Granville Community Calendar

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

 

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.