Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes September 13, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

September 13, 2012

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call To Order:  (by Chairman Gill at 7:01 pm)

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Scott Manno.

 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Department, Michael King, Assistant Law Director.

 

Visitors:  Bill Kirkpatrick, Dianne McDonald, Tim and Kathy Klingler, Josh Whittington, and Bob Gardner. 

 

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.

 

New Business:

Tim and Kathy Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, Application #2012-144

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District

The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of the cupola on a detached accessory structure from thirty-four (34’) feet to thirty-four feet-eight-inches (34’8”) in total height. 

 

(Alison Terry and Tim Klingler were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, stated he needs a variance to install a cupola on top of an accessory structure.  He stated the height of the proposed cupola exceeds the code requirement for height by eight inches.  Mr. Klingler stated he has submitted similar pictures of cupolas around town.  He explained the cupola with windows on each side is actually referred to as a “lantern.”  Mr. Klingler stated lanterns are very common around Granville and he would like to install this to mirror the age of the house and create a carriage house or barn that would have been in place at the time the primary structure was originally built.  Ms. Terry stated the remainder of the accessory structure meets the height requirements.   

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-144:

 

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. Gill stated FALSE, the cupola is not intrinsic to the structure.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

            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. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated FALSE, eight inches is not substantial.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

(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, the applicant has presented information indicating the cupola does fit into the neighborhood.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

(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.  Mr. Kemper and Mr. Burge stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated 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. Gill stated TRUE, the variance would help keep the structure historically accurate in this zoning district.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

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.

 

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 #2012-144 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-144: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-144 is Approved as Presented.

 

Bill Kirkpatrick/Anna Nekola, 315 East Elm Street, Application #2012-148

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to two (2’) feet to allow for the construction of a new detached accessory structure. 

 

(Alison Terry and Bill Kirkpatrick were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Bill Kirkpatrick, 226 South Mulberry Street, indicated he has received approval for a new shed from the Planning Commission for the AROD approval.  Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the new shed would be slightly larger than the previous shed and he would need a variance to place the shed in the location indicated on the application.   Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that without the variance they would have to place the shed in the middle of the yard and this would take away from the use of their yard space.  Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he has spoken with each neighbor to the east, west, and rear and he was not aware of any concerns.  Mr. Gill questioned if the shed location would be an obstacle for the neighboring properties if the variance was not granted.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-148:

 

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 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 BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

            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. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this is TRUE, 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 this was FALSE.

 

(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.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Gill stated 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.

 

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.

 

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 #2012-148 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-148: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-148 is Approved as Presented.

 

Dianne McDonald, 227 Sunrise Street, Application #2012-149

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to six (6’) feet to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure. 

 

(Alison Terry and Dianne McDonald were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Dianne McDonald, 428 East College Street, stated she is representing the owner’s of the property located at 227 Sunrise Street - John and Donna Lawrence.  Mrs. McDonald stated a large tree destroyed a shed on this property during the June 29th storm and the property owner would like to replace the shed.  Ms. McDonald stated the shed would have flower boxes and would be placed in the same exact location that it has been for at least ten years.  She stated the new shed would be the same size as the old shed, but much nicer.  Ms. McDonald explained the entrance to the shed would face the gardens, rather than Sunrise Street, like the previous shed.  She indicated the shed would be painted white, like the house, with a forest green roof and black shutters.  Mr. Burge confirmed the shed would be the same size, but have a different orientation for the placement.  Mrs. McDonald agreed.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-149:

 

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 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 BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

            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. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill stated FALSE, the footprint of an existing structure will be repeated.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

 

(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.

 

(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 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 

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.

 

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 #2012-149 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-149: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-149 is Approved as Presented.

 

Brad and Kristi Pfau, 1125 Newark-Granville Road, Application #2012-150

Open Space District (OSD)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to eliminate the requirement that a swimming pool, or the entire property on which it is located, shall be required to be walled or fenced so as to prevent uncontrolled access from the street or adjacent properties.  The applicants are proposing a replacement of the wall/fence requirement with a locking pool cover.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Gill indicated he has reviewed the application and it is unclear to him as to the  nature of what the board is being asked to do.  He indicated the request does not seem to be for a variance that the BZBA has given in the past.  Mr. Gill stated the applicant essentially is applying for a horizontal variance for a fence.  Mr. Gill questioned if the request is actually to not have a fence located on the property.  He went on to say that the BZBA does not have the authority to change the zoning code, which indicates a fence should be located around all pools.  Law Director King indicated he would review this specific request and get back to the board with more information.  Mr. Gill stated the application would have to be tabled until they receive further information from the Law Director.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to Table Application #2012-150.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-150: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #2012-150 is Tabled.

 

Coppertree Homes/Josh and Robin Whittington, 120 Shepardson Court, Application #2012-151

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-one-point-seven (21.7%) percent. 

 

(Alison Terry, Bob Gardner, and Josh Whittington were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Bob Gardner, 6126 Mel Circle, Dublin was present to address any concerns.  He questioned how the calculation was done resulting in the need for a variance.  Ms. Terry reviewed the application and stated the calculation was done incorrectly and the applicant did not need a variance.  She apologized to Mr. Gardner and the Board for the error.  Mr. Gardner stated they would like to withdraw Application #2012-144. 

 

Application #2012-144 is withdrawn by the applicant. 

 

Finding of Fact

Tim and Kathy Klingler, 120 East Elm Street,  Application #2012-144

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-144.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-144 are approved. 

 

Bill Kirkpatrick/Anna Nekola, 315 East Elm Street, Application #2012-148

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 #2012-148.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-148 are approved. 

 

Dianne McDonald, 227 Sunrise Street,  Application #2012-149

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 #2012-149.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-149 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse Scott Manno from the BZBA meeting on September 13, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.   

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for August 9, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

September 27, 2012 (Special Joint Meeting)

October 11, 2012

November 8, 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.