Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes December 10, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

December 10, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director, Michael King, Law Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager.

 

Visitors: Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Steve Flowers, Bob Johnson and Andy Franks.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

 

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

 

 

Old Business:

 

119-123 South Prospect Street –Barbara Franks - Application #2015-23:  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 parking spaces from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces for the additional occupancy of the first floor only of the rear accessory structure for a restaurant use, and totaling seven hundred sixty-eight (768) square feet of space.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

 

Barbara Franks, 121 ½ South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated she was requesting the same kind of parking variance given to Granville Inn, Del Mar and other businesses.  Her retail area has decreased and she would like to have the ability to have handicapped seating in her barn.  Mr. Gill asked for clarification about handicap seating in the barn.  Ms. Franks named Mai Chau, Day Y Noche, Moe’s, The Broadway Pub and Brews as having no requirement for parking and she wants the same as those businesses, as approved by the Village.  Mr. Zimmers asked if she was expanding her business.  Ms. Franks said “no, she wanted the barn space ‘back’ because it was taken away from her.  Ms. Franks made statements about a “vindictive neighbor who calls the police.”  Mr. Gill asked Mr. King about this accusation and was told that an injunction was filed against Ms. Franks in November.  Mr. Zimmers asked if this application was really for an expansion for a beer garden.  Ms. Franks denied that was the intent, that this request was to regain seating that was “taken away from her” since when she has lost $220,000 in business income.  Ms. Franks claimed she has spent all her inheritance to build up her business.  She complained of persecution by the village residents and other businesses.  Mr. Zimmers again tried to ascertain if the application was for handicapped seating or expansion. Mr. Gill asked Mr. King if the business (Taco Dan’s) formerly had approved seating in the barn?  Mr. King said, “No”.  The barn was originally approved in 2009 as an accessory building as storage for the Footloose business (retail).  Ms. Franks interrupted Mr. King.  Mr. King continued that there was an injunction against Taco Dan’s because the business was exceeding the approved footprint.  The Village never approved bar use for the barn.  Mr. Gill stated that the BZBA does not handle seating issues. Ms. Franks stated that County Health Dept. guidelines were followed when designing handicapped seating in the barn. 

 

Mr. Smith asked for the chronology of the 2009 approval for the accessory building for retail.  Mr. King stated that the barn, as an accessory use, did not require extra parking in the record from 2009.  It was not appealed to the Common Pleas Court.  March 17, 2012 Taco Dan’s was opened and began serving in the parking lot and the barn without Village approval.  The business was told NOT to serve outside the house or in the barn.  Ms. Franks maintained that the barn was solely for handicapped seating and mixed retail.  Mr. Zimmers referred to the last meeting testimony that the barn was not used for solely handicapped seating.  Mr. Gill said that it does seem like the request is an expansion.  Ms. Franks said that the Village gave back 4,700 square feet of restaurant in the house.  Mr. King stated that Village approved 400 square feet and the owner then expanded to most of the interior of the main building and the outside rear patio area, then onto the front porch.  The Village filed an injunction after several complaints, police responses and requests to the owners by the staff to do business with in the building.  Finally, paperwork was submitted by the owner and approved by the Village to expand the business to 4,700 square feet, all within the main building.  The application was approved by the Village to maintain the barn as an accessory to the Footloose retail store, not as a primary use for retail and restaurant. 

 

Mr. Smith asked if the barn is an accessory can it be used as a restaurant?  Mr. King replied that section 1157.14 states no commercial usage may be from an accessory building under Granville Law.  Mr. Smith asked if this request is for a change of use.  If so, then there is a need for a variance on parking spaces.  Mr. King answered that a change of use is now an administrative approval, but when a request for a change of use triggers other issues such the need for a variance, those issues must be resolved before the change of use can be approved.  Ms. Franks complained of her neighbor’s disapproval of the business.  She also wants more lighting.  Mr. Gill stated there is lighting in the back. 

 

During these remarks there were some vocal interruptions from members of the audience among the Franks’ supporters.  Andy Franks, 210 E. Maple, was sworn in and stated he is part owner of the business and son to the owner.  He stated in so many words that the business was being discriminated against and that other businesses and private requests in the area have gone smoothly and wondered why objections were being brought up in this meeting.  Mr. Gill explained that the BZBA is the body that deals with the Village’s right to address objections and concerns.  Mr. Franks continued to challenge the board re: their previous decisions on other business applications and was not accepting of Mr. Gill’s explanation.  Mr. Zimmers commented on the lack of similarities of business properties in the same district.  Mr. Gill explained the BZBA looks at each case individually.  Mr. Zimmers pointed out that the residences in the area are markedly different from 134 S. Prospect.  Mr. Franks said the criteria are identical.  Mr. Gill said that the BZBA will decide that.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 E. Maple was sworn in.  He said that every bar and restaurant in town has expanded.  He said that only Granville Inn and the Buxton have been granted outside seating. 

Bob Johnson of 218 E. Elm Street asked to speak.  Mr. Gill asked if his property was contiguous to the Franks property.  Planner Terry said “No”.  Mr. Sam Sagaria, of 117 S. Prospect asked if he, a contiguous owner, could grant Mr. Johnson permission to speak.  The answer was yes, so Mr. Johnson was sworn in.  Mr. Johnson asked if the variance is approved, does that approve the rear structure for what they want to do in the barn?   Mr. King said that if change of use is approved, then the administration has to process the approval.  Mr. Johnson addressed the handicapped use of the structure.  He said his concern was pro-business and pro-community.  If there are people eating, drinking, waiters going from one structure to the other, something is going to be consumed in between, then it becomes a beer garden.  This is not good for the neighborhood.  Mr. Gill stated that would be a liquor commission problem.  Mr. Johnsons asked if handicapped patrons were the concern, why not have that area on the inside of the house?  Mr. Burge asked for clarification about whether liquor would be served in the outdoor area.  Mr. King said that currently there is to be no outdoor service or consumption of alcohol outside the main structure.  Mr. Johnson pointed out that it was difficult to enforce. 

 

Mr. Sagaria’s input was requested by Mr. Gill.  Mr. Sagaria said that the Village was originally told that a 400 ft. taco restaurant was the original plan, and it was to be closed by 7 PM.  Now the entire house is used as a “beer joint” until 1 AM and later and it has a ‘frat house’ environment.  He does not want a beer garden in the back.  Mr. Gill said that was not what the board was approving.  Mr. Sagaria said that the Franks want a fence, then they can expand to a beer garden and barn and first and second floor.  Mr. Gill said to Mr. King that something like that could trigger additional parking requirements.  Mr. Zimmers asked if the issue at hand was granting a variance on parking aside from expansion.  Mr. Gill said he does hear expansion as a concern.  Planner Terry said that the entire street is not commercial, Mr. Sagaria’s home is single family residential and there are 3 residences facing the business.  Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Sagaria wanted to change from residential to commercial would he need a permit?  Planner Terry answered “Yes”. 

 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. King if a change of use was granted could it be limited to handicap or not?  Can anyone sit in that area?  Mr. King said that legally the application only asked for handicapped seating but it would be practically impossible to enforce.  Discussion between Mr. King and Mr. Smith about change of use approval and appeal.  Mr. Zimmers asked what the handicap thing was all about.  The discussion about recouping business is an expansion of business, not about handicapped.  Mr. King said that the application could have said they wanted to expand business.  It is up to the BZBA to determine credibility or not.  Mr. Burge asked Mr. Gill whether granting the application gives the go ahead for change of use.

 

Mr. Smith said that the Ohio Supreme Court states that such cases should consider if the question can be obviated by other means.  Feasibility of handicap access may be handled in some other way.  The properties on Broadway have ramps, for example.  Ms. Franks said it would require a 20 - foot-long ramp with a rise of 27 inches to get a wheelchair to the first floor.  There is no place for that and a lift would cost fifteen thousand dollars.  She had already spent 20 to 30 thousand dollars to place a handicap accessible bathroom in the barn.  Mr. Gill observed that accommodation is a side effect of expansion.  Mr. Burge asked why Ms. Franks made all those capital changes in the barn without approval for use.  Ms. Franks said that in 2005 they wanted to update the barn and have a restaurant.  Dan Rogers wanted to update the 1800 era barn but because it took so long to come back and get a change of use permit they proceeded to follow the state requirements to make such improvements and then were told NO by the Village so they ended up in the house.  Mr. Smith asked how people would access the rear structure.  They would have to use the PNB parking lot or the driveway shared with Mr. Sagaria.  Ms. Franks talked of negative hearsay from neighbors.

 

Mr. Smith mentioned that the staff has expressed safety concern regarding use of the shared driveway.  Mr. Gill asked Alison for input.  She said the staff report discusses the idea of handicap use and the need for such usage to be closed by 11:00 PM, alcohol would need to be in the rear of the structure and not be outside the structure except as carried by servers.  There are no special conditions.  There would be an inability to provide parking.  There is limited accessibility to the structure, as faced by many other businesses that have put in ramps.  Others also have zoning and practical difficulties.  More details are available in the staff report.  Mr. Gill asked how staff would respond to the zero parking variance.  Planner Terry replied that N. Prospect has been a mix of uses in the past as principle uses.  Applications to change from retail to other usage has had grandfathered parking.  Ms. Terry gave example of the Pub fronting directly onto the sidewalk on the Pub Right of Way, principal use of retail occupied by employees with the cash register where patrons are and no spillover from the property. 

