Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
August 8, 2013
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.
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.)
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.
September 12, 2013
October 10, 2013