Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
August 14, 2014
Call to Order: Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Bradley Smith and Jeff Gill.
Members Absent: Neal Zimmers.
Also Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant
Visitors: Deborah Barber and Jay Callandar
Deb Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2014-102
Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B). The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a carport.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Gill swore in Debi Walker, Deborah Barber, Jay Callander and
Ms. Barber, 420 North Granger Street, stated her intention is to add an addition to the rear of her home including a carport on the southern side. Posts for the carport will be closer to the southern property line than the required twelve (12’) feet; which is the reason for her variance request. Mr. Gill inquired if there had been any communications from neighbors regarding the request. Ms. Walker indicated there had been none. Mr. Smith asked whether the proposed carport is covering the existing driveway and if not, will the driveway be expanded or moved. Ms. Barber stated the driveway will not be moved and the proposed carport will cover it in its current location.
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: Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith and Mr. Burge stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE.
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 All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
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. All Board members stated this was TRUE 4-0.
(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Smith, Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE, Mr. Burge stated this was 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. 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. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2014-102 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2014-102: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2014-102 is approved.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2014-102-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 1163, Suburban Residential District-B and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-102, as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-102. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to excuse member's absence:
Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse Neal Zimmers’ absence from the August 14th Board of Zoning and Building Appeals meeting. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (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 June 12, 2014. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (Yes), Kemper (Yes), Smith (Yes) and Gill (Yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Gill. All members voted by voice in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:13PM.
September 11, 2014
October 9, 2014
November 13, 2014