Mr. Zimmers observed that the principal use of this property is asking for zero parking, so we are being asked to continue zero parking but is parking request to deny expansion?  Dan Rogers loudly objected, saying the board is asking him to spend 50 thousand dollars that the County Health Department already approved.  He said the Board is going against the handicapped patrons.  He has endured financial hardships over attorney fees and more.  He just wants to comply with handicap needs.  Ms. Franks said that when she bought the property the barn was leased to another person.  For 35 years it was used for other things.  She bought it as a common piece of property.  She had no knowledge of variances how it affects the neighboring area.  Mr. Gill pointed out that the property title would have told her that.  Ms. Franks said remodeling the barn increased their property taxes, and then the Zoning Inspector reduced the taxes when the barn use was “taken away.”  She feels her rights have been removed.

 

Mr. Gill asked Mr. King “Are we grounded?  Have we made the record clear and allowed everyone to speak?”  Mr. King had additional information which he passed to the board and the applicant.  Relevant to the third Duncan Factor regarding how a business is run and its effect on a neighborhood.

 

LD-1 is a copy of a public record from municipal court 15CRV352 regarding Ms. Franks’ disturbing the peace in March of 2015 at the business location.  It concerns a late noise complaint transferred by Ms. Franks from Mayor’s Court to Municipal Court.  Ms. Franks applied for a diversion program which was approved on August 19, but Ms. Franks was terminated from that program when she was subsequently arrested and jailed on open container and obstruction of official business charges (to which she ultimately pleaded Guilty). LD-2 and LD-3 were charges which are part of the record involving charges and trials and a letter to the Franks.

 

Mr. King reminded the board of how the business has been operated, the effect on the neighbors, documented disregard for the law and the way they do business, should the variance be approved as an expansion, given history, the problems will not get better.  Mr. Gill asked if there were any questions for Mr. King from the board.  There were none.

 

Dan Rogers objected strongly to the information brought up and was outraged that only one neighbor objected, etc.  Mr. Gill said he has spent money at the business and enjoyed the food, and the board has discussed how to help them.  The board has an obligation to acknowledge the number of complications.  Mr. King would have been remiss to not bring the evidence to the board.  At that point, the presentation of testimony and evidence concluded. 

 

The board decided to hold the application over as some members would like to review the April minutes and think about their decision.  Mr. Zimmers moved to hold the matter over to January 14, 2015 meeting, seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call vote Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (abstain) and Gill (yes).  Motion passed.

 

A three - minute recess was taken before considering the next item on the agenda.

 

New Business

 

232 East Elm Street -  Steve Flowers of CS Construction Group; on behalf of Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-166:  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height for an arbor from six (6’) feet to seven feet seven inches (7’7”). 

 

Discussion:

 

Steve Flowers, 1360 Loudon Street, Granville, Ohio, General Contractor, explained the plan to install air conditioning and a generator on the east side of the property.  There is a wish to add a fence and an arbor, as well.  Mr. Gill asked if the fence would be purple and was told “No”.  Mr. Gill asked if neighbor Laura Frame had been spoken to and was told that she had been and has no objections.  Mr. Burge asked about the height of the arbor and was told that the arbor has a gate for access to the yard and therefore must be taller than the fence.  There is no problem with the project because it is within 10 feet of the side lot line, according to Planner Terry.   

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-166:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was TRUE.

 

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

 

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

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

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

 

(6)               Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated            through some method other than a variance.  The board members voted 2 True       and 3 False.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The board members voted 2 False and 3 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, Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2015-166, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

Findings of Fact

 

New Business:

232 East Elm Street – Steve Flowers of CS Construction, on behalf of Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-166:  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 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-166.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-166. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Gill suggested holding over the BZBA meeting minutes for April 30, 2015 for review. Board members all agreed that would be the best thing to do.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for October 8, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:   Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve the 2016 Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Meeting Schedule:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting schedule for 2016.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Gill stated that he and Board greatly appreciate the time Alison Terry has spent with the committees, Mr. Kemper said her professionalism and knowledge has been excellent and Mr. Burge will miss her and wishes her the best.  Mr. Zimmers reiterated the same with thanks.

 

Steven Stilwell was present and thanked Alison for her service, announcing an open house for her on Friday December 18 from 1 to 3.

 

There has been no successor found yet for the planner job.  Three applicants looked suitable on paper, as reviewed by Mr. Burriss from BZBA, a member of the Village Council and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. One applicant was rejected, one withdrew and one was not qualified.  Search would begin again the following day (December 11, 2015).  There are some discussions between the chair of the GPC and the BZBA as to how to carry on in the meantime.  They intend to be deliberative in their approach and do a good job for the Village.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr.  ____________.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

 

Next Meetings (Tentative):

January 14, 2016

February 11, 2016

BZBA Minutes October 8, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

October 8, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Present:  Jeff Gill, Chair, Bradley Smith, Vice Chair, Kenneth Kemper, and Larry Burge.

 

Members Absent: Neal Zimmers.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager

 

Visitors:  Tim and Cathy Klingler, Phil Demarest, Jim Cooper, David and Susan Schmidt and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

 

 

 

 

 

New Business:

 

2 Sheppard Place – Nancy Noecker - Application #2015-124:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To decrease the required side yard setback for a structure from twelve (12) feet to one and one-half (1.5’) feet to allow for the construction of an attached carport; and

2)         To reduce the required side yard setback for a driveway from five (5’) feet to one and one-half (1.5’) feet to allow for the expansion of the driveway to access the carport.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Nancy Noecker, was unable to attend the meeting due to a death in the family.  The board agreed to hear the application in her absence since there were no attendees with objections. 

 

Planner Terry explained the applicant would like to expand the size of her existing one car attached carport to a two car carport.  There is not much area to the north of the home, so she would like to decrease the required side yard setback for a building from twelve (12’) feet to one and one half feet (1 ½’)  and reduce the setback for the driveway from five (5’) feet to one and one half feet (1 ½’).  The Staff has received no objections from anyone. 

 

Mr. Kemper asked if the dimensions are accurate.  Planner Terry said yes.  Planner Terry indicated Ms. Noecker had discussed whether or not the south side of the property could have been utilized and it cannot because it is prohibitively expensive.  Mr. Gill said that since no one was objecting, the board would move on to the Standards and Criteria.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-124:

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.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill said TRUE, Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper said FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. All Board members agreed this would be TRUE.

            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 members agreed this is TRUE.

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

All members voted TRUE.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Kemper, Burge and Smith said TRUE; Mr. Gill said 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. All members said FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members said TRUE.

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

(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 members said TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Gill said FALSE, Mr. Burge, Smith and Kemper said 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, all members said TRUE, and not diminish nor impair established property values within the surrounding areas, all members said TRUE, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, all members said TRUE, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All members said 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.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-124 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Mr. Gill (yes)  Motion carried 4-0.

 

457 North Granger Street, Granville Ohio, - Application #2015-129:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B). The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a fence from six (6’) feet to eight (8’) feet to allow for the installation of deer fencing.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Tim Klingler and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 457 N. Granger Street, stated he is planning to construct a 28’ x 24’ garden area to the side and behind the garage and it requires a deer fence.  It would consist of posts and a standard mesh deer fence.  A neighbor to the West has a 6-8 foot fence that the deer can jump.  Mr. Klingler would like to grow vegetables.  He indicated the neighbors have no objection and knew about the meeting.  Mr. Klingler has not spoken to the neighbor to the north as that owner does not live there.  No questions from the board other than Mr. Burge asking if the Village staff has any objections.  The answer from Village Staff was No.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-129:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land, wildlife or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Burge voted TRUE, Mr. Kemper, Smith and Gill voted FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The board voted TRUE.

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Burge said FALSE, Mr. Kemper, Smith and Gill said TRUE; or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  All members said TRUE.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  All members said FALSE.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, all members said FALSE, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  All members voted FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members said TRUE.

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

(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 members said TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  All members said 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,  all members voted TRUE; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted TRUE; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All members voted TRUE; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  All members voted 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. There are no requirements or conditions.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-129 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

134 South Pearl Street and 316 East Elm Street Phil Demarest on behalf of The Properties on Elm Street, LLC Application 2015-130, The properties are zoned Village Residential District (VRD).

 

1)         134 South Pearl Street: To increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from fifty (50%) percent to sixty point one five (60.15%) percent;

2)         316 East Elm Street: To increase the maximum impervious surface coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-eight point six (58.6%) percent; and to reduce the required minimum side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to eight (8’) feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Jim Cooper, an attorney, was not required to be sworn in.

 

Discussion:

Jim Cooper, 334 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated he was council for the property on Elm Street.  Two variances for impervious surface and side yard reduction apply to the property.  Replatting would split the properties via a driveway at 134 South Pearl Street and 316 East Elm Street, moving the east property line of 134 South Pearl Street to the east to allow for joint use of the driveway by both properties as has been historically used. 

 

Mr. Smith asked why a variance was needed for the impervious surface coverage, as the applicant was proposing no new construction.  Planner Terry indicated it was triggered because the properties were being re-subdivided.  Any time this occurs, the properties are required to come into compliance with the Zoning Code requirements at that point in time.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-130:

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 members voted TRUE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  All members voted TRUE.

            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 members voted TRUE; or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; all members voted TRUE;

(2)               Whether the variance is substantial.  All members voted FALSE

(3)               Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, all members voted FALSE; or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  All members voted FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members voted TRUE.

