Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes December 12, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

December 12, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: E.J. Meade, Tim Klingler, and Alisa Jones.    

 

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.

 

Swearing in of New BZBA Board Member:

Neal Zimmers was sworn in as a member to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals by Law Director King. 

 

New Business:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, Application #2013-151

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a fence from six (6’) feet to eight (8’) feet to allow for the construction of two (2) eight (8’) foot arbor structures with gates. 

 

(Debi Walker and Tim Klingler were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, indicated he is proposing two solid steel rebar posts with arches.  Mr. Klingler stated the proposed structure would not be visible by someone passing by.  He explained the idea is to have hedging encompass the arches so one wouldn’t even know they were there.  Mr. Klingler stated the proposed door would not have glass, but there would be an opening.  He also stated the door would not go to the top of the arch.  Ms. Walker stated the variance would approve the structure in its entirety with the door and the arches.  Mr. Burge asked what is currently in place?  Mr. Klingler stated nothing.  Mr. Smith asked if this is essentially an enclosed garden?  Mr. Klingler stated yes. Mr. Burge asked if any of the neighbors’ have commented on the application.  Ms. Walker stated no.       

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-151:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Kemper agreed TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated the applicant is requesting an eight (8’) foot fence, FALSE.   

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated the nature of the property with privacy is different than surrounding properties with the parking lot surrounding the home. 

 

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 there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2013-151 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-151: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-151 is Approved as Presented.

 

E.J. Meade, Arch 11, Inc., 445 Burg Street, Application #2013-159

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval to reduce the required northern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to four-feet-six-inches (4’6”) to allow for the construction of a single-story addition that totals fifty square feet. 

 

(Debi Walker, E.J. Meade, and Alisa Jones  were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

E.J. Meade, Arch 11, Inc., 1820 Mapleton Avenue, Boulder, Colorado, indicated he is representing his client who serves on a board for Denison University and visits the community often.    He stated the house has been neglected and is currently considered a non-conforming use with a second dwelling.  Mr. Meade stated his client is planning a full restoration of the exterior and getting rid of the second dwelling to make it a single family residential use.  Mr. Meade stated they would be taking plaster down and going to the studs.  He explained they discovered a small addition from the 1970s on the north side of the home that sits within the setback.  There is a small addition proposed.  Mr. Meade stated this is on a very steep side of the property and they hope to fix the foundation.  Mr. Meade stated they are proposing removal of the addition in the rear and half of this is non-conforming.  He stated tearing this down is what triggered their need for a variance.  Mr. Meade provided Photoshop renderings of the impact there would be for neighboring homes.  He stated a compressor would be removed and placed in the rear of the home so it is not bothersome to neighbors.  Mr. Gill asked about the addition of an additional four feet.  Mr. Meade explained this would have multiple windows and there would be a cantilever. 

 

Alisa Jones, 439 Burg Street, stated her property is next door going down the hill on Burg Street.  She stated she had concerns over proposed changes to the parking area.  Ms. Jones stated the water from the current parking area drains onto her property and has caused her flooding problems.  Mr. Meade stated all of the drainage on the house would be fixed.  He stated they could introduce a curb and he would be willing to share the civil engineering information with Ms. Jones.  Mr. Meade stated he highly suspects the proposed changes would alleviate water issues for Ms. Jones.  He stated his client wants to be a good neighbor and they will work to ensure water is not drained onto her property.  Mr. Meade stated they are proposing a permeable paving surface.  Mr. Kemper stated storm water runoff would be addressed as part of the approval process.  Ms. Walker agreed.  Mr. Smith asked if the gable roof has a downspout?  Mr. Meade stated yes and it would remain in place so water goes down the hill.   

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-159:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated to build addition would trigger the need for a variance.  Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Zimmers agreed FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2013-159 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-159: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-159 is Approved as Presented.

 

Finding of Fact:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street,  Application #2013-151

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-151.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-151 are approved. 

 

E.J. Meade, Arch 11, Inc., 445 Burg Street,  Application #2013-159

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-159.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-159 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Schedule November 14, 2014:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the presented BZBA 2014 meeting schedule.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (abstain), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for November 12, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (abstain), Smith (abstain), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Motion carried 5-0.  

The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM.   

Next Meetings:

January 12, 2014

February 12, 2014

BZBA Minutes November 14, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

November 14, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith (one position is currently vacant).

 

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

 

Visitors: Robert E. Boydoh, Pat Taylor and Judy Preston.  

 

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:

Robert E. Boydoh, 2667 James Road, Application #2013-138

Open Space District (OSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for review and approval of an area variance to two-point-zero-eight-five (2.085) acres. 

 

(Alison Terry, Robert E. Boydoh, and Pat Taylor were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Robert E. Boydoh, 2513 James Road, indicated he received a letter from Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, on May 3rd regarding his request for a potential new home.  Mr. Boydoh stated this letter indicated that Ms. Terry had reviewed the code and she did not find anything with the development standards section of the code, under minimum lot area, which would prohibit him from building a new home.  Mr. Boydoh stated he is owns a parcel in the back plus the two acre parcel in the front.  Mr. Boydoh indicated he plans to live on the front property once he constructs a house.  He went on to say the back acreage would be used to put together an area for disadvantaged people in Licking County.  He stated it would be “a place for people to fish and spend the night in a loving environment.”  Mr. Boydoh stated he will have a private home at the front of James Road and he would be managing the property behind him.  He also stated the house planned for this area fits within the guidelines and setbacks of the Village 100%. 

 

Ms. Terry explained the request is for an area variance.  Mr. Boydoh stated he feels his request is appropriate when compared to the surroundings and it should increase the values of the surrounding properties.  He added his plans do not conflict with anything around it.  Mr. Gill asked if it occurred to the property owner to divide the property so the front would be five acres and then there would be no variance required.  Mr. Boydoh stated yes and he had a soil analysis done which indicted this was the best way to provide safe sanitary sewer.  He went on to say the property could be broken up in different ways with four parcels, but this was the best way.  Mr. Boydoh stated he had independent people and the Licking County Health Department complete this research.  He stated he has approval for water and sewer in the front. 

 

Ms. Terry stated when they looked at splitting anything from the back property there is an existing house and garage which would be required to obtain variances because those existing structures would be located too close to the western and southern property lines.  Once you split the lot it would be required to come into conformity and at least three variances would be required.  Mr. Gill stated it appears Mr. Boydoh’s request as presented would require the least amount of variances.  Mr. Gill agreed the code is complicated when it comes to analyzing and interpreting this request. 

