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

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.