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

(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 members voted TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  All members voted 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, All members voted TRUE; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted TRUE; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties; All members voted TRUE; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets; All members voted 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.  No conditions were imposed by the Board.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-130 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:   Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes),  Mr. Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

134 North Prospect Street – Julio Valenzuela on behalf of Robert Schilling - Application #2015-143: 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 parking spaces for a retail use from three (3) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces for four hundred twenty (420) square feet of retail space. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Julio Valenzuela and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Julio Valenzuela 1359 Welsh Hills Road, Granville, Ohio stated he was requesting a variance for a parking reduction from three (3) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.  The address is changing from a restaurant use to a retail use. 

Planner Terry said that the previous business, a restaurant, required one (1) parking space for every two (200) hundred square feet.  The previous restaurant use had two (2) grandfathered parking spaces.  She went on to explain the complicated parking variances involving administrative offices, retail, and design space. 

 

Mr. Gill mentioned that parking seems to be a recurring problem in the downtown
Village area.  If property was purchased on the other side of town would there be a parking requirement?  Planner Terry explained the differences between parking requirements in the downtown area vs. in other areas of the Village.

 

Mr. Valenzuela commented that changes will come up as occupants change, and multi-tenant building spaces will contribute to that change.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-143:

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 members voted TRUE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  All members voted True.

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith voted FALSE, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Burge voted TRUE; or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  All members voted TRUE.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  All members voted TRUE.       

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, all members voted FALSE; or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  All members voted FALSE.

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  All members voted TRUE.

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

(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 members voted TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  All members voted 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, All members voted TRUE; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted TRUE; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All members voted TRUE; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  All members voted 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. Though no requirements were passed by the board, Mr. Smith commented that the Village Council should consider what to do about the downtown parking and congestion problems.

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2015-143 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:   Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Mr. Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approval

 

New Business:

a)         Application #2015-124, 2 Sheppard Place, Nancy Noecker; Side Yard Setback Reduction and Reduction in Required Side Yard Setback from Property Line for a Driveway:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-124.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-124. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)         Application 2015-129, 457 North Granger Street, Tim Klingler Increase in Maximum Height of a Fence:  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 1183, Height, Area and Yard Modifications Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-129.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-129. Second by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

c)         Application 2015-130, Properties on Elm Street, LLC, 134 South Pearl Street and 316 East Elm Street; Variances Related to the Replatting of Renumbered Lots 208 and 209 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 1159, Village Residential District and Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-130.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-130. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes),  Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

d)         Application 2015-143, Julio Valenzuela of Urban Restoration, LLC; 134 North Prospect Street; Reduction in the Number of Required Parking Spaces from Three (3) to Zero (0).  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Business District and Architectural Overlay Review District.

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2025-143, Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote :  Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) , and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Review and Approval of meeting minutes from September 10, 2015:  Mr. Kemper moved to approve, Second by Mr. Burge.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Discussion on Planning Director Search:

Steve Stilwell, Village Manager, Thanked everyone on the board for their service to the community.  He said there will be a reception to thank everyone for their service.  Mr. Stilwell stated that the Village celebrates the contribution Alison Terry has made to the Village and that she has led quite well for the past eight years.  She will be difficult to replace.  He indicated the Village has put out a job description of the Village Planner opening in advertisements in the APA, OCMA, and Ohio Municipal League.  The job applications received so far are not satisfactory so they are extending the search two more weeks.  Alison will be a resource when needed and may be contacted for follow-up work.  The hiring of this position will need community involvement by the various boards and staff members.  Mr. Eklof has committed to serving on the interview panel for the GPC.  

Mr. Gill made an observation regarding the job description, indicating that from an historical precedence economic development job duties cannot be tacked on to a very busy staffer.  Either the qualification is or it is not part of the job qualification.  Steve Stilwell replied that the job description is exhaustive.  They do not expect to get someone as good as Alison Terry, so there will be concessions.  Manager Stilwell went on to discuss the zoning code updates implemented to date and how small, repetitive issues now brought before the zoning board may be dealt with on an administrative level, not a board level, to trim time from the Planning Department’s busy scheduled.  He indicated Planner Terry has streamlined many functions in her tenure with the Village.

 

Motion to excuse a member’s absence: Mr. Kemper moved to excuse Mr. Zimmers’ absence, Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes), Smith (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Next Meetings:

November 12, 2015

December 10, 2015

 

Motion to Adjourn:

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Kemper. Motion carried 4-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:58 P.M.

BZBA Minutes September 10, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

September 10, 2015

 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.  Mr. Smith arrived at 7:06 p.m.

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planning Director

Visitors:  Phil Claggett, Russ and Melissa Bow, Ron Davis and Paul Palumbo.

Citizen Comments:  None.

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

New Business:

1229 Cherry Valley Road – Kyle Libby and Mallory Land - Application #2015-115:  The property is zoned Planned Commercial District (PCD).The request is for review and approval of a Conditional Use to allow the structure to be occupied as a single-family dwelling.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry.

The applicants were not present at the beginning of the meeting, so Mr. Smith suggested postponing this application until later to give the applicants time to arrive.

Discussion:

Mr. Kemper had realized in reading the letter from the property owners that they would probably not be at the meeting.  The board decided to consider the application since a sign had been placed and the public was made aware of the application. 

Planner Terry indicated the property was annexed years ago and zoned Planned Commercial District (PCD). The properties are on septic systems, but do have public water.  Access to the properties is only from the road.  The properties were not bought up by larger commercial development as originally thought.  The staff approached the Village Council about allowing for single family homes to be allowed as a conditional use.  Council agreed and the Code now authorizes single family as a conditional use in the Planned Commercial District. 

Planner Terry further indicated this area will be cut off once the Cherry Valley Road Interchange is constructed and opens in late 2016.  The property in question was last home to a legal practice, which has since been relocated.  Planner Terry said the property could be used commercially in the future as well.

Mr. Burge asked if the application is granted can the owners make improvements.  Planner Terry said that improvements could be made, subject to the requirements of the Zoning Code.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-115:

 (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 and does meet with the applicable development standards as outlined in the Staff Report.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; this use is a conditional use in this District.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Kemper.  

(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. Mr. Kemper, Mr. Smith and Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE the proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and transportation plans for this area.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

(c)        The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  All BZBA members voted 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.  The applicant has indicated there will be little to no noise from the operation of this proposed use.  All BZBA members voted True.

(e)        The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  All BZBA members voted TRUE.

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-115, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

931 Newark-Granville Road – Phil Claggett, Northpoint Ohio Architecture, on behalf of Russ & Melissa Bow - Application #2015-117:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a building from thirty (30’) feet to forty-four feet eight inches (44’8”) to allow for the construction of a new single family home. 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, and Phil Claggett.

Mr. Claggett of Northpoint-Ohio Architecture, 825 North 21st Street, Newark, Ohio stated he was representing Russ Bow for the property located at 931 Newark-Granville Rd.  The plan for the house construction meets all conditions except for height. 

Mr. Gill asked why the height was important to this structure.  Mr. Claggett replied that the roof height limit for Bryn Du is 35 feet.  Mr. Bow’s lot exceeds three acres and the proportion of the house fits the size and location of the property.

Mr. Gill asked how the construction would proceed.  Mr. Claggett indicated the pitch of the roof would extend forty-four feet eight inches (44’8”) from the ground and forty-two feet (42’) from the interior floor.  Mr. Gill asked if the floorplan meets square footage and was told, “Yes.”  Mr. Gill asked if there was any reason for the roof height besides style.  Mr. Claggett explained that the roof height is based on the width and length of the house in relation to the appropriate roof pitch for a French Country style home. 

Mr. Zimmers asked if a less than 50% increase in roof height would affect the living space.  Mr. Claggett answered “no,” but the aesthetics would be affected.  Mr. Claggeett indicated one side yard is ten times the requirement and another is twenty-five times the required amount. 

Planner Terry pointed out the applicant is not requesting a third story living space, the design of the roofline is merely truss space. 

Mr. Gill said that once this variance is granted, it sets precedence for others to expect their requests to be granted.  Mr. Claggett disagreed, stating there were very few lots in the Village that are located this far off the main street which also have as much land.

Victor Terebuh of 308 Bryn Du, indicated he was the most recent owner of the Tall Pines subdivision, and he sold three (3) of the lots to Mr. Bow.  The lot is uniquely situated with dense woods to the West, and a large hill to the North and East.  To the south is an open lot.  Tall Pines covenants were written by Mr. Terebuh and allowed for a maximum height of thirty-five (35’) feet.  Even so, Mr. Terebuh has granted a waiver to the covenants to allow Mr. Bow to build a home that exceeds the thirty-five (35’) foot requirement.  He wants to look at things individually.  Mr. Bow’s lot is the very back lot and will not restrict any views.  Mr. Terebuh’s property will adjoin this lot to the south.  He has no objection to the application. 

Ron Davis, 368 Bryn Du, indicated his property abuts Mr. Bow’s lot to the north.  He likes and supports the plan.  He feels the home will be a beautiful structure that will add value to the community and he likes the design. 

Paul Palumbo, 382 Bryn Du, stated he has no objection.  There will be no viewshed problems and the tall pines themselves are over forty-five (45’) feet in height.  He appreciates the work done so far by Claggett and Terrra Nova Builders. 

Zimmers stated he feels this variance request is substantial and could set a bad precedence for future applications.  He stated he was personally against granting the variance and feels it should be referred to the Village Council.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-117:

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.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE. All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. 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. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Burge, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill agreed with Mr. Kemper.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE.

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

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

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

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

(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.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

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

 (5)       Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; all other members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

(6)        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 with Mr. Zimmers.