 

Law Director King stated initially when Ms. Terry reviewed the request she looked at the development standards in Section 1165.03 and the only restriction is the five acre minimum lot size, which is limited to farm dwellings or accessory farm buildings.  He explained an initial review showed Mr. Boydoh was good to go, but when looking at statute 1165 as a whole, referring to use for a single family residence – this provision provides the parcel cannot be less than five acres for a single family residence.  Law Director King stated the five acre minimum should not have been stated in the Permitted Uses Section of the Code, it should have been clearly delineated in the Development Standards which regulates the minimum lot size.  He went on to say that Mr. Boydoh reviewed these development standards in the code to get a clear answer and unfortunately information is incorrect.  Mr. King also stated the Open Space District regulations were drafted sometime before the 1990’s and have not been updated since.  He stated Mr. Boydoh had no way of knowing this because the minimum lot size information was located in the wrong section of the code.  Law Director King stated the Village Staff will be recommending an amendment to this Code Section to the Village Council.  The amendment to the code should clarify the lot size restriction in the Open Space District.  Law Director King stated this area of James Road was annexed into the Village in 2007 and placed in the Open Space District zoning classification at that time.  Ms. Terry stated this was just prior to her position as the Village Planner and she believes this zoning classification was selected because the Village wasn't planning on providing public water and sewer to this area. The Open Space District has the largest lot size within the Village Code which doesn't require public water and sewer.  Ms. Terry stated the designation of Open Space District was also more in keeping with the zoning in the Township at that time.  Law Director King stated that if this application were to be considered a use variance it could not be considered by the BZBA – use variances are no longer permitted in Ohio.  He explained use variances have different standards than area variances and this particular request should be analyzed under an area variance standard, because it's really dealing with the minimum lot size not the use of the property.  Mr. Burge stated most of the lots in this area do not meet the five-acre rule. 

 

Ms. Terry stated when she did prepared her Staff Report she indicated this property is located where there are other much smaller lots, with existing homes, in close proximity.  Ms. Terry stated the request would be in compliance with the normal development standards of the Code, meets all setback requirements and the property owner is proposing the construction of a single-family home footprint of 2,163 square feet within a 38,00 square foot buildable area.  Ms. Terry stated staff is recommending approval of this variance for construction of a single family home because it would be in keeping with the overall character of the general area.  Ms. Terry stated she received information from the Licking County Health Department and they determined there is enough area on the site for a well and septic system.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-138:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE, 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.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated that the property owner had reviewed the development standards in the code related to minimum lot size and those regulations did not require a five-acre minimum lot size for single family residential.     

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2013-138 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-138: Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2013-138 is Approved as Presented.

 

Pat Taylor, James Road, asked "will this always be the policy that if you don't live next to it, you can't say anything about it?

 

Mr. Gill indicated the BZBA is required to only hear testimony from parties of interest, that they can't have testimony from someone who has a community interest.  He indicated Ms. Taylor can go to the Council to express her concerns when the Village looks at modifications to this Chapter to address the inconsistency of the two sections.  That would be an appropriate time for her to voice her objections.

 

Judy Preston, asked "would you consider it a direct interest if allowing this to happen impacts zoning in other areas of the Open Space District"?

 

Ms. Terry indicated that would be viewed as a community interest.  Mrs. Taylor asked if Mr. Boydoh wants to split the other parcel in the future would that be allowed.  Ms. Terry indicated that would be splitting the lot versus an existing lot of record and would be held to a much higher standard by the BZBA.  She indicated it most likely would not be granted a variance.

 

Ms. Terry stated the Village Staff will be working on a proposed zoning code change which would be reviewed by the Village Council.  Mr. Gill encouraged Ms. Taylor to attend those Council meetings to voice her concerns, as they are the only authority able to make zoning code changes.  Ms. Terry stated she would contact Ms. Taylor about the timing of a zoning code amendment before the Village Council.   

 

Finding of Fact

Robert E. Boydoh, 2667 James Road,  Application #2013-138

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1165, Open Space District, and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-138.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-138 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Brad Smith from the BZBA meeting on November 14, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Ms. Terry stated Neal Zimmers name has been submitted to Village Council as a potential person to fill the vacancy on the BZBA. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for October 30, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

December 12, 2013

BZBA Minutes October 30, 2013 Rescheduled Meeting

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

Rescheduled from October 10, 2013

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

 7:30 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Larry Burge, Scott Manno, and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith and Kenneth Kemper

 

Also Present: Debi Walker; Village Planning Department.

 

Visitors: Deborah Barber.  

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard 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:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2013-122

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback along the southern property line from twelve (12’) feet to six (6’) feet to allow for the relocation of an existing detached accessory structure. 

 

(Debi Walker and Deborah Barber were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, indicated she would like to move a detached accessory structure to the back part of her yard.  She indicated she would like to move this because she is planning on putting an addition on the back of her home.  Mr. Gill asked if any other area was considered that would not require a variance.  Ms. Barber stated yes, but ultimately she and the neighbors agree this is the best location.  Ms. Barber stated she would be encroaching on Shelly and Russ Ringler’s property and they are in full support of her request for a variance.  She added that Mr. Ringler suggested the proposed location.  Ms. Barber stated she and the neighboring property owner would be combining efforts on a landscaping plan that benefits both properties.  Mr. Gill thanked Ms. Barber for her presentation.  He added the BZBA is unable to consider the comments regarding the neighbor’s being for or against the location of the accessory structure since they are not present to testify.  Mr. Manno asked if approval for the shed came before the BZBA before.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant does have a previous variance on file for the present location.  Ms. Barber explained she needed to seek a variance for the existing location because the contractor built the shed in the wrong place previously.  Mr. Burge asked if it would be just as easy for the applicant to locate the shed within the setback.  Ms. Barber stated yes, but her view would be obstructed when the new addition goes on and she would lose too much yard space.  Ms. Barber thanked the BZBA for scheduling a special meeting to hear her application.    

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-122:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill stated this is a long narrow lot. 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA 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.  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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2013-122 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-122: Gill (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2013-66 is approved as presented.

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street,  Application #2013-122

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-122.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-122 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Ken Kemper and Brad Smith from the BZBA meeting on October 30, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Gill (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.   

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for September 12, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Motion carried 3-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

November 14, 2013

December 12, 2013

BZBA Minutes September 12, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

September 12, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:   Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

 

Visitors: Bob Gravitt, Mark Clapsadle, and Mr. and Mrs. Zander.    

 

Description of Procedure:

 

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard 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:

Bob and Cris Gravitt, 205 South Pearl Street, Application #2013-112

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)                  To reduce the front yard setback from East Elm Street from eighteen-point-six-three (18.63’) feet (calculated average of block setback) to four-point-two-five (4.25’) feet; and

2)                   To reduce the front yard setback from South Pearl Street from six-point-three-five (6.35’) feet (calculated average of block setback) to nine-point-five (9.5”) inches to allow for the construction of a new porch on the north and east facades.

 

(Debi Walker, Mark Clapsadle, and Bob Gravitt were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated he is representing the property owners, Bob and Cris Gravitt, for the property located at 205 South Pearl Street.  The applicants are proposing the demolition of two porches and the creation of a new wrap around porch along South Pearl Street and East Elm Street. 

 

Mr.Gill and Mr. Manno questioned whether the BZBA was looking at correct numbers for the variance request.  On the east side of Pearl Street the proposed reduction is from 6.35 feet to nine inches.  Alison did the math according to a new computer program, calculating the aggregated setback on the Pearl Street side.  The new porch would be nine inches off of that line, while the current porch is a foot and a half off the line.  Staff measured the entire block. 

 

Mr. Manno the setback would be 2.8 and we are doing averages along both Pearl Street and Elm Street, because there are two front yards, correct.  Staff indicated this was correct.  The Village Staff has heard no concerns from the adjoining neighbors.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-112:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Manno stated every home on this block has the same issue and no other property is any different. 

 

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: TRUE.

 

(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.  Mr. Burgess stated TRUE.  Mr. Manno, Mr. Kemper, 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2013-112 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-112:  Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-112 is Approved as Presented.

 

 

 

Finding of Fact

Bob and Cris Gravitt, 205 South Pearl Street,  Application #2013-112

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 #2013-112.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-112 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Manno made a motion to excuse Brad Smith from the BZBA meeting on September 12, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote: Manno (yes), Kemper (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 8, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 4-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM.     

