Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
January 10, 2013
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.
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.)
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
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.
February 14, 2013
March 14, 2013