Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
June 13, 2013
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
July 11, 2013
August 8, 2013
September 12, 2013