Next Meeting:

October 10, 2013 (Mr. Burge indicated he may not be able to attend this meeting)

November 14, 2013

December 12, 2013

 

BZBA Minutes August 8, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

August 8, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Larry Burge, Jeff Gill, Kenneth Kemper, and Scott Manno.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Assistant

 

Visitors: Eric Rosenberg  

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

 

Note:  The item listed on this agenda under New Business is open to the public, but is not a public hearing.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard 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:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, Application #2013-91

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty-five (25’) feet to allow for the construction of a sunroom addition and decks on the front and rear of the home.

 

(Debi Walker and Eric Rosenberg were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

 

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, presented his request to have a front yard setback variance along North Pearl Street to allow for the construction of a new sunroom addition and new deck on the eastern side of the house which fronts North Pearl Street.

 

Ms. Walker gave a brief PowerPoint presentation illustrating the property location, proposed sunroom and deck additions, and gave Staffs recommendation regarding the requested variance. Staff feels that the lot size, siting of the home and topography of the lot creates circumstances which would be very difficult to overcome without the benefit of a variance for any new construction.

 

Mr. Manno asked if there had been any communication from neighbor, Mr. Zink (343 North Pearl Street.   Ms. Walker indicated there had been no contact from Mr. Zink regarding the request. Mr. Gill asked the Board members if there were any further questions, and having none, moved on to the Chapter 1147 Variance Criteria.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-91:

 

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. All present BZBA members agreed TRUE. The challenging topography, siting of the home and lot size create conditions that create a physical hardship for any construction on the site.

 

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. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE the property would generally yield a reasonable return.

 

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE there would NOT be any beneficial use of the property if the code required setbacks were followed and there would be no opportunity for additional livable space.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial given that there is no impinging on other neighbors or structures.

 

(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.  All present BZBA members unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage. All present BZBA members unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All present BZBA members unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA members present unanimously agreed FALSE stating there could be no real additions made to the house without variances being allowed.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each BZBA member in attendance 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 there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2013-91 as presented.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-91 as presented: Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (absent), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-91 was approved.

 

Finding of Fact

 

Eric Rosenberg, 401 North Pearl Street, Application #2013-91

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District (SRD-A), and hereby give their approval of Application #2013-91 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Manno moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-91.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll call vote: Manno (yes), Smith (absent), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-91 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Mr. Smith from the August 8, 2013 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for July 11, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:11 pm.    

 

Next Meeting:

September 12, 2013

October 10, 2013

 

__

BZBA Minutes July 11, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

July 11, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Department; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: Stephen Dennis, Jenifer Dennis, Carla Lowry and Sam Schott.  

 

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:

Jenifer and Stephen Dennis, 65 Wexford Drive, Application #2013-47 – AMENDED

Planned Unit Development District (PUD)    The request is for an amended variance to reduce the previously approved twenty (20’) foot front yard setback to twelve (12’) feet total from the right-of-way. 

 

(Debi Walker, Stephen Dennis and Jenifer Dennis were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Jenifer Dennis, 117 Cambria Circle, originally came and requested a variance to allow her home to be set back the same as her neighbors; however, when the language of the request and approval was written, it was incorrect.  There was confusion as to where the set back measurement should be taken – from the edge of the roadway or the right-of-way.  It was taken from the edge of the right-of-way, which was incorrect.  This amended application is not requesting anything different, just a clarification of the starting measuring point. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked Law Director King if the Board needed to review the Findings again.  Law Director King indicated that the Board only needed to amend the previous Findings to correct the language.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve and adopt the previously approved findings and to amend the front yard set back number per the applicant’s request for Application #2013-47.  Second by Mr. Smith. 

 

Roll call vote to approve amended Application #2013-47: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Amended Application #2013-47 was approved.

 

Nick and Melanie Schott, 107 North Prospect Street, Application #2013-75

Village Business District - F (VBD-F) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for a hotel/motel use from one (1) parking space to zero (0) parking spaces.

 

(Debi Walker, Sam Schott, and Carla Lowry were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Carla Lowry, 75 Wexford Drive, indicated she was an attorney representing Nick and Melanie Schott as they were unable to attend the meeting.  The Schotts were requesting a variance from the requirement for one parking space to zero parking spaces for a four hundred square foot (400 sq. ft.) hotel/motel room they were proposing.  The room would normally only need parking in the evening, so it would not be in competition with weekday parking.  The room would only rent to singles or couples and should not impact other tenants, which include the barber.  She indicated support for the project through a sworn statement from the barber. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-75:

 

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.  Three BZBA members agreed FALSE as the project would increase tourism for the Village and be a good use of an upstairs space.  Two members indicated 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 FALSE that the property would not generally yield a reasonable return.

 

(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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2013-75 as presented.  Second by Mr. Manno. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-75 as presented: Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-75 was approved.

 

Finding of Fact

 

Stephen and Jenifer Dennis, 65 Wexford Drive, AMENDED Application #2013-47

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent and adopt the application submitted by the applicant as amended.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for amended Application #2013-47.  Second by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll call vote: Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for amended Application #2013-47 are approved. 

 

Nick and Melanie Schott, 107 North Prospect Street, Application #2013-75

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-75.  Second by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll call vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-75 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for June 13, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

 

Roll call vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:31pm.    

 

Next Meetings:

August 8, 2013

September 12, 2013

BZBA Minutes June 13, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

June 13, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith (Acting Chair), Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, and Scott Manno.

 

Members Absent: Jeff Gill.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Department; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: Sharon Sellitto, Daniel Strubel, Karl Schneider, Anne Ormond, Jordan Katz. 

 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Smith 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:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, Application #2013-58

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to one (1) foot to allow for the construction of a detached accessory structure. 

 

(Debi Walker, Sharon Sellitto, and Jordan Katz were sworn in by Mr. Smith.)

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated she would like to replace her garage because she currently cannot get her car in it.  Ms. Sellitto explained the garage has been hit by falling trees twice.  She stated she would be replicating the existing garage, except with the addition of a carport on the side.  Mr. Manno asked if the garage would be put on the existing foundation.  Ms. Sellitto stated yes, they would pour a new foundation on the same footprint.  Ms. Manno explained that if there is an overhang on the garage, the setback needs to be measured from the overhang.  Ms. Sellitto stated she believes this is why the contractor has indicated there needs to be a one foot setback – for runoff. 

 

Jordan Katz, 229 Cherry Street, stated he is the neighbor to the south.  He inquired regarding the change in setback near his property line going from thirteen feet (13’) to five feet (5’).  Mr. Katz stated he wanted to understand the logic on the ten foot (10’) setback requirement and why Ms. Sellitto is requesting this be reduced to five feet (5’).  Mr. Smith explained the ten foot (10’) setback has been standard in the zoning code for some time and is almost historical in nature.  He explained this matter is being addressed by the BZBA because of the addition of a carport and the existing garage has been in this location for some time.   Mr. Katz stated there seems as though there should be a reason associated for breaking this rule.  Mr. Katz stated he does not have a concern, and he just wanted to understand the logic.  Ms. Sellitto stated the proposed addition is towards the woods and the neighbor already has a compost pile in this area.  Ms. Sellitto stated she is already parking a car in this area.  Ms. Walker stated the proposed location is also a matter of function and utility, and maneuverability would be affected if the garage were to be shifted closer to the house.  Ken Kemper indicated both ends of the existing footprint would be extended.  Ms. Walker stated the structure has been forwarded to the Village Council for demolition approval, and the Planning Commission has given permission contingent upon the variances being approved. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-58:

 

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. Burgess and Mr. Smith stated TRUE because there is already a concrete pad in place for the same footprint of the proposed garage.  Mr. Kemper and Mr. Manno stated FALSE, there are not special circumstances. 

