Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes November 12, 2014

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

November 13, 2014

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Neal Zimmers and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Bradley Smith, Vice Chair.

 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Planning Director and Michael King, Law Director.

 

Visitors: April & Skip Shaw, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Eriech Horvath, Keith Eschbaugh, Julio Valenzuela, Joe & DeMaris Rosato, Steve Mershon and Barbara Franks.

 

Mrs. Goumas requested the Agenda be modified to allow her application to be heard prior to Old Business, as she had a scheduling conflict and needed to leave the hearing early.  The Board agreed by consensus and the Mr. Gill so ordered.

 

226 East Broadway, Suite C – Keith Eschbaugh; Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn  - Application #2014-165  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for a retail use from four (4) parking spaces to two (2) parking spaces.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Keith Eschbaugh.

 

Discussion:

Keith Eschbaugh, 226 East Broadway, Suite C, stated that the building housing the business of Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn is part of a multi-use building which also houses Goumas’ Confections.  Currently, Goumas has the use of six (6) of the eight (8) off-street parking spaces.  This only leaves two (2) spaces remaining for the new business.  Planner Terry confirmed the parking facts and Staff recommended approval of the request. 

 

Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

a)         The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:         

 

1.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved, and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

                        which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

                                                             

 

2.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(a)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (b)       Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(c)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(d)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (e)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

(f)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(g)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

3.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

4.         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 Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

5.         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.

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2014-165 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-165:  Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Absent), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

 

2929 Milner Road, Lot #4 – Kenneth J. Ayers - Application #2014-122 

The property is located within Granville Township, however the right-of-way and access to the property is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Granville.  The request is for an appeal of the denial of a zoning permit application for the following:

1)         To remove the requirement that Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road and Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road share a common access drive; and

2)         To establish a new driveway access for Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, April & Skip Shaw, Steve Mershon and Bryon Reed

 

Discussion:

Law director King asked if the application had been continued or tabled from the last meeting.  Review of the minutes of the last meeting confirmed that the application had been tabled.

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to remove Application #2014-122 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to remove Application #2014-122 from the Table:  Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Absent), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Mershon, 404 East College Street, stated he was representing April and Skip Shaw and Kenneth Ayers.  Discussion was held regarding the decision reached by the Planning Commission in 2004 to limit the number of driveways fronting Milner Road.  The Planning Commission decision from 2004 centered on M.S. Consultant’s traffic study which recommended combining driveways when feasible and that there had been insufficient evidence to show that it was not feasible to do so.  Mr. Mershon discussed whether or not seven (7) access points were better than five (5) access points, citing stop distance and safety issues.  He stated that though the Village had preferred fewer accesses, circumstances had changed and the original driveway is neither practical nor feasible. Also mentioned was that Lot #3’s access has been modified since the original 2004 approval.  Mr. Mershon cited the large utility pedestal as an impediment to the shared driveway location, which sits at the edge of the property and serves the entire neighborhood.  He stated that the Shaw’s feel that sharing a drive is not feasible economically. 

 

Mr. Gill stated that the staff had previously found that fewer driveways were better than more and he could see no clear reason to overturn the Planning Commission or Village Staff’s decision. Mr. Mershon replied that the drive was neither safe nor feasible where it is currently located. Mr. Gill suggested leaving the discussion of the undeveloped lot to another day.  Mr. Mershon then stated that driving across the front of the property (as with a shared drive) would lower the property value. The Board was reluctant to violate codes.  Mr. Mershon then stated that feasible or practical issues despite the non-compliance to code could warrant a variance to be granted by the Board.  Mr. Gill asked what happens if the driveway is moved?

 

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Terra Nova Homes, testified about the safety issues for a flared driveway and provided pictorial examples.  He stated that Mr. Ayers, who owns the undeveloped Lot 4, does not want to put in a driveway on his property.  

 

Mr. Gill said that if an allowance is made for this lot, it will set a precedent for Lot #4.  He stated that the original plan called for fewer driveways.  Mr. Reed pointed out there is no other situation like this in the Village.  Mr. Mershon argued that the plan was to combine accesses when feasible and that due to safety issues this is no longer feasible. 

 

Mr. Zimmers asked if Mr. Mershon represents Mr. Ayers and the proposal is to approve a driveway for Lot #5 only then where would Lot 4 place their access.  Mr. King brought forth a copy of variance 1196.09 which reviewed criteria under part B that stated the accesses shall be combined when feasible.  Specific criteria allows for variances.  The words infeasible and impractical are interchangeably used.  Mr. Gill asked what it would take to grant a variance for access.  Mr. King replied that there could be the possibility of a variance rather than an appeal.  Mr. Mershon was asked if he would agree to a motion to amend the application to a variance application rather than the appeal.  Mr. Mershon agreed to this modification on behalf of both of his clients. 

