Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
November 8, 2012
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.
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.)
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.
December 13, 2012