 

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:  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

(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.  Mr. Manno, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Burgess stated FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE this is a substantial variance to build this close to a neighbor’s lot on such a large lot.   

 

(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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated Mr. Jordan Katz did raise some concerns, but did not indicate the approval of the variance would negatively impact his property value. 

 

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 #2013-58 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-58: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-58 is Approved as Presented.

 

Daniel Strubel, 448 West College Street, Application #2013-66

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)                  To increase the maximum height of a fence in the side and rear yards from six (6’) feet to eight (8’) feet to allow for the construction of deer fencing; and

2)                  To reduce the western side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to zero (0’) feet to allow for the construction of an outdoor frill area made from stone.   

 

(Debi Walker, Daniel Strubel, Anne Ormond, and Clarke and Sara Jean Wilhelm were sworn in by Mr. Smith.)

 

Discussion:

Daniel Strubel, 448 West College Street, stated the variances are to replace an existing fence which varies from four to six feet (4’-6’) and has been damaged due to deer.  He explained they have a deer problem and the existing fences are in terrible shape.  Mr. Strubel stated the existing fencing is galvanized steel with vinyl coating and part of the fence is located on a steep slope.  Mr. Strubel explained the second part to his application is to replace a fence from the end of his house that is a wooden six foot (6’) fence and stained cedar.  Mr. Strubel stated in this area he is proposing a masonry structure with a fireplace and built in barbeque area.  He stated he doubts this would get much use since they are in Florida much of the year.  Mr. Strubel stated this structure would not encroach on anything beyond where the fence is today.  Ms. Walker explained this portion of the application is considered to be a structure and not fencing, therefore a variance would be required.  Ms. Walker indicated fences are allowed to be located on the property line, but staff is not considering this to be a fence.  Mr. Strubel stated the proposed structure would be beautiful and would look much nicer than what is currently in place, which is a dilapidated cedar fence.  Mr. Burgess asked the proposed material for deer fencing.  Mr. Strubel stated it is advertised to be invisible, but it is actually black vinyl.

 

Clarke Wilhelm, 202 Thresher Street, stated he has read the description in the application and he is confused if there would be a fence installed or something to catch deer.  Mr. Wilhelm inquired on the installation of a grill.  Mr. Strubel stated he envisions a built in grilling unit used for barbequing and there would be no more smoke than what is produced by his existing barbeque unit in the rear yard.  Mr. Smith asked Mr. Strubel what the neighbors would see from the back side.  Mr. Strubel stated that he would match the look as to what is on the front of the structure.  Mr. Strubel stated he would be using masonry with accenting river rock and he would finish the side and the back. 

 

Sara Jean Wilhem, 202 Thresher Street, stated she is unclear on the fence and the “massive masonry structure.”  She explained their property is on the line from the existing cedar fence.  She questioned why the applicant needs a variance from the twelve foot (12’) to zero.  Ms. Wilhem stated she doesn’t want to see the back side of the structure and she is concerned about privacy.  Ms. Wilhelm stated they do not know design and the stone work is very permanent.  She questioned that the applicant could move and the new owner may not be attentive to the property.  She stated they have lived at the property for 47 years.   Mr. Smith explained the reason the applicant needs a variance is because this is a structure.  He stated the applicant can build a fence on the line, but he is requesting the structure be built on the property line.  Ms. Wilhelm indicated she would only like to look at a solid wood fence.  She later indicated she would be worried her trees could be damaged.  Mr. Strubel stated the structure is not massive.  Mr. Manno read aloud Section 1187.03 stating any fence or wall must have finished and not structural side facing the neighboring property.  Law Director King stated this refers to fences and this structure shouldn’t be referred to as a fence or wall because it is a structure. He stated if this were a fence there would be no need for a variance.  Mr. Manno questioned if there was any reason the structure couldn’t come in a foot with the wooden fence left behind it.  Mr. Strubel stated the stone wall would be more attractive than the fencing and he could move it, but the back would be cinder block.  Mr. Manno later questioned how maintenance could be done on the structure if it is located on the property line.  Ms. Wilhem stated they do not object to the application as long as they do not see any of it.  Mr. Smith indicated the Wilhelm’s also have the right to install a privacy fence on the property line.   

 

Mr. Kemper stated he understood from what is written in the application that the existing fence would screen the proposed structure and would stay in place.  He stated he is now hearing the applicant is proposing replacing his fence with the structure.  He stated staff comments on page five say it won’t be visible because of screening by a fence.  Mr. Kemper stated there is some confusion with the fencing connecting to the structure.  Law Director King agreed and stated the BZBA is charged with approving what is requested in writing on the application before them.    

 

Eleanor Cohen, East Broadway, indicated she would like to testify regarding this matter.  Mr. Smith stated Ms. Cohen does not own property located within 250 feet of the applicant and was not notified of the applicant’s request.  He stated this is a public meeting and Ms. Cohen is welcome to attend, but testimony can only be offered by parties potentially impacted by the approval or disapproval of the application. 

 

Anne Ormond, 440 West College Street, stated she lives on the other side of the Strubel property.  She stated they have a lot of vegetation between the two of their properties and she would not want to see this disrupted.

Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Strubel had spoken with the Wilhelm’s regarding his plans prior to the BZBA meeting.  Mr. Strubel stated no and he wished to withdraw his application for a fence and a variance for the proposed structure.  He apologized to the BZBA board for taking up their time.  

 

Karl Schneider on behalf of Raccoon Creek. LLC, NE corner of Columbus Rd and Weaver Drive, Application #2013-69

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for review and approval of a conditional use for an Assisted Living Facility. 

 

(Debi Walker, Karl Schneider, and Jack Lucks were sworn in by Mr. Smith.)

 

Discussion:

Jack Lucks, 152 North Drexel Drive, stated the application is for an assisted living facility on 28 acres.  He stated he is the property owner and they are proposing using 7.5 acres of the entire site for the facility.  Mr. Lucks stated there would be two other parcels in front and parking for 90.  He explained this could be cut back and a traffic study indicated the approximate number of people would be 20 cars per day for employees and 8 or 9 cars for residents. 

 

Karl Schneider stated the unit would consist of assisted living and memory care with a combined 88 units, comprised of single and double rooms. 

 

Ms. Walker stated staff would emphasize the proposed use is appropriate for the area.   She stated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the proposed architecture.  She indicated this is located near Kendal and has easy freeway access.  Ms. Walker stated the Comprehensive Plan also calls for this type of use in this area.  She stated this would be additional money for the school district and no additional infrastructure is necessary.  She indicated there would not be a financial burden to Granville for the utilities extension, but only lateral runs due to an easement when Kendal was built.  Ms. Walker stated sewer and water is adequate and public safety is not a concern with added emergency call runs. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Conditional Use during their discussion of Application #2013-69:

 

(a)        The proposed use is a conditional use with the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met.  The proposed use is a conditional use within this Zoning District (see #3 below) and is defined by the Granville Code as follows: “‘Nursing Home’ includes convalescent and extended care facilities, and means an establishment which specializes in providing necessary services to those unable to be responsible for their selves”.  The request does not meet with all of the applicable development standards (See #4, 5 & 6 below). The BZBA unanimously agreed with the Staff’s findings. 