 (7)       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, Mr. Burge and Mr. Gill stated FALSE; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith stated TRUE.  Mr. Smith went on to state the intent is to preserve the character of Granville and given the lack of visibility for this property, the larger size of the lot and the nature of the general area he felt that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed by the granting of the variance.  And the only neighbors who spoke regarding the application spoke in support of the variance request.

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

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

Mr. Burge asked for more discussion on the application.  He was concerned about the precedence of any property setting up a zoning appeal.  Mr. Gill asked how far and how often does the board get challenged on height.  Planner Terry said in her term there had been very few height variances, and the law director always says the Board should look at every application on a case by case basis.

Mr. Smith said that the lot is in an isolated area and is not visible from the street.  He feels it is a nice plan and has no objections.

Mr. Zimmers agreed with the beauty of the design, but the building height was set for a reason.  He said this is a personal choice in a new structure, not a pre-existing structure and he feels it should be sent to the Village Council. 

Mr. Gill asked if this structure would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Preventing a French Provincial design was not the intention of the code.  Mr. Burge asked why the application did not go to the Planning Commission.  Planner Terry indicated the Planning Commission reviews new homes or substantial additions in the historical district only.  Mr. Smith stated that the spirit and intent of zoning ordinance section 7 is to preserve the things that make people enjoy Granville.  The current owner does not wish to disturb that intent.  Mr. Gill observed that the neighbors were supporters of the project.

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 Application #2015-117, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (no), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.

Findings of Fact

New Business:

1229 Cherry Valley Road – Kyle Libby and Mallory Land - Application #2015-115:  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 and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-115.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-115. Seconded by Mr.Burge. Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) Zimmers (yes) Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

931 Newark-Granville Road –Phil Claggett of Northpoint-Ohio Architecture, on behalf of Russ and Melissa Bow - Application #2015-117:  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-A (SRD-A) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-117.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-117. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote:  Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2015:  Mr. Kemper pointed out a mistake in the August 13 Minutes. Page four, number 7 should have been unanimously TRUE, not FALSE.  Correction noted.  Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the Minutes of August 13 as corrected.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Motion approved by voice vote 5-0.

Next Meetings:

October 8, 2015 - Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper indicated they may not be in attendance.

November 12, 2015

December 10, 2015

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.

BZBA Minutes August 13, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

August 13, 2015

7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors: Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Bruce and Lisa Westall.

Citizen Comments:  None.

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under Old and New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

 

Old Business:

 

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000 – Tod & Evelyn Frolking – Application #2015-24, Amended: The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C).  The proposal consists of nine (9) single family lots located on approximately five (5) acres of land.  With the layout proposed by the developer the plan would require the following two (2) variances:

 

 

Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C):

1.         To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-five (35’) feet on Lot #1.

2.         To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-five (35’) feet on Lot #2.

            As shown on the submitted site plan labeled ‘Exhibit A’. 

Mr. Burge recused himself at this point in the meeting and from this application, as an adjoining property owner, and was seated in the audience.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Steve Mershon, Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Mike King, Law Director, started the discussion with an explanation regarding the variances the Board would be reviewing. He indicated the BZBA would only be reviewing the two (2) rear yard setback variances, as opposed to variances related to right-of-way width, roadway width, sidewalk on only one side of the street and the spacing of driveways.  It was determined after further review of the code that only the Planning Commission could review the roadway, right-of-way and sidewalk items and that a recommendation would need to be made to the Village Council for those deviations from the code requirements.

Tod Frolking, 605 West Broadway, briefly reviewed the modifications since the previous April meeting, changing the number of lots from twelve (12) to nine (9) and changing the roadway from a loop road to a single road with a cul-de-sac at the end.  They would like to preserve the large trees on the front of Lot #1 and Lot #2 and this is why they don’t want to move the houses forward to meet the rear yard setback requirement. 

Mr. Frolking indicated he had a letter from Barbara Pursley, 840 West Maple Street, which he would like to read into the record. Mr. Smith recommended the Board accept the letter and allow it to be read and Mr. Gill indicated the letter could be read aloud by Mr. Frolking.  Ms. Pursley expressed delight that the setback request would preserve the two trees and that the tree line should be retained.

Mr. Gill asked the applicant “what if we say no?” Mr. Frolking replied “then Granville is not a Tree City.”  Mr. Gill then responded “so the reason for the variance request is to save trees?”  Mr. Frolking stated yes and the geometry of Whitney Street does not allow for flexibility with the roadway and right-of-way alignment. 

Larry Burge, 870 West Maple Street, questioned how these proposed lots related to the Shepardson Condominiums and the historical 10 foot right-of-way deeded between the two properties.  He indicated the bulk of trees on the property are in this north-south right-of-way and some Shepardson homes are within 20 feet of the vegetation.

Brad Hartfield, 770 West Maple Street, stated his condominium faces the proposed common area and the 10 foot right-of-way is now a utility right-of-way.  He began questioning the setback for one of the homes along the southern portion of the development, but was informed by Staff that the setback of the home was not before the Board for a variance and would be reviewed at the time of Planning Commission platting.  He expressed concerns that there were no elevations for the proposed homes; that drainage on the site could be a problem; and that the aquifer could be compromised by the building of homes within the southern area of the development and that the EPA should be consulted.  He stated the Shepardson Condominiums already having flooding problems.  Mr. Frolking stated the proposed development sits below the Shepardson Condominiums and water would not flow towards them.

Bill Moore, 840 West Maple Street, spoke as the President of the Shepardson Condominium Homeowner’s Association and indicated they were in support of the project.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-24, as amended:

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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated this was TRUE.

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

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

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.    Mr. Zimmers stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated this was 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.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill state this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper stated this was TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated this was FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill stated this was FALSE. 

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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-24, as amended.  Second by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Mr. Burge rejoined the Board at this time.

New Business:

 

232 East Elm Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-107:  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to three (3’) foot;

2.         To reduce the northern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to one (1’) foot; and

3.         To increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-six (56%) percent; to allow for the construction of a one car detached garage in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Bruce and Lisa Westall, Patti Urbatis and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated the application for variances is to allow for a one-car garage to be constructed at the rear of the property in direct alignment with the driveway from East Elm Street.  They had originally considered putting the garage behind the home, but the angles make it too difficult to navigate the turn.  Also, putting it behind the home would obstruct the kitchen window and they do not want to obstruct the neighbors’ views. 

Mr. Gill asked if there had ever been a garage in this location and the answer was “not to our knowledge.” 

Margaret Gjessing, 228 East Elm Street, was interested in the design and color of the roof of the garage.  Mr. Gill indicated this would be a question for the Planning Commission when this project appears before the Commission for architectural review.

Patti Urbatis, 537 Mt. Parnassus, stated that many homes in the Village have garages next to the house and it would be a normal situation. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-107:

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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. All Board members agreed this would be TRUE.

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

(1)               Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return without the variance; The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated this was FALSE, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated this was TRUE.

(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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge voted TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith voted FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.  

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-107 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Findings of Fact

Old Business:

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000  – Village Roots; Tod & Evelyn Frolking - Application #2015-24, Amended:  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-C (SRD-C) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-24, as amended and revised on June 23, 2015.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-24, Amended. Second by Mr. Zimmers By voice vote the motion carried 4-0.

New Business:

232 East Elm Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-107:  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 1159, Village Residential District (VRD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-107.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-107. Second by Mr. Zimmers. By voice vote the motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve the Minutes of July 9, 2015.

Mr. Zimmers indicated there needed to be a correction to his statement on page 4 concerning the 133 South Cherry Street application discussion.  The correction was noted in the minutes. Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve the Minutes of July 9, as amended.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Motion approved by voice vote 4-0.

 

Next Meetings:

September 10, 2015

October 8, 2015

November 12, 2015

 

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 7:46 P.M.

 

BZBA Minutes July 9, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

July 9, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent: Ken Kemper.

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

Visitors: Pat Kelley, Greg Walter, Rhonda McMillen, Gayle Stewart and Tim Hughes.

Citizen Comments:  None.

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

 

New Business:

410 North Granger Street – Pat Kelley, Pat Kelley & Associates Architects, on behalf of Greg & Angela Walter - Application #2015-87:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Pat Kelley, Greg Walter and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Pat Kelley, Architect, of Kelley and Associates, Architects, 51 N 4th Street, Newark, Ohio, stated the existing garage was built in the 1950’s and the plan is to remove and replace it with a 1 ½ story garage.  The new one-and one half story, two-car garage would face west and will be 3 ½ feet from the north property line. 

Because of water runoff from Granger Street there is a multi-faceted plan. Mr. Kelley introduced a new drawing illustrating that the existing apron at the new garage would be reduced to 27 feet.  Existing downspouts on the SW corner of the garage directs water down the asphalt drive.  The new plan is to direct the water to a grassy area.  A yard drain on Granger clogs with debris in heavy rain. The Walter’s will put a half round catch basin in to mitigate the flooding.  On the east side of the new garage new downspouts will be installed also directing water to a grassy area. 

Mr. Gill asked what the square footage of the footprint of the new garage would be.  Planner Terry explained where it would be located and that the existing lot coverage is 21% and with this proposal would increase by 1.3% overall.  She went on to explain there is a private storm sewer line which exists along the southern boundary of the property which prevents the garage from being moved to the center of the lot.  Mr. Gill asked if the new garage could be built within the existing footprint and was told it would be very hard.  Two cars cannot fit in the existing garage. 

Rhonda McMillen, 404 N. Granger Street, expressed thanks for the Walter’s plan, likes the idea and has no concerns.  She appreciates that the water will be directed away from her property. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-87:

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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. All Board members agreed this would be FALSE.

