Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
June 14, 2012
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:
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: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.
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.
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.
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