(b)        The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.  In the Comprehensive Plan it states under Expanding Housing Opportunities, II.

            Goals: 2. Recognize the Limited Number of Affordable Housing Opportunities for Seniors:  There will also be a need for assisted living facilities and nursing homes in the Granville area as the population grows grayer.

            Also, the Purpose & Intent of Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District states "The purpose and intent of the Village Gateway District is to create an attractive, well-designed entrance into the community that will provide suitable areas for mixed uses in a visually-integrated, high-quality neighborhood setting.  The Gateway District will have residences along with a moderate concentration of various types of compatible businesses and offices to service neighborhood needs.  Special enhancements will include the preservation of existing natural resources, a useful pattern of open space and walking trails, integrated architecture and design that reflects the traditional architectural styles of Granville, adequate parking, appropriate landscaping and screening, desirable aesthetics, and creative site design intended to eliminate adverse effects of traffic congestion.  The Village Gateway District is intended to provide increased tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance and preserving or enhancing the quality of life and property values in the Village and Granville Township." Based on the above, Staff feels this use meets the intent of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Gateway District purpose.  The requested conditional use is also in accordance with transportation plans for the area.  To date, this is the only requested use on this parcel.  The BZBA unanimously agreed with the Staff’s findings. 

 (c)       The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. Additional information submitted by the applicant for the proposed assisted living facility use is as follows:

1.         The proposed assisted living development will be a total of 88,000+/- square feet.  There will be 88 total rooms/beds.  64 will be assisted living, 24 will be memory care.  The current site plan has a parking field for 40 cars behind the facility.  There are approximately 10-15 parking spaces in the front of the facility.

2.         We anticipate a staff of 40 upon stabilization, 20 on first shift, 12 on second shift, and 8 on third shift.

3.         On any given day, we anticipate a maximum of 20 visitors, excluding holidays.  Sundays are usually the busiest day of the week.  On average, 10% of residents will have a car.  This is based on just the assisted living population, so we expect about 6-7 residents to have a personal vehicle. 

4.         We expect around 2 medical emergencies per month.

5.         Trash service is 3 times per week and a food truck delivers weekly.

The BZBA unanimously agreed with the Staff’s findings.            

(d)        The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.   Staff does not believe this use will be detrimental or disturbing to neighboring properties.  This facility will be located within a strictly commercial area and there will be very little noise generated by this proposed facility.  The BZBA unanimously agreed with the Staff’s findings. 

 

(e)        The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values with the surrounding areas. (Ord. 15-08. Passed 1-7-09)   Staff does not believe that the proposed use will diminish or impair established property values within the area.  The BZBA unanimously agreed with the Staff’s findings. 

 

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2013-69 as presented for a conditional use.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-69: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-69 is Approved as Presented.

 

Finding of Fact

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street,  Application #2013-58

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 #2013-58.  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 #2013-58 are approved. 

 

Raccoon Creek LLC/Karl Schneider, NE Corner of Columbus Road and Weaver Drive,  Application #2013-69

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1173, Conditional Uses, and Chapter 1183, Village Gateway 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 #2013-69.  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 #2013-69 are approved. 

 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Jeff Gill from the BZBA meeting on June 13, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

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

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for May 9, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (abstain), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

July 11, 2013

August 8, 2013

September 12, 2013

BZBA Minutes May 9, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

May 9, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: Scott Manno.

 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: Mark and Mia Law, Paul Hammond, Stephen and Jenifer Dennis, Andrew and Monica Doud, Brett Black, Fred Biesecker, and Patty Whisman.

 

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:

Appeal Hearing, 76 Wexford Drive, Application #2013-40

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A).  The applicant is appealing the denial of a zoning permit application related to the height of the fencing surrounding a proposed in-ground swimming pool.  The Village zoning code requires a minimum of a five foot (5’) high fence and the applicants are requesting approval of a four foot (4’) tall fence.  

 

(Alison Terry and Mark & Mia Law were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion: A Court Reporter was present to transcribe the appeal hearing.  A copy of the transcript is available from the Village Planning Department.

 

Mia Law, 76 Wexford Drive, stated she is appealing the Village Planning Department’s decision to mandate a five foot (5’) fence to surround an in-ground swimming pool located on her property.  Ms. Law stated she would like to see the fence height be four foot (4’) high.  Ms. Law stated the Village Code does not specify a height requirement, but it does specify and mandate a fence surrounding any swimming pool. 

 

Ms. Terry reviewed the application and indicated the reasoning for the denial of the Zoning Permit application.

 

Law Director King presented case law where a five-year-old child drowned after climbing a four foot (4’) fence.  He stated the municipality in this case had required all fences surrounding swimming pools to be six foot (6’) high, but it was installed at four foot (4’).  Mr. King proceeded to ask various questions of the applicant related to the securing of building permits and zoning permits for the project.  Ms. Law indicated that she had signed a contract with the swimming pool installer requiring them to secure all applicable permits on her behalf.  She indicated she was not sure if the pool installer had secured the required permits.

 

Ms. Law stated she has also installed a horizontal fence for the pool, which is a lockable pool cover.  She agreed a fence surrounding the pool is necessary, even with the presence of a horizontal fence.  Ms. Law presented recommendations for four foot (4’) fencing from an insurance company and building code association.  She stated the Village Code has undergone recent changes pertaining to fence height for pools, but before these changes the Village Code did not clearly state a recommended fence height and it was left up to the discretion of the Planning Department.  Ms. Law indicated her application would apply to Village Code prior to the recent changes. 

 

Ms. Terry stated all of the permits issued by the Planning Department for the past six years, for fencing surrounding pools within the Village, have been for five foot (5’) fences.  She explained she arrived at the five foot fence height requirement after reviewing an application with the Village Manager and Village Law Director.  Since she issued the first swimming pool permit in 2010 there have been eleven (11) total permits issued for swimming pools and they have all required a five (5') foot minimum fence height. Ms. Terry clarified that the Licking County Building Code Department does not have an application on file for an in-ground pool located at 76 Wexford Drive and that three (3) inspections would be required for the pool installation from Licking County.             

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to affirm the decision of the Zoning Inspector to mandate a five foot (5’) fence requirement surrounding swimming pools pertaining to Application #2013-40.  The motion was not seconded. 

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to reverse the decision of the Planning Director to mandate a five foot (5’) high fence surrounding the swimming pool pertaining to Application #2013-40.  The motion was not seconded. 

 

After further discussion, Mr. Kemper made a motion to reverse the decision of the Planning Director to mandate a five foot (5’) high fence surrounding the swimming pool pertaining to Application #2013-40.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.   

 

Mr. Kemper stated he is not sure he can make a huge case that a four foot (4’) high fence  is less safe than a five foot (5’) high fence.  He stated he is unsure he sees much of a difference.  Mr. Gill stated he believes that if the property is located within the Village proper, without a flicker of question he would uphold a non-capricious, non-arbitrary decision by the Planning Director.   

 

Roll Call Vote to reverse the decision of the Planning Director for Application #2013-40: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (no).  Motion carried 3-1.  Application #2013-40 is approved with a Reversal of the decision made by the Planning Director.

