Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes May 8, 2014

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

May 8, 2014

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael King, Village Law Director

 

Others Present:  Bob Lavender, Jeremy Johnson, Peter Confar, Seth Patton, Molly Thurlow-Collen and Charles Lagarce.

 

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak.  

 

New Business:

 

Bob Lavender, 773 North Cherry Valley Road, Application #2014-43 

Community Service District (CSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a conditional use to allow for a single family residential use.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Bob Lavender

 

Discussion:

Mr. Lavender stated his mother, Dorothy owns the property and he is speaking on her behalf. The property has been vacant for six (6) years and there is an opportunity to rent the property as a single family residence. They will be doing a lot of renovating on the inside and only painting on the outside of the structure.

 

Ms. Terry stated that the staff feels the proposed single family residential use is appropriate for this property, especially considering the previous use of the structure. The lots surrounding the property is either owned by the Lavenders, are vacant or commercial use only.

 

Criteria for Approval:

 

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals shall make the following determinations with respect to an application for a conditional use permit:

(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 does meet with the applicable development standards as outlined (See #4 below). All five (5) BZBA members stated true.

(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. All five (5) BZBA members stated true.

(c)       The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  The property is currently vacant and has only been used as a single family residence in the past.  Since the property has been vacant for more than two (2) years the applicant must apply for a conditional use, as the nonconforming use has expired.  The water and sanitary sewer usage and refuse collection needs will remain the same, as the property has only been used for residential in the past.  All five (5) BZBA members stated true.

(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.  All five (5) BZBA members stated true.

(e)       The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas. (Ord. 15-08. Passed 1-7-09)  All five (5) BZBA members stated true.

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2014-43 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-43: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2014-43 is Approved.

 

The Historic Granville Inn, LLC, 314, 334 and 384 East Broadway, Application #2014-56:

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1          To reduce the required side yard setback from five feet four inches (5’4”) to one (1’) foot; and to reduce the required rear yard setback from five feet four inches (5’4”) three and a half (3 ½’) feet for a relocated fire escape along the northwest corner of the Granville Inn.

2.         To reduce the required rear yard setback from ten (10') feet to four (4') feet at the new electrical transformer location on the College Townhouse property, located at 334 East Broadway, near the northwest corner.

3.         To reduce the parking space size requirements from ten (10’) feet by twenty (20’) feet to nine (9’) feet by eighteen (18’) feet for new parking spaces (6 North of the College Townhouse, 2 Northeast of the College Townhouse, 2 Northwest of the College Townhouse,  9 East of the College Townhouse and 20 in the West Lot-located at 314 East Broadway), to allow the new parking spaces to match the existing parking spaces in size on both the Granville Inn and College Townhouse properties.

4.         To reduce the new drive aisle width from twenty-two (22’) feet to twenty (20’) feet, beginning at Broadway and extending north around the rear of the College Townhouse, turning west and connecting to the rear of the Granville Inn.

5.         To reduce the overall number of required parking spaces for the Granville Inn                  and the College Townhouse properties from one hundred twelve (112) to eighty               (80).

6.         To reduce the drive aisle widths in two (2) separate areas from twenty-two (22’) feet to sixteen (16’) feet and eighteen (18’) feet as indicated on drawing SP1.4

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, Jeremy Johnson, Pete Confar, James Browder, Molly Thurlow-Colleen and Charles Lagarce 

 

Discusssion:

Mr. Confar on behalf of The Historic Granville Inn, stated looking at the site plan they wanted to stay within the footprint, address parking issues, utilize the college townhouse space and try not to ruin green space.

 

Mr. Gill addressed whether there would be more parking when the project was complete.

 

Mr. Confar stated that they would be putting anther aisle of parking in the east parking lot and there would be additional rear parking.

 

Mr. Johnson, 1801 Thornwood Drive, stated they are proposing nine (9) additional parking spaces which would measure 9’ x 18’ along the eastern side of the College Town House.  Currently, the code requires 10’ x 20’ parking spaces. If the variance is approved to make the parking spaces 9’ x 18’, this would allow for more parking on the site, adding a total of eighteen (18) additional spaces. The College Townhouse does not get grandfathered in like The Granville Inn for the 9’ x 18’ parking spaces. Mr. Johnson stated they are proposing expansion of the narrow drive aisle and making it a 20 - 22 foot drive in front of the College Townhouse.

 

Mr. Gill inquired about whether the project would address the neighbor's screening issues.  Mr. Johnson stated they are studying the screening and are more than willing to work with the neighbors.

 

Mr. Zimmer inquired whether the old trees would be left intact.

 

Mr. Confar stated they wanted to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Confar stated they are proposing removing the old fire escape, which is not in working order and putting in a new code compliant fire escape. They are proposing putting up a cedar fence to conceal the new proposed fire escape. Mr. Confar stated they have not heard back from AEP regarding the size of the transformer.

