,) Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes). 

Mr. Burge made a motion to end the closed session.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  .Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes). 

Mr. Gill asked if the applicant wished to request any type of revision on this application. Mr. Reed asked what would you like to see in terms of a revision?  Mr. Gill stated the perspective of building two homes versus three keeps coming up, but the BZBA has not voted.  He indicated they could go through the criteria.  

Mr. Reed indicated they would be agreeable to two homes.  Mr. Gill questioned if the application should be tabled so the applicant could present the plans for two homes.  Ms. Terry indicated the applicant would need to go back to the Planning Commission to have a revised application for a lot split, rather than the three lots that were previously approved.  Mr. Reed stated the only variance they would need is for a single variance for each lot.  Terra Nova Partners requested an amendment to their variance application, as follows: To reduce the required lot frontage for a public right-of-way on Lot 1 from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’); and to reduce the required lot frontage for a public right-of-way on Lot 2 from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’).  He indicated he was aware they would need to seek further approval for a 50/50 lot split from the Planning Commission. 

Mr. Manno motioned to approve the applicant’s request to amend Application #2012-34 in the following way: a variance to amend the lot frontage for Lot 1 to go from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’) and for the lot frontage for Lot 2 to go from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’); and for the applicant to seek further approval for a 50/50 lot split from the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to Amend: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion to amend Application #2012-34 is approved 5-0. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-34: 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Smith stated the lot next door has been subdivided with two lots on it.  

(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 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Manno stated FALSE.  Mr. Burge 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 FALSE. 

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-34 as amended with a variance for lot frontage for Lot 1 to go from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’) and for the lot frontage for Lot 2 to go from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’); and for the applicant to seek approval for a 50/50 lot split from the Planning Commission. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-34: Manno (yes), Smith (no), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  Application #2012-34 is Approved as amended. 

Finding of Fact 

Old Business:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street,  Application #2012-19

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. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-19.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (abstain), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-19 are approved. 

New Business:

Terra Nova Partners, 198 Welsh Hills Road,  Application #2012-34

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 #2012-34.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (no), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-34 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for March 22, 2012 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Smith (abstain), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes), Burge, (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Burge made a motion to excuse Mr. Smith from the March 22, 2012 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:16 PM.     

Next Meeting:

Thursday, May 10, 2012 (Mr. Gill stated many BZBA members cannot attend this meeting.)

Thursday, June 14, 2012

BZBA Minutes March 22, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

March 22, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Scott Manno, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: Bradley Smith.

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Department.

Visitors: Deborah Barber and Judith Fisher. 

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill 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. 

Larry Burge and Kenneth Kemper were sworn in by Mayor Hartfield as members to the BZBA by Village Council at a previous date and time.

 Nomination for Chair of the BZBA:

Mr. Manno nominated Jeff Gill to serve as Chair to the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  There were no other nominations for Chair.  Motion carried 3-0, with 1 abstention (Jeff Gill).  Jeff Gill will serve as chair to the Planning Commission.   

Nomination for Vice-Chair to the BZBA:

Mr. Manno nominated Bradley Smith as Vice Chair to the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  There were no other nominations for Vice Chair.  Motion carried 4-0.  

New Business: 

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2012-19

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback along the northern property line from twelve (12’) feet to one (1’) foot to allow for a detached accessory structure. 