 

Paul Hammond/Tracee Laing, 494 North Granger Street, Application #2013-46

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a fence from six (6’) feet to seven-feet-eight-inches (7’8") to allow for the installation of a deer fence, gates and trellises in the front, side and rear yards of the property. 

 

(Alison Terry and Paul Hammond were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Paul Hammond, 494 North Granger Street, stated he is requesting a higher fence than what is allowed by the Code because he wants to protect his gardens from deer.  Mr. Hammond explained he lives on a corner lot next to a wooded lot and golf course.  Furthermore, he stated he believes the seven-foot-eight-inch (7’8") high deer fencing would offer adequate protection from deer.  Mr. Hammond stated the fencing would surround the entire property on all four sides.  Ms. Terry stated the fencing would be as high as seven-foot-eight-inches (7’8”) when incorporating in the height of the wood beams.  Mr. Hammond stated he is proposing a transparent netted fence and it would not appear to be over seven foot (7’) high when you take into consideration the layout of the land.  Mr. Gill asked if there have been any comments by neighbors’ regarding Mr. Hammond’s plans.  Mr. Hammonds stated he had one neighbor come over to review the plans.  He stated this neighbor offered to come to the meeting in support of his application.  There were no neighbor’s present at the BZBA meeting.  Mr. Hammonds stated his fencing proposal is based on deer fencing already approved for a property on West Broadway.  He stated he spoke with this applicant and they have stated the fencing is working great. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-46:

 

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, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Burge agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burge stated there are deer throughout the Village.  Mr. Smith 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 TRUE the proposed variance is substantial. 

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE because of the nature of the neighborhood and the nature of the variance.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Smith indicated TRUE, provisions have been made for the applicant to receive mail with the addition of the fence.  All other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Smith.

 

(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. Smith stated TRUE, he does not agree netting fence is acceptable in each and every circumstance within the Village.  Mr. Gill agreed with Mr. Smith.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE. 

 

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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2013-46 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-46: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-46 is Approved as Presented.

 

Stephen & Jenifer Dennis, 65 Wexford Drive, Application #2012-47

Planned Unit Development (PUD).  The request is for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to twenty (20’) feet to allow for the construction of a single-family structure. 

 

(Alison Terry, Stephen & Jenifer Dennis, Mr. Biesecker, and Patty Whisman were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Jenifer Dennis, 117 Cambria Circle, explained she and her spouse are under contract for property located at 65 Wexford Drive.  She stated they are requesting a variance so that their new home could be built at a twenty (20') foot distance from the right-of-way. She explained currently a home built on the property would have to be set back thirty-five (35’) feet without the variance.  Ms. Dennis stated she is not sure a home can be built thirty-five (35’) feet back due to the topography of the land.  Ms. Dennis stated they are looking to build a ranch style home with a walk out basement.  Ms. Dennis agreed the lot in question is an unusual lot that is not part of the Ridge, but has the same topography as the Ridge.  Ms. Dennis stated the two homes closest to the lot in question are setback twenty feet (20’), so this is consistent with the houses in the neighborhood.  She stated there is one other lot in this area that is not part of the subdivision.  Ms. Terry explained there is a utility easement on the property and that the front portion of the Wexford Drive subdivision was developed under the Township and later annexed to the Village.  Ms. Terry stated the Ridge was developed within the Village and this lot was not a part of either subdivision and became its own seven acre parcel.  Ms. Terry stated the Licking County Recorder shows the easement moved from the center of the property to the front.  Ms. Terry stated their records show a utility easement through the center of the property.  Ms. Dennis stated there is not a sanitary sewer line currently installed.  Mr. Smith asked if the lot is currently vacant.  He stated the applicant has indicated there is currently trash on the lot.  He questioned if there is not an effective use for the lot other than keeping it wooded.  Ms. Dennis stated she feels it would be difficult to build because of the steep nature of the hill.  Ms. Terry stated there have been other setback variances granted in this area due to the topography.  She stated the only other buildable area on this lot would be to the north.  The topography is different in this area and a home could be located on this portion of the land.  Ms. Terry stated with a sanitary sewer line extended through this property and the topographical challenges the placement of a home is difficult.  Ms. Terry stated a twenty foot (20’) setback seems to be fitting with other homes in the area. 

 

Fred Biesecker, 71 Wexford Drive, stated there was a new home just built in his community.  He explained that on the rest of Wexford Drive they have a decent setback in place for homes.  Mr. Biesecker stated the home currently under construction doesn’t fit in their community.  He stated the terrain is considerably steep.  Mr. Gill asked Mr. Biesecker if he has considered purchasing the lot.  Mr. Biesecker stated yes.  He questioned if a lot split could be applied for from the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated this is a possibility.  Mr. Biesecker stated the homes on the Ridge side are closer to the road and on the rest of Wexford the setbacks are further back.  He explained this lot is not located in the Ridge or the Highlands.  Mr. Biesecker stated he has mixed feelings on the approval of the variance and he does have concerns.

 

Ms. Terry stated the new build Mr. Biesecker is referring to has meet the Village requirements, which it does, other adjacent structures were just set back further than the Village requirement which they are allowed to do.   Mr. Smith asked Mr. Biesecker if he felt approval of the variance would change the essential character of the neighborhood.  Mr. Biesecker stated yes.  He stated the lots left in Granville are going to be hard to build on and the people coming in want the rules to be changed for them.  He stated the rest of the people have had to abide by the rules already in place.  He asked the board to think about this.  He questioned if they should be adjusting things for them and not be consistent with the rest of the Village.  Ms. Terry stated there were variances granted for the Ridge in a lump for numerous properties.  Mr. Kemper stated he agrees with the applicant on the proposed location.  

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-47:

 

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 TRUE because of the nature of the topography.

 

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 FALSE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Smith stated TRUE the proposed variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE the 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.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith stated 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE because of the nature of the setbacks on this side of the ridge.

 

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 there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2013-47 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-47: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-47 is Approved as Presented.

 

Andrew & Monica Doud, 311 East College Street, Application #2013-49

Village Residential District (VRD).  The request is for a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-two (52%) percent to allow for the construction of a new garage and for a driveway reconfiguration.

 

(Alison Terry, Brett Black, Andrew & Monica Doud were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Brett Black, 2579 Pleasant Crest Court, Newark, stated they are requesting a variance for lot coverage.  He explained they are also seeking permission from Village Council for the demolition of an existing one car garage.  Mr. Black stated a new garage would go in place if the variance is granted.  Ms. Terry stated the request is for a 2% variance from 50% to 52%.  She explained with the removal of the existing garage and reconfiguration of the driveway there will be a total reduction in the current lot coverage on the property from 74% to 52%. 

 

Andy Doud, 311 East College, stated the current building is unsafe and about to fall down.  He stated the proposal would increase the value and look of the property. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-49:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE 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.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Burge 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2013-49 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-49: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2013-49 is Approved as Presented.

 

Finding of Fact

Mark and Mia Law (APPEAL), 76 Wexford Drive,  Application #2013-40

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request as submitted to the Zoning Inspector in Application #2013-40, the swimming pool will be so walled or fenced as to prevent uncontrolled access from the street or from adjacent properties.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-40.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (no).  Motion carried 3-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-40 are approved. 

 

Paul Hammond/Tracee Laing, 494 North Granger Street,  Application #2013-46

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-B, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-46.  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 #2013-46 are approved. 