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

(1)               Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return without the variance; The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith and Mr. Zimmers stated this was FALSE, Mr. Burge voted TRUE.

(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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge voted FALSE, and Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith voted 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. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.  

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2015-87 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

133 South Cherry Street – Eric & Gayle Stewart - Application #2015-88:  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

  1. To reduce the required minimum distance between driveways from one hundred fifty (150’) feet to fifty-six (56’) feet on the northern side of West Elm Street;
  2. To reduce the required minimum distance between driveways from one hundred fifty (150’) feet to thirty-nine (39’) feet on the southern side of West Elm Street; and
  3. To reduce the minimum distance between driveways and intersections from three hundred (300’) feet to one hundred eight (108’) feet, at the intersection of South Cherry Street and West Elm Street;

            to allow for the installation of a two-track brick driveway.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Gayle Stewart, Tim Hughes and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Gayle Stewart, 148 Edgewood Street, stated the property is currently for sale and they’re having a hard time selling it because there is no off-street parking.  They would like to provide a curb cut in order to allow for the construction of an off-street parking space consisting of two (2) brick strips – enabling the future homeowner to park one car. It is not known if there was ever a drive or alley there.  Mr. Gill inquired as to how the neighbors to the west feel about the project. Mrs. Stewart replied they support the plan. 

Tim Hughes, 42 East Broadway, Realtor and listing agent, stated the property has been on the market for 10 months and 95% of the viewers liked the house but disliked the fact there is no off-street parking. 

Mr. Zimmers said perhaps the Board should favor off-street parking as a convenience to the community, and that if approved the drive should be adjacent to the structure.  More discussion and willingness to amend the measurements to please the Board resulted as Planner Terry changed the measurement to 81 feet from the intersection of West Elm Street and Cherry Street.  Law Director King clarified points concerning the change in measurements. Planner Terry pointed out that the determining factor of the measurements was distance from other driveways, not the property line. Gayle Stewart was satisfied with the changes in measurements.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-88 as amended:

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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            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 members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Gill, Mr. Burge and Mr. Smith voted FALSE, Mr. Zimmers voted TRUE.  

(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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2015-88, as amended and agreed to between the BZBA and the property owner.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

221 East Broadway – Ann Lowder on behalf of the Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2015-92:  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 parking spaces for a five hundred twelve (512) square feet retail use from four (4) parking spaces to two (2) parking spaces. 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Ann Lowder and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Ann Lowder, 221 East Broadway, stated that on behalf of the museum she is requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for a retail use from 4 parking spaces to 2 parking spaces to allow for the rental of the “Wood Shed.”  The James Store would like to move in to the space and open James Store.com. – in addition to conducting some retail sales.  Ms. Lowder stated the James Store would be a good use of the space and a compliment to the museum. She added that the museum receives no tax dollars and does not charge for admission. The rental of the space would provide income to support the museum. Mr. Gill asked if the neighboring businesses and the library were in favor of the change.  Planner Terry indicated that there have been no objections received by her office and there are two dedicated spaces behind Alfies now for this space.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-92:

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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            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 members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Smith voted FALSE; Mr. Gill voted TRUE.  

(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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property (in 1959) with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The property was willed in 1979.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-92 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote:  Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Findings of Fact

New Business:

410 North Granger Street – Pat Kelley, Pat Kelley & Associates Architects on behalf of Greg & Angela Walter - Application #2015-87:  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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-87.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-87. Seconded by Mr. Burge. By voice vote the motion carried 4-0.

133 Cherry Street – Eric & Gayle Stewart - Application #2015-88:  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 1196, Access Management Plan Guidelines and Standards and hereby gives their approval of Application 2015-88 as amended. 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-88.  Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. By voice vote the motion carried 4-0.

221 East Broadway – Ann Lowder on behalf of the Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2015-92:  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 1183, Off-Street Parking and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-92.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-92. Seconded by Mr. Burge. By voice vote the motion carried 4-0.

Motion to excuse a member’s absence (if necessary)

Mr. Smith made a motion to excuse the absence of Ken Kemper.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  By voice vote motion carried 4-0.

Motion to approve the Minutes of May 14.

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 14.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Motion approved by voice vote 2-0.

 

Next Meetings:

August 13, 2015

September 10, 2015

October 8, 2015

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Zimmers.  Motion carried 4-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.

BZBA Minutes May 11, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

May 14, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Bradley Smith, Vice Chair, Kenneth Kemper and Larry Burge.

 

Members Absent: Neal Zimmers and Jeff Gill.

Also Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

Visitors: Lindsay Schilling and Todd Parker.

Citizen Comments:  None.

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Smith provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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;

(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.

 

New Business:

565 West Broadway – Christopher & Lindsay Schilling - Application #2015-54:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District. C (SRD-C).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for a driveway from five (5’) feet to one (1’) foot along the western property line.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Smith swore in Deb Walker and Lindsay Schilling.

 

Discussion:

Lindsay Schilling, 565 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated that the application speaks for itself. 

Mr. Smith asked if the curb would be cut to install the driveway.  The answer was ‘yes’. 

Mr. Burge asked if there were any neighbor objections.  Staff indicated there had been no objections. ‘

Mr. Smith asked why an additional driveway is needed.  Ms. Schilling said they needed additional parking for the property. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-54:

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.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE; Mr. Smith and Mr. Burge agreed.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. All Board members agreed this would be False.

            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 members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge voted TRUE and Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith voted 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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.  

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-54 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

243 Bryn Du Drive –Todd Parker, F5 Design/Architecture, on behalf of Brad & Cara Brautigan - Application #2015-62:  The property is zoned Planned Unit Development District (PUD). The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty-five (35’) feet to twenty-eight nine and seven eighths inches (28’-9 7/8”) and to reduce the southern side yard setback from fourteen (14’) feet to nine feet and one half inches (9-0 ½”) to allow for the construction of a garage addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Smith swore in Todd Parker and Deb Walker.

Discussion:

Todd Parker, 508 W. College, stated the house was constructed in the 1980’s and situated on the lot with a two car garage. The owners would like to add on to accommodate a third car.  Other options would be more intrusive.  Reducing the side yard requirement will allow the change to be made, and existing landscaping will screen the addition.  There are no neighbor objections.  The home is a single floor home and the addition will have matching horizontal lap-siding. 

Mr. Burge asked how close the adjacent house would be to the addition and was told that the photograph is actually showing the neighbor’s garage, not home.  The applicant indicated the Bryn Du Homeowners Association approved the request. 

Mr. Smith asked if the driveway needs a variance.  Assistant Planner Walker explained that the application is for items under roof.  Mr. Parker did explain that the driveway will be concrete pavers.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-62:

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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            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 members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burge said FALSE, Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper said 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, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

            and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was 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.

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-62 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

Findings of Fact

New Business:

565 West Broadway – Christopher & Lindsay Schilling - Application #2015-54:  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-C (SRD-C) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-54.

 

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-54. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

243 Bryn Du Drive – Todd Parker, F5 Design/Architecture, on behalf of Brad & Cara Brautigan - Application #2015-62:  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 Unit Development District (PUD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-62.

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-62. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

Motion to excuse a member’s absence (if necessary)

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse the absence of Neal Zimmers and Jeff Gill.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll call vote:  Kemper (yes), Burge (Yes), Smith (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

Next Meetings:

June 11, 2016

July 9, 2015

August 13, 2015

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Motion carried 3-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:21 P.M.

BZBA Minutes April 30, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

April 30, 2015

 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, Bradley Smith and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director, Michael King, Law Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager.

 

Visitors: Nick Cavalaris, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Chris Avery, Evelyn Frolking, Tod Frolking, George Parker, Jordan Labocki, Ryan Badger, Doug Mill, Cheri Mitchell, Mark Clapsadle, Mike Hoy, Dena McKinley, Cynthia Feidler, Richard Downs, Tim Hughes, Thomas and Wendy Miller, Keith and Courtney McWalters, Jean Hoyt, Bruce Westall, Jeff Yost, Tim and Cathy Klingler, Nancy Recchie, Jeff Darbee, Melanie and Nick Schott and Mollie Prasher.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

 

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

 

New Business:

 

119-123 South Prospect Street – Nick Cavalaris; on behalf of Barbara Franks - Application #2015-23:  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 parking spaces from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces for the additional occupancy of the first floor only of the rear accessory structure for a restaurant use, and totaling seven hundred sixty-eight (768) square feet of space.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Nick Cavalaris, Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria, Cynthia Feidler, Nancy Recchie, Jeff Darbee and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

 

Mr. Gill asked a question of the applicant prior to testimony being given about why there can’t be at least one (1) parking space provided on site? As opposed to requesting a variance to provide zero (0) off-street parking spaces.

 

Barbara Franks, 121 ½ South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated she could provide a parking space in the back that would actually be fine.  She wanted to point out that her property was originally retail, which requires one (1) parking space for every 150 square feet.  She stated she was mixing her use, so she’s actually decreasing the parking requirements to one (1) parking space for every two hundred (200) square feet. Mr. Gill stated Ms. Franks is, however, asking for a variance to reduce the required parking spaces to zero (0), but it looks like there could be one (1) off-street parking space allocated on the property which would change the nature of this variance request. Ms. Franks stated she could certainly provide one (1) parking space, the reason there are no parking spaces shown on the site plan is because no one in town has parking spaces and she was being held to a much higher accountability years ago for all of this sort of thing.  So, she said she’s just going to take the parking off the table; she will have no parking spaces just like everyone else.  Just like Alfie’s doesn’t have parking spaces, like the museum, etc.