 

The panel discussed their options briefly.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-122.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-122: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

2979 Milner Road, Lot #5 – Skip & April Shaw - Application #2014-123 

The property is located within Granville Township, however the right-of-way and access to the property is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Granville.  The request is for an appeal of the denial of a zoning permit application for the following:

1)         To remove the requirement that Lot #4, 2929 Milner Road and Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road share a common access drive; and

2)         To establish a new driveway access for Lot #5, 2979 Milner Road

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, April & Skip Shaw and Bryon Reed

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to remove Application #2014-123 from the Table. Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to remove Application #2014-123 from the Table:  Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Discussion:

See discussion above under Application #2014-123.  The same testimony was given for both applications.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-123.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-123: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

New Business:

 

1239 Cherry Valley Road  – Eriech Horvath; Buckeye Property Holding Group - Application #2014-152  The property is zoned Planned Commercial District.  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from eight (8) parking spaces to five (5) parking spaces;

2.         To reduce the size of required parking spaces from ten (10’) feet in width to nine feet three inches (9’3”) in width for three parking spaces and from ten (10’) feet in width to eight feet nine inches (8’9”) in width for two parking spaces.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Eriech Horvath.

 

Discussion:

Eriech Horvath, 1239 Cherry Valley Road, stated the property was purchased but then it was found that extra parking spaces were required.  The staff of the business would be out on site 85% of the time, two to three people would be in the office approximately 15% of the time.  Planner Terry indicated that within the Planned Commercial District no additional parking was allowed in front of structures.  Further, the house sets close enough to both side property lines that there would be no way to provide parking to the rear of the structure, unless a portion of the structure were demolished to provide access.  Also, the septic system for the structure is located somewhere in the rear yard and could interfere with additional parking.  She stated based on these variables, the anticipated number of employees and hours proposed that staff was recommending approval of the variance. 

 

Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

a)         The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:         

 

1.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved, and Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.                                                                 

                        which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.   

                                                             

2.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(a)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

 (b)       Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Burger stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(c)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(d)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (e)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated FALSE; Mr. Gill stated TRUE.

 

(f)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(g)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

3.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

4.         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 Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

5.         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.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-152.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-152: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

203 East College Street, Suite A – Julio Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC - Application #2014-166  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces, as established by the Planning Commission at their October 14th hearing, for a fitness use from three (3) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, Julio Valenzuela and Mr. Rosato.

 

Discussion:

Julio Valenzuela, 140 Pembroke Lane, stated that this business would operate throughout the day and evening, with many classes and that approximately 75% of the clients would be from foot traffic. 

 

Planner Terry stated that fitness use parking requirements are not specified in the code, but instead are determined by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission ruled that three spaces should be required for this use and that the two previous grandfathered parking spaces, from the previous use, should not apply. 

 

Mr. Rosato, 217 E College Street, said that as a neighboring resident the parking in this area was already tight.  Mr. Rosato’s property has room for only a single car in the driveway and he and his wife depend on street parking as does anyone who may visit them.  He asked for consideration from Mr. Valenzuela and that he wanted to go on record to say parking is an issue for him.  Mr. Gill suggested that such problems do come with Village life but that perhaps Mr. Valenzuela could suggest his patron’s park farther away or walk.  Mr. Zimmers observed that there were fewer cars in the past and now there are major changes to the numbers of cars and people.  The panel agreed that parking is always a problem downtown.

 

Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

a)         The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:         

 

1.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved, and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.                                                              

                        which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

                                                             

2.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(a)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

 

 (b)       Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

(c)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

(d)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 (e)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.   Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated TRUE; Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

 

(f)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other members concurred.

 

 

(g)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

3.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

4.         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 Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.   Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other members concurred.

 

5.         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. 

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Variance Application #2014-166.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote to approve Variance Application #2014-166: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Kenneth J. Ayers, 2929 Milner Road, Lot #4, Application #2014-122-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consisted with Chapter 1196, Access Management Plan Guidelines and Standards and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-122 as submitted.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-122. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Zimmers (Yes), Kemper (Yes), and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Skip & April Shaw, 2979 Milner Road, Lot #5, Application #2014-123-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consisted with Chapter 1196, Access Management Plan Guidelines and Standards and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-123 as submitted.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-123. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Zimmers (Yes), Kemper (Yes), and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Eriech Horvath; Buckeye Property Holding Group, 1239 Cherry Valley Road, Application #2014-152- Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals finds the request to be consistent with Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-152, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-152. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Keith Eschbaugh; Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn, Application #2014-165- Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals finds the request to be consistent with Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-165, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-165. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Abstain), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Julio Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC, 203 East College Street, Suite A, Application #2014-166- Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals finds the request to be consistent with Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-166, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-166. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Zimmers (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse member's absence:  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Bradley Smith.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  All members voted by voice in favor. 

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for October 9, 2014. Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (Yes), Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes) and Gill (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  All members voted by voice in favor. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:27 PM.

 

Next Meetings:

December 11, 2014

January 8, 2015

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.