Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
January 12, 2012
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
(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.
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.)
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.
February 9, 2012
March 8, 2012