 

Mr. Gill said he just wanted to get things straight prior to the Board moving forward with the variance request.  If the variance request moves forward as a request to zero (0) parking spaces and the Board votes no, then the applicant will either need to appeal or resubmit the application.  And, it sure looks like there could be one (1) parking space provided on-site, which would reduce the overall variance request.

 

Mr. Nick Cavalaris, 65 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio indicated the applicant could provide two (2) parking spaces, as indicated in his cover letter submitted with the application.  It talks about getting credit when changing the use from retail to restaurant, which is what the applicant is proposing to do with the application.  The code permits Planner Terry to actually administratively approve that which has been done for other businesses in town.  He again reiterated that they can provide two (2) parking spaces on-site and if that requires the submittal of a new site plan.  He would request that they table the application and provide an amended site plan showing the two (2) parking spaces.

 

Planner Terry indicated the applicant can certainly do that.  Just to keep in mind that with the showing of two (2) parking spaces, those parking spaces would need to meet the ten foot by twenty foot parking stall requirements.  If they can’t meet those code requirements, then the applicant could amend the application to show a reduction in parking spaces required from four (4) to two (2) and also request that the dimensions of the parking stalls be reduced as well.

 

Ms. Franks indicated there is sixteen (16’) feet beside the barn, and they park two (2) cars there every day.  She said if the code requires twenty (20’) feet then her lot isn’t that big.

 

Mr. Gill stated it’s a different sort of variance.  It’s asking for a complete reduction of the parking requirements to zero (0), which is something the Board would question since there does appear to be room between the buildings to allow for some parking.  There might be a path forward if there could be some parking provided on-site. 

 

Mr. Gill asked the applicant if they would be interested in tabling the application in order to consider revisions based on the discussion.  Mr. Cavalaris stated sure.  Ms. Franks indicated she would really like, everyone else in town is eating outside and doing business and she would like to be able to do the same thing on her property. It’s been a year, since November of 2013, when they filed the lawsuit against me to shut my business down - the injunction. Mr. Gill indicated that was not what was before the Board and the Board was simply trying to review a variance which would allow them to operate and get done what she wants to do.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated that’s what the applicant would like to do.

 

Mr. Smith stated he has no objection, but he didn’t want to get ahead of the game.  We’re not saying that we’re going to approve the variance, even if it’s amended.  If there are any other concerns or considerations that need to be raised before it’s tabled.

 

Mr. Zimmers agreed with Mr. Smith. 

 

Law Director King stated the other thing to consider is that there are other interested parties in attendance to speak on this issue, who may not be able to attend the next meeting, and that statements received from those individuals could affect how the application is viewed by the Board.

 

There was discussion about when the application could potentially reappear on the Agenda, based on the applicant’s resubmission timeline.  Staff indicated there would be a meeting in May and in June.

 

Mr. Smith indicated he didn’t want to drag things out, however he will not be in town for the June meeting.  And, so, he indicated an amended application showing two (2) parking spaces would be a different application however, some objections raised by the neighbors could change that viewpoint.  He wasn’t sure that any considerations raised by the neighbors would be substantially different regardless of the number of parking spaces.

 

Mr. Zimmers stated he will not be there for the May meeting.

 

Mr. Smith indicated he felt there would be some value in having the applicant move forward with their presentation of the application as to why they feel they need a variance from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.     

 

Law Director King indicated the applicant could always orally amend their variance request at this meeting to two (2) or one (1) parking space.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the Board would move forward with hearing the application, although the Board may not vote on the application this evening.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated he had some additional information to present.

 

Mr. Gill indicated he was sorry to interrupt Mr. Cavalaris, but the Board was going to need to have a quick side discussion in the adjoining room prior to moving forward. Mr. King joined the BZBA members and they adjourned to the front office.

 

Mr. Gill called the meeting back to order after reviewing some rules of procedure with the Law Director. 

 

Mr. Cavalaris discussed the packet of information he provided.  He reviewed the injunction which had been filed in 2013 and he has been working with Ms. Franks to comply with the injunction, but to also allow for further use of the property.  He went on to state he had been in a series of meetings with the Planner and Law Director to try to work through some of the issues.  Exhibit C, from 2014, Ms. Franks was still providing outside seating.  Mr. Gill stated he was confused because he thought the application was related to providing handicapped seating.  Mr. Cavalaris indicated Mr. Gill was correct.  Mr. Cavalaris went on to say that the applicant has worked with the Village, and has shown good faith, for the past year and a half.  This was about outside dining, but based on their negotiations with the Village, they have no outside seating.  He went on to say that it looks like every restaurant in town has outdoor seating.  The applicants have agreed not to provide outdoor seating in good faith.  The outcome of this negotiation was this variance application.  Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers only want handicapped seating in the barn.  The only reason when there’s a handicapped person.  The issue is Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers have worked with the Village for over a year.  They agreed to have everything inside, nothing outside. Not one request for anything outside, there’s three outside for one business on Broadway.  They don’t have any request for any outdoor dining or drinking on the front porch or the back.  They’ve followed essentially Mr. King’s plan to put everyone, to put handicap individuals in the back barn.

 

Mr. Gill asked if there’s no handicap parking space in the back how would the handicap individual get to the barn.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated they could utilize the shared driveway.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the Board is hearing all the arguments and history, but as the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, they have in front of them Application #2015-23, a request for a variance from four (4) to zero (0) parking spaces.  So, he wants to make sure things don’t get too far off track.  He again talked about having a parking space back on the property so a handicapped person didn’t have to utilize the shared driveway.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated “absolutely, yes, there is.”  Mr. Gill asked “and marking it handicap accessible?” Mr. Cavalaris again indicated “absolutely.”

 

Mr. Gill asked if there was anything else in the application that the applicant wanted to address prior to him asking the panel for additional questions.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated the shared driveway issue is brought up by the Village.  Mr. Gill stated that was his question, how does a handicap person get to the building?  Mr. Cavalaris referenced a judgment action from a previous lawsuit between Mr. Franks/Mr. Rogers and their next door neighbor related to the shared driveway.  In one of the findings by Judge Spahr, was that the shared driveway shall remain open for commercial purposes.  Mr. Gill wasn’t questioning how the applicants would use the driveway, just how you would get a handicapped person from whatever parking they’re using to the back space in which the variance is relevant. 

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated based on the interpretation of the Code, he can get into the legalities of whether since they’re going from retail to restaurant, which is a less intensive parking requirement, whether you get credit.  Under Section 1159.02 and 1159.03, if applicant is going from a more intensive parking requirement, which is retail (1/200), and then, if you’re going from retail to restaurant (1/150) which is less, no variance is needed.  I had this discussion with Mr. King and it was ignored in the Staff Report and somehow it doesn’t apply to Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers.  So, again, we’re trying to work with the Village.  We met their plan which is exactly what they came up with.  And, it’s only going to be used when there is a handicapped individual who needs these services.  It’s severely restricted. I think the applicants have shown a lot of good faith.  And, I was frankly surprised to get this Staff Report when it’s their plan. 

 

Mr. Gill asked if there were any questions from the BZBA panel.

 

Mr. Zimmers asked if it’s only going to be used if there’s a handicapped person who needs to access it.  There are a lot of people who qualify for the definition of handicapped (i.e. bad eyesight, etc.).  So, it seems to him that this is an effort to open up the barn for one handicapped individual with ten other people. It appears to him to be a subterfusion; I’m not saying that it is though.

 

Ms. Franks addressed Mr. Zimmers questions and indicated since the injunction she’s done nothing but follow the injunction.  She’s not allowed any handicapped people to eat.  She’s had to turn away local residents and their whole family and give them their food to go, because they couldn’t eat outside and she couldn’t let them eat in the barn. 

 

Mr. Gill restated Mr. Zimmers comments in a different way that things being what they are in Granville the barn probably would be open every night.  Therefore, we’ve got to look at with that consideration in mind, because there are handicapped people in the Village.

 

Ms. Franks stated there really isn’t a parking problem on the side streets.  If you want to come to Taco Dan’s, there’s parking in front of her business, unless there’s a funeral.

 

Mr. Gill indicated that Ms. Frank’s expectation was that the barn would be open almost every night.  Ms. Franks replied certainly she wasn’t going to say to the handicapped folks that they could only come on Monday’s and Tuesday’s because we’re not going to have it open other nights.  Mr. Gill summarized then that Ms. Franks comment was yes. Mr. Cavalaris said he understood Mr. Zimmers question, and it’s a good question, and he would be willing to make the commitment to a list of individuals who would qualify as handicapped, if that helps.

 

Mr. Burge asked about if a handicap individual comes to the restaurant with ten of their friends, do they eat in the barn alone or does everyone eat in there.  Ms. Franks responded that the non-handicapped friends would eat in the barn with their handicapped friend.  Mr. Cavalaris indicated there would be no outside drinking and no outside handling of alcohol by patrons outside, everything’s contained inside.

 

Ms. Franks read from a statement “I wish to apologize for the use of your time this evening.  My parking requirements are actually being reduced.  My restaurant business has taken over 50% of my retail business.  I really don’t see how these thirteen pages of applications for 2015-23 helps me in any way. The financial costs in my attorney’s fees is in excess of thousands and thousands of dollars.  Their suggestion for me to put in a ramp or retrofit my storage structure to the tune of thirty thousand dollars is not real.  I have an existing handicap accessible building approved by the State, the County and the Village. My property is very unique.  The barn was built prior to 1805.  You can see it in the pictures in the back of the room right there behind your screen.  From 1868 to the present this has been commercial use.  The barn was moved to the rear of the property in 1889 when Sam LeMartis built the first Victorian house.  O.S. Jones continued operating it until 1928 when the property became the funeral home.”