(Deb Walker and Deborah Barber were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, stated she talked with her neighbors about the placement of the proposed structure.  She explained she had received approval to place the structure in a different location than the old one, but the contractor did the work when she was out of town and put the structure in the same location as the old one.  Ms. Barber stated the old building was taken down and made level.  She stated she immediately contacted her neighbor, Tom Skoog, and he was happy to see the structure put in the same location because it serves as a barrier.  Ms. Barber stated she didn’t do anything after speaking to the neighbor because he was the only person impacted by this mistake and he was ok with things.  The BZBA asked when this structure was put in place.  Ms. Barber stated in May of last year.  She stated she received a notice from the Village indicating she had not placed the structure in the location indicated on the application.  Mr. Manno asked if Ms. Barber or the contractor applied for the variance.  Ms. Barber stated she applied for the variance.  Ms. Barber stated the new structure is actually eighteen inches from the neighbor's property line.  Mr. Gill clarified taking down the old structure and building a new building instigates the current zoning in place.  Ms. Barber indicated she was made aware of this.  Ms. Barber stated she showed the gentleman doing the work where to put the structure on a survey.  She explained she travels four days a week and she came home to the building being in the wrong place.  Mr. Kemper asked if there were stakes in place for the contractor.  Ms. Barber stated no.  Mr. Manno stated it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure the setbacks are maintained and this installer missed by quite a few feet.  Ms. Barber agreed and stated she had paid him up front. Ms. Walker stated the Planning and Zoning Department is doing field inspections after an application is approved and this is how they came to find out the location of the building differed to what was on the approved permit.  Mr. Gill stated one can see what the challenge is in this situation.  He stated applicants can’t think the BZBA will not require an applicant to remove a structure that was put in the wrong location approved by the board.  He stated this situation could have a much different result if there was a neighbor objecting to the location.  Furthermore, Mr. Gill explained the BZBA is unable to take Ms. Barber’s word that the affected neighbor is ok with this location.  He stated the neighbor would have received information from the Village indicating the proposed structure would go in a different location.  Ms. Barber indicated she understood the position the board was in.  Mr. Kemper asked if the Village heard anything from Mr. Skoog about this application.  Ms. Walker stated the Village did not hear from Mr. Skoog.  She explained the Village would need his testimony and a written notice is not sufficient for consideration.  She stated Mr. Skoog would have to come in and testify on  behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Burge stated the information from Mr. Skoog would be beneficial.  Mr. Manno asked if there is a photo of the location of the old shed.  Ms. Walker verified there was indeed a structure in place.  The BZBA agreed the application should be tabled until more information is gathered, especially from Mr. Skoog on the current location of the structure.     

Mr. Manno made a motion to table Application #2011-161 until the April 12 meeting so the affected neighbor can testify.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-19: Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Manno (yes), Kemper (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-19 is Tabled. 

Judith Fisher, 844 Burg Street, Application #2012-20

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the rear yard setback along the eastern property line from fifteen (15’) feet to fourteen-point-two (14.2’) feet to allow for a detached accessory structure. 

(Deb Walker and Judith Fisher were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

Judith Fisher, 844 Burg Street, stated she is requesting a variance for a shed on her property.  She explained the shed would be 10’ x 16’ cumulatively and the square footage of the barn and shed would be 11,028 feet, which is over the allowable amount in the code.  Ms. Fisher stated she purchased the property in 2005.  Mr. Gill asked if Ms. Fisher was aware the zoning designation was ‘Suburban Residential District’ when she purchased the property.  Ms. Fisher stated yes and she also did a lot combination when she purchased additional acreage.  Ms. Fisher also stated she is proposing 160 square feet for the shed and 144 is the maximum amount allowed.  Ms. Fisher stated she is proposing to locate the shed less than fifteen feet from the southeast corner.  She further explained she has to move the structure this far back because she can’t build on top of leach beds.  Ms. Fisher indicated on a drawing the approximate location of leech beds and stated 300 feet of leech beds is required.  Mr. Gill asked for clarification on the use of the proposed structure.  Ms. Fisher stated the structure is a tool shed and she wants to move the equipment out of her existing barn because of the fumes.  Ms. Fisher stated the barn is behind the primary building and is a timber frame structure.  She stated she has decided to make the tool shed a mini version of the barn with reclaimed slate roof, all brick, and exposed timbers.  Mr. Gill clarified the request is for a three part variance.  Mr. Manno stated the setback is 15 feet and the request is only ten inches off.  He questioned why the structure couldn’t be moved to alleviate the need for the setback variance.  Ms. Fisher stated there is enough room to move the structure, but she is wanting to avoid the large trees in this area.  Mr. Manno stated the septic field has some guess work as to exactly where the leach fields area.  Ms. Fisher agreed.  She stated there are only two sinks and one toilet in the barn structure and the primary structure does not have any hookups to the septic, as she had this shut off.  Mr. Manno asked if the structure would have a concrete pad.  Ms. Fisher stated she is a historical preservationist and she wants the foundation to be made of stone.  She went on to say she spoke with the Licking County Engineer about digging out the perimeter for footers and building the structure in the old fashioned barn method.  Mr. Manno asked if the primary structure is grandfathered in on the leach system.  He agreed there is room for a secondary leach field.  Ms. Fisher stated she was unclear which leach system is the primary or secondary, but the septic was installed in 2006.  Ms. Fisher explained the residence is a weekend secondary home for her and she comes to the property on the weekends to garden.  Mr. Gill questioned if there was any discussion of the application with the neighbors.  Ms. Walker stated they did receive verbal support from Mrs. Jung across the street that she approves of the proposed project. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-20:

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.  Mr. Kemper and Mr. Manno agreed FALSE.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Burge stated 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 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.  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.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Manno stated FALSE.  Mr. Kemper 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.   

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-20 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-20: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-20 is Approved as Submitted. 

Finding of Fact: 

Judith Fisher, 844 Burg Street,  Application #2012-20

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-20.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-20 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Smith’s absence was discussed as being unexcused from the BZBA meeting on March 22, 2012 because no one had heard from him indicating he was unable to attend the meeting. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.     

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

The January minutes could not be approved because there were not enough members present who attended this meeting. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.     

Next Meeting:

April 12, 2012

May 10, 2012

BZBA Minutes January 12, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

January 12, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Department.

Visitors: John Wilson (Wilson Building and Remodeling).  

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is 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 inperson 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:

Mark and Beth Edwards, 102 Miller Avenue, Application #2011-161

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the rear setback along the southern property line from fifty (50’) to four-point-two (4.2’) feet to allow for the construction of a one-story detached accessory structure. 

(Debi Walker and John Wilson were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

John Wilson, Wilson Building and Remodeling, 93 South 34th Street, Newark, stated the new addition would be more fitting to the architecture of the existing home.  He explained there are two variances – the setback reduction to keep the new structure in line with where the existing building is located, with an addition, and a variance for maximum square footage.  Mr. Wilson stated the existing garage has a portion on the left that was made for an apartment, which is not being used by the Edwards.  He went on to say that most of the existing garage is not usable for the applicant and he is a car collector and would like a larger garage.  Mr. Wilson stated the main objective for the occupant is to get rid of the white garage and build something more usable and they want something that is more fitting to the property in general.  Mr. Gill stated the BZBA would review the setback requirements and this application would then go to the Planning Commission for further review.  Mr. Manno asked if a variance was granted when the structure was originally built.  Ms. Walker stated yes, a variance was issued in March of 2000.  Mr. Smith asked if all of the neighbors were notified about this application.  Ms. Walker stated any neighbor within 250 feet of the property was notified.  Mr. Smith clarified if the entire garage would be in the same location as the existing garage to be demolished.  Mr. Wilson stated yes, but fifteen feet closer to the home.  Mr. Smith asked if the new garage would have the same roof line.  Mr. Wilson stated the new roof would be two feet higher than the existing.   

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-161: 

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.  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.  Staff indicated they are aware of no such problems/issues. 

(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.   

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2011-161 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-161: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2011-161 is Approved as Submitted. 

Finding of Fact

Mark and Beth Edwards, 102 Miller Avenue,  Application #2011-161

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 #2011-161.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2011-161 are approved.  

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for December 8, 2011 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.     

Next Meeting:

February 9, 2012

March 8, 2012

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.