 

Stephen & Jenifer Dennis, 65 Wexford Drive, Application #2013-47

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development 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 #2013-47.  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 #2013-47 are approved. 

 

Andrew & Monica Doud, 311 East College Street, Application #2013-49

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. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-49.  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 #2013-47 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse Scott Manno from the BZBA meeting on May 9, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

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 April 11, 2013 as presented.  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. Burge. 

Motion carried 4-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

June 13, 2013 (Mr. Gill stated he cannot attend this meeting.)

July 11, 2013

August 8, 2013

 

 

 

 

_____________________________  _______________ BZBA Chairperson, Jeff Gill          

BZBA Minutes April 11, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

April 11, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

 

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

 

Visitors: Mark Clapsadle, Rev. Stephen Applegate, Bill Haynes, and Brian Rapp. 

 

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:

St. Luke’s Church, 107 East Broadway, Application #2013-32

Village Square District (VSD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces for a building addition from seven (7) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces. 

 

(Alison Terry, Rev. Stephen Applegate, and Bill Haynes were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Rev. Stephen Applegate, 117 South Plum Street, stated he is the Reverend of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church on East Broadway.  He stated their request is for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from seven (7) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.  Rev. Applegate stated they have removed some of the seating within the church, specifically in the balcony, and are adding additional pews on the ground floor.  He added this interior expansion would trigger the need for seven (7) additional parking spaces.  Mr. Gill stated he didn’t realize churches were impacted by such an expansion in the Code.  He questioned if there were any exceptions for churches.  Law Director King stated there is language in the code that is especially applicable to churches.  Rev. Applegate stated St. Luke’s has had a very informal agreement with Park National Bank to utilize parking spaces on their lot for Sunday mornings and this has been done for quite some time.  Mr. Manno asked if Sunday is the only day for services.  Rev. Applegate stated they also have a weekday service on Wednesday afternoons and the average attendance is six people.  Mr. Burge questioned if parking for funerals is sufficient.  Rev. Applegate agreed parking for funerals is an ongoing issue and all four churches on the corner informally put up ‘no parking’ signs for street parking during funerals. 

 

Ms. Terry stated First Presbyterian was required to provide 25 additional new parking spaces with their most recent addition.  She stated the church did receive a variance from the BZBA to reduce the requirement from 25 spaces to 0.  She stated this variance was granted because the hours and days that parking would be utilized for the church are not times when parking is an issue in the downtown area.  Ms. Terry stated Centenary United Methodist church received a similar reduction for an addition done to the church in 2002.  She added that Centenary does have a private parking lot.  Ms. Terry stated another addition in the area, Granville Historical Society, was granted a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 12 to 0.  Mr. Manno stated this is not a precedent setting board and the parking variances granted were not based on any relation or impact to businesses.       

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-32:

 

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.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE.  Mr. Manno stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated FALSE.  Mr. Gill 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.  Law Director King mentioned the grandfathered status of parking for St. Luke’s church.   
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The majority of the BZBA members agreed the proposed variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Manno stated TRUE.   

 

(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 FALSE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.    Mr. Gill stated true, the church has made changes to the interior seating.  All other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Gill.

 

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 on all points, except Mr. Manno stated FALSE regarding the variance unreasonably increasing the congestion in public streets. 

 

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 there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2013-32 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-32: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (no).  Motion carried 4-1.  Application #2013-32 is Approved as Presented.

 

Brian Rapp, 679 Burg Street, Application #2013-33

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from sixteen (16’) feet to eleven-feet-eight-inches (11’8”) to allow for the construction of a one-story addition on the side of the home. 

 

(Alison Terry, Brian Rapp, and Mark Clapsadle were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, Granview Road, stated he is representing the homeowner, Brian Rapp, and they are requesting a variance for a side yard setback to add a dining room to the west side of the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated this is the most logical place to put the addition because it is a narrow deep lot and the other side of the home (east) is already developed with a driveway, landscaping, garage, and established access to the basement.  Mr. Clapsadle stated the addition if done on the east side would be more cost prohibitive.  Mr. Clapsadle stated the house is 132 feet away from the existing home to the west.  He added there is a lot of vegetation and growth between the two homes in this area, as well as an easement.  Mr. Gill asked if Mr. Rapp has had any conversation with his neighbors.  Mr. Rapp stated no, but they are aware of their plans.  Mr. Manno asked if the applicant is aware of the amount of square footage located in the area where the setback is needed.  Mr. Manno stated this appears to be minimal.  Mr. Clapsadle stated he does not have an exact measurement.    

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-33:

 

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 true, the nature of the lot includes a significant drop off in the rear of the property.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

 

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 FALSE.             

 

(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 FALSE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Smith stated FALSE.  Mr. Manno and Mr. Gill stated 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.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith indicated true, the addition would be on the side of the home.  All other BZBA members concurred with 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 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 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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2013-33 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-33: Smith (yes), Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-33 is Approved as Presented.

 

Finding of Fact

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, 107 East Broadway,  Application #2013-32

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-32.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (no), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-32 are approved. 

 

Brian Rapp, 679 Street,  Application #2013-33

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-33.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-33 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for March 14, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Other Business:

Ms. Terry stated the BZBA are invited to attend the 2013 Central Ohio Planning & Zoning Workshop on Friday, May 17, 2013 in Columbus.  She asked for members to contact her if they are interested in attending.   

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Manno made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM.   

 

Next Meeting:

May 9, 2013

June 13, 2013 (Mr. Gill indicated he cannot attend this meeting)

July 11, 2013

BZBA Minutes March 14, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

March 14, 2013

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning Department; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: Ralph and Diane Hodges, Timber Wyatt, and Sam Dodge. 

 

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:

Ralph and Diane Hodges, 420 West Maple Street, Application #2013-13

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a conditional use for a lodging house.

(Debi Walker, Timber Wyatt, and Ralph & Diane Hodges were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Ralph Hodges, 9699 Riverside Drive, Powell, Ohio stated he and his wife are the property owners of 420 West Maple Street.  He stated he feels the use of the property meets the use for the definition of a lodging facility.  Mr. Hodges stated the number of residents utilizing the property is four (4) working professionals.  Mr. Hodges stated he would like the principal structure on the property to be allowed for use as a lodging house for the duration of the time Timber Wyatt is the primary tenant.  Law Director King indicated a sunset provision could be used in the approval and it would be up to the property owner to handle this with the lease agreement.   Mr. Manno questioned how the application came before the BZBA since there has been someone living in the principal structure for some time.  Mr. Hodges stated he believes a neighbor may have filed a notice with the Village.  He indicated the notice stated there were four unrelated adults living on the property and this is beyond the scope of the zoning provisions.  Mr. Manno asked if there is a parking issue.  Mr. Hodges stated he met with Danny and Jennifer Blair and they own property to the north of the home.  He stated they indicated to him they did not have any issues and they did not submit a complaint.  Ms. Walker confirmed the complaint was not received by Danny and Jennifer Blair.  She stated a complaint, which was investigated, was brought forward to the Village.  Mr. Manno questioned if there were three (3) people living on the property would this be an issue.  Ms. Walker stated the code refers to sleeping rooms being used in the definitions and this is key in the number of parking spaces required.  Ms. Walker stated ‘sleeping rooms’ is referred to in the ‘boarding house’ definition and not the number of ‘bedrooms.’  She explained even though this is a four (4) bedroom house it has only two ‘sleeping rooms’, as indicated by the applicant, and therefore does not require any variances for parking.  Mr. Smith stated the BZBA did not receive any comments against approval of the application.  Mr. Gill indicated any letters submitted to the board can be reviewed, but they can not carry as much weight as live testimony when making a determination on the application. 