 

Mr. Browder of 122 North Pearl Street stated although he is happy that The Granville Inn was purchased and being renovated, he has many concerns about the proposed project. The proposed removal of the old fire escape and the new fire escape would not be aesthetically pleasing to him. He is not opposed to the cedar fence; however, he doesn't believe it goes with The Granville Inn. He stated that the proposed concrete walkway will cause further drainage issues in his backyard. He is concerned about the timeframe and how the contractors will access the building. Mr. Browder has been concerned with the old paint chips that fall on his property because he has small children and would like to know how the project will address such issues. His last concerns are with possible loitering between his property and the new walkway for the fire escape and the potential for lighting to shine onto his property.

 

Mr. Johnson concurred with Mr. Confar that they are proposing removing the old fire escape which should have less of a visual impact on the building. They are proposing the installation of a new code compliant fire escape and walkway, with a cedar fence along the property boundaries to screen both the fire escape and the walkway.  The new door into the building, from the fire escape, will be alarmed from the inside.

 

Mr. Confar stated the proposed concrete walkway does not necessarily have to be concrete. The proposed fire escape will consist of a concrete landing with stairs, which will look like it belongs with The Granville Inn. He stated there will be minimal lighting, which will face down on the wall of the fire escape.

 

Ms. Thurlow-Collen, 329 East College Street, reiterated her concerns about the screening between her property and The Granville Inn and the proposed transformer pad. She would prefer to have a wall installed, instead of a fence, to screen her backyard from The Granville Inn and College Town House service and parking areas.

 

Mr. Smith stated there are real concerns raised by the neighbors, which are aesthetic concerns for The Planning Commission to consider and review.

 

Mr. King suggested that this committee make recommendation to The Planning Commission about the screening issues.

 

Mr. Johnson stated they will address issues again at the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. They are diligently working to keep everyone happy. They will be proposing some different ideas.

 

Criteria for Approval:

 

1.         Section 1147.03, Criteria for Approval.

 

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

 

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. 

Variance #1:  Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Gill all stated TRUE, because of Code problems with the setback (Smith); Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

Variance #2: All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #3: All BZBA Members stated TRUE, it does not involve an actual change (Gill).

Variance #4:  Mr. Smith and Mr. Burge stated TRUE; Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #6:  Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill and Mr. Burge stated TRUE, due to the layout of the land and the trees on the property (Gill); Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; this property is no different than other properties.  When it was first developed in 1926 there were different requirements (Zimmers).

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Smith stated that for all six of the variances the property owners would suffer practical difficulties if the Code was strictly interpreted and the variances not granted and that is the main reason for weighing these factors differently and granting the variances (Smith).  All BZBA Members concurred with Mr. Smith.

 

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

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return,

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #3:  Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #5:  Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

            or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE, although the BZBA knows there will be a hardship for the applicant if the variance isn’t granted (Gill).

Variance #2:  Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE, there are other ways to address this (Gill); Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.

Variance #1:  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE; not substantial because of the unique nature of the existing parking and the fact that the actual parking numbers are being increased (Gill).

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

 

(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.  

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE, the BZBA does not believe this to be true (Gill).

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE; again there is no change involved and the parking would be pushed onto adjacent streets otherwise (Gill).

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

 

(4)             Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of                   governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE, they do not (Gill).

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE; in fact it might help (Gill).

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE; based on better access for delivery vehicles and garbage trucks (Gill).

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE; the property owners did know there was zoning (Gill).

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.

Variance #1:  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; Mr. Burge stated TRUE.

Variance #2:  Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated FALSE; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated TRUE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #4:  Mr. Kempers and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill stated TRUE; it would be less desirable from a Code standpoint (Smith).

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated FALSE.

Variance #6:  Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; Mr. Burge stated True.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.   

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE; since the transformer is a good change (Gill).

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members 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.  

Variance #1:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #2:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #3:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE; in fact it would not increase congestion on public streets with the granting of the variance to allow for additional parking spaces (Gill).

Variance #4:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE.

Variance #5:  All BZBA Members stated TRUE; in fact it would increase congestion in the area if the Board were to literally apply this provision in regards to allowing for additional parking spaces that do not meet the size criteria (Gill).

Variance #6:  All BZBA Members 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.  The Board made a recommendation to the Planning Commission to review the screening on both the north and west property lines in reference to variance items 1 & 2.

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2014-56 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  The application was approved with the stipulation that a recommendation be made to the Planning Commission to review the screening on the north and west side of the property as to Items #1 & #2 of the variances.  Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-56: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2014-56 is Approved.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Bob Lavender, 773 North Cherry Valley Road, Application #2014-43-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses, Chapter 1167, Community Service District and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-43, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-43. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

The Historic Granville Inn, LLC, 314, 334, and 384 East Broadway, Application #2014-56-Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-56, as submitted by the applicant with the condition a recommendation be made to the Planning Commission to review the screening on the north and west side of the property as to Items #1 & #2 of the variances.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-56. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-56: Burge (yes), Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for April 10, 2014. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 5-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM.

 

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.