 

Mr. Gill asked Ms. Franks if she understood the Board was not bound by precedent when granting variances.  Ms. Franks stated yes.

 

Mr. Franks when on to read more from her statement “this funeral home used a smidgeon in judgement entry by Judge Spahr who ruled against my neighbor Sam Sagaria. Mr. Sagaria tried to take away my driveway.  It’s been a shared drive since 1894.  Mr. Sagaria’s house was not even built until 1911.  The judge also ruled against demolishing the barn, which Mr. Sagaria requested.  My property is located solidly within the commercial district, as are my other neighbors; the post office, the library, the police department, the Village offices and the funeral home.  All these places put way more stress on the parking requirements than all my businesses together.  And they have none, or little parking spaces.  Will the same newly concocted ideas such as ‘practical difficulties’ be used to stop the expansion of the other businesses in town.  Brew’s who has a new restaurant on the third floor?  The Pub which is doubling their size, taking over the James Store?”

 

Mr. Gill interjected and asked Ms. Franks to step away from the microphone as he felt she had strayed too far away from the matter at hand.  And, in the interest of time he wanted to let other affected property owners have the right to voice their testimony as well.

 

Nancy Rechhie, 122 South Prospect Street, Granville, stated she would like to read a letter into the record.  Copies were provided to the Board.  She stated her opposition as a neighboring property owner to the expansion of the Taco Dan’s restaurant, and to reduce the required number of parking spaces to zero.  “She had reviewed the detailed Staff Report and agreed wholeheartedly with Staff’s recommendation.  They’re especially concerned with the substantial detriment to nearby properties as a result of granting of the variance.  They own a single family home directly across the street.  With the exception of Taco Dan’s the street is a mix of single family homes and very low intensity businesses that do not operate in the late evening or attract a large number of patrons.  While they didn’t oppose the location of Taco Dan’s in the main building they’re opposed to any expansion into another building.  This increases the size of the business substantially while placing additional burden on existing limited on-street parking.  More patrons in this location until 11:00 at night also places the burden on the surrounding properties because of additional noise.  As the Staff Report indicated this is not a situation unique to this property.  Other remedies exist including a well-designed wheelchair ramp at the rear of the house or a well-designed wheelchair lift at the front.  What is appropriate is the commercial use on Broadway in the commercial district, is not necessarily appropriate on a side street where residents normally park.  The essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered by the granting of this variance. If the street is no longer viable as a residential area our property values will be negatively impacted.  Additional noise and movement of restaurant staff and customers between two buildings, the serving of alcohol in both buildings and the increased stress on limited on-street parking will all negatively impact the adjacent properties.  We would respectfully request the Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals deny the request for the variance.”

 

Jeff Darbee, 122 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio, “I’ll be brief.  This application is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Ostensibly it’s to accommodate people with disabilities.  The reading of the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, requires that it substantial equal accommodations for people with disabilities, and moving them to a barn at the rear of the property I don’t think meets the spirit of that law.  Regardless of that issue, from the applicants own plan it’s obvious that there are at least fifteen (15) seats proposed for this building, with room for at least eight (8) more for a total of twenty-three (23) at least within that building.  And the applicants themselves have indicated there won’t be just a single person with disabilities sitting in this building isolated from the other building.  There could be as many as twenty-three (23) or even more.  So even if they were able to provide the four (4) parking spaces required by the zoning code it still puts undue pressure on the neighborhood on a property that is not built to accommodate a commercial use of this intensity.  And it can only be a detriment to the neighborhood regardless of how many parking spaces they may be able to provide on the property.”

 

Mr. Cavalaris asked the Chair if he could cross examine the last witnesses.  He asked if Ms. Recchie and Mr. Darbee live in Granville.  Ms. Recchie responded “yes, we do have a weekend home here.” Mr. Cavalaris asked if their residence is in Columbus.  Ms. Recchie responded, “Yes, we live in Columbus, but we’ve had a property that we’ve occupied here for twenty-seven (27) years.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked if they were historic preservationists.  Ms. Recchie responded “yes, we are.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked if this plan utilizing handicap seating in the rear barn preserves the façade of the building.  Ms. Rechhie responded “that they have done work with many different historic properties as a part of historic preservation tax credits and we have found that there are many, many ways to sensitively and design handicap access very, very well into the main building.  Personally, my mother was in a wheelchair for seven (7) years and being sent to a secondary location is not a very appropriate thing to do.  We think there is a way to design a more appropriate lift or ramp.”  Mr. Cavalaris responded that wasn’t his question, he was talking about the front façade.  Ms. Recchie responded “You could.” 

 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated he has lived there since 2007.  Relative to the variance proposal will focus on four (4) specific issues.  The first is safety and liability issues, second is noise pollution, third is sanitation, litter and trash, and fourth is property rights.  The Village originally approved four hundred (400) square feet for this use and then the applicant immediately expanded to the entire structure, the front porch and the rear of the property.  The Village then filed an injunction to prohibit the use of the property beyond the originally approved four hundred (400) square feet.  The property owners then came to the Village and expanded their permit to include the entire front structure.  The property owners have always contended that they wanted a restaurant/bar in the rear building and a beer garden in the back.  The property is zoned for small commercial uses, not large restaurant uses.  The shared driveway is very narrow and would be difficult for handicapped individuals to navigate.  The violation of the noise ordinance constantly will only increase with the occupation of the rear structure.  There has been property damage to his property and feels like this will only increase with the expansion into the rear structure.  Five (5) of the seven (7) structures in the area are residences.  Please vote against the variance proposal.

 

Mr. Cavalaris asked the Chair if he could cross examine the last witness. Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria if he lives in Upper Arlington.  Mr. Sagaria responded “It doesn’t matter.” Mr. Cavalaris said it was a yes or no question.  Mr. Sagaria responded “I own 117 South Prospect Street and I’m there five Saturdays.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria if he was aware that this property is zoned commercial, just as Mr. Sagaria’s property is zoned commercial. Mr. Sagaria responded “absolutely.”  Mr. Cavalaris stated that Mr. Sagaria has a number of cameras pointed at Ms. Frank’s and Mr. Roger’s property.  Mr. Sagaria responded “No, they’re not.” Mr. Cavalaris asked where they were pointing.  Mr. Sagaria responded “They’re pointing at my perimeter.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria about the pictures he had presented earlier showing shrimp on his property, and whether Mr. Sagaria was aware of who put the shrimp on his property.  Mr. Sagaria responded “It happened right after a shrimp boil that happened in Taco Dan’s backyard.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria again if he was aware who put the shrimp there.  Mr. Sagaria responded “No.”

 

Mr. Smith questioned Mr. Sagaria stating that he was speaking for other neighbor’s in the area and whether there would in fact be other neighbors to speak on this application.

 

Jeanetta Pyle, 123 South Pearl Street, Granville, Ohio wanted to speak, however, Chairman Gill indicated that since she was not an interested party she would need to hold her comments.

 

Mr. Smith questioned whether Mr. Sagaria’s testimony that he represented other people in the neighborhood should be discounted and only assigned to him as his testimony.

 

Mr. King stated that if Mr. Sagaria were to state that with nothing to back it up you could give it whatever weight you deemed appropriate.  If additional parties who have standing step to the microphone and say, and identify themselves, and it’s determined they have standing and support Mr. Sagaria then the Board can give that testimony weight as they deem appropriate.

 

Mr. Gill asked Mr. Sagaria if he would like to call anyone as a witness.  Mr. Sagaria called Jeanetta Pyle to the microphone.

 

Jeanetta Pyle, 123 South Pearl Street, Granville, Ohio stated she agrees with everything that Mr. Sagaria said and everything Mr. Darbee and Ms. Recchie have said.  I was prepared to talk about the history of the property if the Board would like to hear it.  Mr. Gill deferred that history.  Ms. Pyle indicated she is against any expansion of the business to other parts of this property, and feels that any expansion will negatively impact her property value. 

 

Mr. Sagaria indicated he would like to call Bob Johnson as a witness. 

 

Bob Johnson, 218 East Elm Street, Granville, Ohio stated he would like to suggest that in a residential mixed area, with residential and business both, the only way it works is if there’s a partnership.  That the two parties get along and are communicating on a regular basis and it’s clear that is not happening.  He suggested a good way to start a better relationship would be for two approaches.  The first would be to retrofit or adapt the house and the other would be what they’re proposing.  To get rid of the suspicion that they’re simply using that for additional capacity for business that the first proposal seems to make more sense.  To retrofit the house to accommodate the handicap individuals, as opposed to the rear structure.

 

Mr. Sagaria said the site plan shows gates/fence that will enclose the back, so essentially they’re also asking to enclose the back yard, which has already been dealt with. Mr. Gill indicated that was not a part of this variance request.

 

Chris Avery, 343 Cedar Street, Granville, Ohio stated he owns the property directly next door, to the south, where he operates his dental practice.  He expressed his opposition to the variance request.  He does not have any opposition to the use of the front building for Taco Dan’s with customers entering and exiting at the front of the property.  He has concerns with the occupation of the rear structure and with no additional parking being provided when Taco Dan’s patrons may try to utilize his rear parking or Park National Bank’s parking areas directly next door, especially during the evening hours.  There would also additional noise pollution at the back of the property.  He questioned why the residential neighborhood would have to put up with additional noise and increased parking demands with the occupation of the rear structure.  He feels that the addition of handicap access to the front structure would accommodate the needs of the property owners, without occupation of this rear structure.