 

Timber Wyatt, 420 West Maple Street, stated he is the tenant of the property in question.  He spoke in regards to the complaint that prompted the need for the application.  Mr. Wyatt stated his sister visited him during a big winter snow storm and they were forced to park three cars on the road.  He explained when a plow eventually came through the cars forced a large pile of snow onto the neighbor's driveway and this upset them.  Mr. Wyatt stated he apologized for the inconvenience. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following determinations with respect to an application for a conditional use permit during their discussion of Application #2013-13:

 

a.         The proposed use is a conditional use with the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met.  The BZBA unanimously agreed Yes. 

b.         The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.  The BZBA unanimously agreed Yes. 

c.         The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  The BZBA unanimously agreed True. 

d.         The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed True. 

e.         The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values with the surrounding areas.  The BZBA unanimously agreed True.. 

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2013-13 contingent upon the conditional use being granted only if associated to any lease agreement between the property owner and Timber Wyatt (current lessee.)  Seconded by Mr. Kemper. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-13: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2013-13 is Approved with the above stated condition.

 

Alfie’s Wholesome Foods, 221 East Broadway, Application #2013-14

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces for an outside seating café from one (1) parking space to zero (0) parking spaces. 

 

(Debi Walker and Sam Dodge were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

 

Discussion:

Sam Dodge, 221 East Broadway, stated he is seeking a variance for parking so he can accommodate an outside seating area.  He stated according to the code the expanded use of the current space results in the need for additional parking.  Mr. Dodge indicated he is unable to provide the additional parking so he is requesting a variance.  Law Director King explained the requested variance is tied to the additional seating outside.  He stated the outdoor tables are considered an accessory use and they are limited to 25% of the primary use.  Law Director King stated the math doesn’t actually compute to the need for a full additional space, but rather a fraction of a parking space, therefore, one space is needed.  Mr. Gill asked if the applicant has looked at the options available to add one parking space.  Mr. Dodge explained the access to business is through the use of a shared driveway that is located on non-commercial property.  He stated these property owners have worked hard to ensure no additional traffic utilizes this driveway, and he therefore cannot provide an additional parking space.  Mr. Dodge stated the business would have twelve (12) two-top tables outdoors and the interior space is 385 square feet within the Counting House.  Mr. Dodge stated adding the outdoor seating has an enormous impact on his business.  He added the art gallery, museum, and library have been very accommodating in his request for additional seating outdoors.  Mr. Manno asked Law Director King what differs this variance request from what the BZBA has seen on Broadway.  He also stated the need for additional parking due to business expansion is certainly an issue in the downtown area.  Law Director King stated the Broadway requests for outdoor seating cafes are in the public right of way.  He stated the request before the BZBA today refers to outdoor seating on private property.  Law Director King went on to say the Broadway outdoor cafes must be renewed yearly before Village Council.  Mr. Dodge stated he does not see his business being a destination business, but rather frequented by pedestrians, bicyclists, and individuals visiting the library.  He stated the outdoor café is seasonal.  Mr. Burge asked the total number of seating without the variance.  Mr. Dodge stated eight (8).  Ms. Walker stated the outdoor seating setup for Mr. Dodge is completely at his discretion with the weather.  Mr. Gill stated the downtown seating located on public property must be taken down at a particular time of year.  Mr. Gill stated this is another request before the BZBA requesting a variance for parking.  He stated he feels the BZBA needs some direction from Council on how to handle these types of requests because often times accommodating a business in the downtown area results in multiple variances for parking.  Mr. Smith stated there is not a need for Council to provide additional directive on this. 

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2013-14:

 

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. Manno stated FALSE; Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Smith TRUE.  The panel as a whole stated TRUE because it is unique to this structure, with consideration that all of downtown is congested parking wise. 

 

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.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE, other businesses have operated there without the variance.  Mr. Manno TRUE.  Mr. Smith stated FALSE, because of the emphasis on a residual return. Mr. Gill TRUE.  Mr. Burge stated-FALSE.   
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Smith stated FALSE, the proposed variance is not substantial. Mr. Manno stated TRUE, the variance is substantial because parking downtown is a problem. 

 

(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). The BZBA unanimously agreed 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. Smith stated TRUE, the variance would add to the spirit and intent of the zoning requirement.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed 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 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 #2013-14 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-14: Smith (yes), Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (no).  Motion carried 4-1.  Application #2013-14 is Approved as Presented.

 

Finding of Fact

Ralph and Diane Hodges, 420 West Maple Street,  Application #2013-13

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-13.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-13 are approved. 

 

Alfie’s Wholesome Foods, 221 East Broadway, Application #2013-14

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. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-14.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (no), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2013-14 are approved. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for January 10, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (abstain), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Mr. Kemper indicated he did not attend this meeting.

 

Motion to Adjourn:

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M.   

 

Next Meeting:

April 11, 2013

May 9, 2013

June 13, 2013 (Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated they are unable to attend this meeting.)

BZBA Minutes January 10, 2013

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

January 10, 2013

7:00pm

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

Members Present: Larry Burge, Jeff Gill, Scott Manno and Bradley Smith 

Members Absent: Kenneth Kemper 

Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant 

Visitors: James Jung 

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:

James Jung, 221 West Broadway Application #2012-186

Village Residential District (VRD) and the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a wooden pergola at the rear of the home. 

(Debi Walker and James Jung were sworn in by Mr. Gill.) 

Discussion:

James Jung, 221 West Broadway, indicated that he wanted to build a pergola in his backyard to provide shade for his home.  He stated that he lost all of his trees in the backyard due to storms.  He would like to add the pergola to re-establish shade for his home and reduce heat in the house.  He indicated that he has one neighbor, who would see the pergola, and he has no objections. 

Planning & Zoning Assistant Walker reported that the neighbor reviewed the plans and expressed no objection. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-186: 

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 TRUE, the loss of the trees provided for a special circumstance. 

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, there can be a reasonable return and use of the property without the pergola.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE, the proposed variance was 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, the addition of the pergola would not substantially alter the neighborhood as it would be in keeping with other structures in the area. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE, there would be no adverse affect to the delivery of governmental services. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE, the property owner was aware of the zoning restrictions at the time of purchase.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE, as the purpose of the pergola was to replace the trees that previously existed. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE, as the nature of the variance was not substantial. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE, no special conditions or circumstances would result from this action.

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, that no health, safety and welfare issues would be affected. 

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 there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the variance for Application #2012-186 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   

Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-186:  Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-186 is approved as presented. 

Finding of Fact 

New Business:

James Jung, 221 West Broadway, Application #2012-186

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. Smith made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-186 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   

Roll call vote to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-186:  Gill (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #2012-186 is approved as presented. 

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Burge made a motion to excuse Kenneth Kemper from the BZBA meeting on January 10, 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.  

Roll call vote: Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for November 8, 2012.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   

Roll call vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes), Manno (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to Approve 2013 BZBA submittal deadlines:

Mr. Manno moved to approve the 2013 BZBA submittal deadlines.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  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 7:13pm.    

Next Meeting:

February 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

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.