Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
June 12, 2014
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: Planning & Zoning Assistant Debi Walker and Law Director Michael King Visitors: Lois Flanagan.
Lois Flanagan, 127 Carreg Cain Drive, Application #2014-67
Planned Unit Development District (PUD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty-five point two (25.2%) percent to twenty-six point nine (26.9%) percent to allow for the construction of a screened porch on the rear of the structure.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Debi Walker and Lois Flanagan
Discussion: Ms. Flanagan stated she owns the property located at 127 Carreg Cain Drive. She would like to replace her eight (8) by eight (8) cement slab with a nine (9) by eighteen (18) screened porch. She stated right now there is only room for either a grill or table and chairs. Neither of her neighbors opposed the addition and she has the home owner association approval.
Ms. Walker stated the village has the letter from the neighbors supporting Ms. Flanagan. Mr. King stated the board only has to approve the percentage increase for the variance.
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 l and or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.
and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.
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. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
(2) Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.
(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 Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.
(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.
(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.
Mr. Kemper and Mr. Gill stated this was TRUE (2) Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated this was FALSE.
(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. All Board members stated this was FALSE 4-0.
(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
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, All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,
All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
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.
Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2014-67 as presented. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-67: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2014-67 is approved.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Lois Flanagan, 127 Carreg Cain Drive, Application #2014-67-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 and Chapter 1171, Planned Development District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-67, as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-67. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to excuse member's absence:
Mr. Burge made a motion to excuse Mr. Smith. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:
Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for May 8, 2014. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Motion carried 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:18 PM.
July 10, 2014
August 14, 2014
September 11, 2014