Granville Community Calendar

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

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.