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