 

Cynthia Feidler, 580 Richards Road, Columbus, Ohio and 117 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio, partner to Mr. Sagaria, she stated that the neighborhood has already changed since Taco Dan’s opened and can only change negatively with additional occupation of the rear structure.

 

Mr. Smith had a question for Mr. Cavalaris.  Mr. Cavalaris had indicated that the property has been proven to be a commercial use through the use of the driveway.  Mr. Smith pointed out a section of the judgement entry from the lawsuit for the shared driveway which stated that the driveway can continue to be used as it has been in the past.  Mr. Cavalaris responded that’s the essence of this variance request.  It’s an unusual lot with two different buildings with different uses, which creates a hardship.  Mr. Smith then asked Mr. Cavalaris if he believed the further use of the barn in the back for a restaurant use was consistent with the court’s judgement regarding the driveway being used as it has in the past. Mr. Cavalaris indicated he did feel it met that standard, and is zoned commercial.

 

Mr. Gill proposed that with changes in status, and parking requirements/criteria that this meeting be continued until the next meeting.

 

Mr. Smith had a question for the Law Director.  He stated Mr. Cavalaris had raised an issue regarding Section 1159.03 and the need for a parking variance, and wanted to know the exact status.  Do the applicants have a variance now for retail parking to go from six (6) to zero (0). Law Director King responded when the rear structure was approved it was approved as an accessory use to Footloose.  As an accessory use it was not approved as a primary retail use and because of that it was not required to meet the requirements for additional parking spaces that a retail use would have triggered.  Mr. Smith asked what does Footloose operate under now – does it have a variance or does it have parking.  Law Director King responded Footloose operates in the main building.  Planner Terry responded the front structure is a grandfathered structure so it has had retail and commercial uses in the past, so if it changes from a more intensive parking use to a less intensive parking use then additional parking is not required.  Mr. Smith asked then why does 1159.03 not apply in this case.  Law Director King indicated it would apply if the rear structure had been approved as retail use.  Then those parking requirements would have applied and then Mr. Cavalaris would be correct.  But the rear structure was not approved as a principal use it was approved as an accessory use with no parking requirements.  Mr. Smith asked so the grandfathering applies only to the front structure and not to the entire property, not to the rear structure.  Law Director King indicated that was correct. He clarified that since the applicant is going from an accessory use in the back, which was not required to have any additional parking, and now they’re proposing a change to a restaurant use which does trigger parking.  That’s why they need to get a variance from four (4) to zero (0).  Mr. Smith asked if the applicants were to use the back structure for retail would they be required to provide six (6) parking spaces.  Planner Terry responded yes.  Essentially, the barn was originally set up as storage.  Meaning that the area was not manned by an employee, there was no cash register on site; it was simply overflow for goods that could not fit in the front structure. Mr. Gill asked if it had ever been permitted for anything else up until this point. Planner Terry indicated yes.  Mr. Smith again questioned if the applicants were to put retail in the barn would they need a variance. Law Director King responded “yes, they would need a variance.”

 

Ms. Franks again reiterated that the barn has been used commercially independently since 1868.  So, it’s the oldest existing commercial building in town. 

 

Law Director King indicated that just being zoned commercial does not trigger parking requirements.  The Granville Code requires off-street parking at the time that the commercial use is brought forward.

 

Mr. Gill made a statement that Application #2015-23 would be continued at this time.

 

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000 – Village Roots; Tod & Evelyn Frolking - Application #2015-24:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C).  The proposal consists of twelve (12) single family lots located on approximately five (5) acres of land.  With the layout proposed by the developer the plan would require the following sixteen (16) variances:

 

Subdivision Design Standards variance, as follows:

To receive a variance from the Subdivision Design Standards requirement that sidewalks shall be located within all street rights-of-way, both sides of the street, and instead allow for the sidewalk to be located on one side of the street only within the entire development.

 

Roadway variances, as follows:

1.         To reduce the required right-of-way width for a new public right-of-way from sixty (60’) feet to forty (40’) feet;

2.         To reduce the required roadway width for a new public street from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty-four (24’) feet within the interior subdivision roadway;

3.         To reduce the required roadway width for a new public street from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty-two (22’) feet for a two-way street system on Whitney Street; and

4.         To reduce the required roadway width for a new public street from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty (20’) feet for a one-way street system within the interior subdivision roadway.

 

Single family lot variances, as follows:

1.         Lot #1:  To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty-seven (27’) feet.

2.         Lot #2:  To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty-five (25’) feet.

3.         Lot #3:  To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty (20’) feet.

4.         Lot #5:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

5.         Lot #6:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

6.         Lot #7:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

7.         Lot #8:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

8.         Lot #9:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

9.         Lot #10:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

10.       Lot #11:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet; and

11.       Lot #12: To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet.

            As shown on the submitted site plan labeled ‘Exhibit A.’   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Tod Frolking, Evelyn Frolking, George Parker, Jordan Labocki, Doug Mills, Ryan Badger, Brad Hartfield, Keith Newhouse, Ralph Ottensmeijer, Thomas and Wendy Miller, Seth Gross, David and Wendy Hames, Brian Coghlan, Sandy Hartfield and Alison Terry.

 

Mr. Burge recused himself from the discussion, as an adjoining property owner, and was seated in the audience.

 

Discussion:

 

Ms. Evelyn Frolking, 605 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated they have really made efforts to work with the Village and Board to achieve their site layout while abiding by the zoning rules.  She discussed the energy efficiency of the homes, community garden, and sustainability of the property.  They’ve owned the land for thirty (30) years and want to be good stewards of that land and to the community.

 

Mr. Todd Frolking, 605 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated the variances are largely identical.  The most significant variances are related to the roadway and right-of-way variance request.   He received a copy of the Village Engineer’s report which detailed many items that will really be triggered at the next phase of platting.  He read a sentence from the Engineer’s staff report regarding “support of a minimum street width of twenty-four (24’) feet with two-way traffic and on-street parking on one side.”  Mr. Frolking explained that he supported that width for a portion of the homes that are laid out in the site plan. He wants the road at the front of the subdivision to be a maximum of twenty-two (22’) feet with no on-street parking, and as only an entrance to the property.  In regards to the other portions of the property, they’re requesting twenty (20’) feet with one-way traffic only. 

 

Mr. Gill pointed out that the doesn’t think Staff feels this portion of roadway will be utilized as one-way, but that the residents would use it for two-way traffic ultimately.  He referenced North Plum Street which is seventeen (17’) feet in width as an argument for narrower roadway widths for this development.  Planner Terry indicated that the older streets in town are grandfathered, and that any new streets are required to meet a larger standard.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the procedure that the Board would utilize to review the criteria for the numerous variance requests before them.

 

Mr. Frolking stated that his engineer has discussed putting the sanitary sewer line along the eastern property line instead of within the right-of-way, which would allow for a narrower right-of-way. He went on to discuss the difference between the setbacks for the homes and the right-of-way width.  That he wants to the homes to be pulled up close to the street. He went on to state that they’ve owned the land for a long time and have had horses on this property.  He’s not a proponent of large lot development.  They’ve had a large number of people approach them to develop the property they would prefer not to just sell it off.  He presented a plan showing multi-family apartments that could fit on the property without the need for variances, but that’s not what they want to do. They’re trying to market this for empty nesters who want to downsize.

 

Mr. Zimmers asked Mr. Frolking why they’re not able to design the streets with a twenty-four (24’) feet road width.  Mr. Frolking indicated he doesn’t see a need to make the streets two-way.  And, that some of it is aesthetics.  They’re trying to have closed spaced homes with the most green space possible.  Broadway in front of his house is roughly twenty-four (24’) feet in width, which is too wide.  “To put that back in that small field to serve three houses, to him is an abomination.”  Even twenty (20’) feet is too much.  There probably is enough room to squeeze all the homes together to make the roadway twenty-four (24’) feet in width. There’ve been lots of studies that indicate narrower roads have less traffic accidents than wider roads.

 

Mr. Zimmers indicated the Village Council has decided that twenty-six (26’) feet is the standard in the code, and who is the BZBA to disagree with that.

 

Mr. Frolking indicated they’re aware of the issues with the Suburban Residential District-C zoning, and they’re not looking at developing it as a sprawling subdivision.

 

Mr. Gill indicated that they’re looking at what the current code requires. 

 

Planner Terry indicated the Village’s Municipal Engineer was in attendance and Village Staff would like for him to be able to testify.

 

Brad Hartfield, 770 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio stated he lives adjacent to the proposed subdivision.  Mainly the setbacks are the issue, on the east side of the plan.  It is requested to be only twenty (20’) feet.  There is a manhole in this area which is only a short distance from the property line, so he doesn’t know how they’ll be able to dig that close to a sanitary sewer line.  Is the area within the back portion of the property under EPA protection.  The trees along the property line will most likely be destroyed with only a twenty (20’) foot setback.

 

Keith Newhouse, 633 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated he would like to speak in favor of what the Frolking’s want to do, which is to keep the road narrow.  He would like the road to be as narrow as possible.  He doesn’t want to see an apartment complex down there.  There’s already a large volume of water that goes down the street now.  Some of the water issue will need to be addressed with the Village Engineer.

 

Ralph Ottensmeier, West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio stated he is concerned that the twenty (20’) foot setback is too small; he would like to see it be a minimum of forty (40’) feet total.  Otherwise, he’s okay with what the Frolking’s are trying to do with the property.

Thomas Miller, 1 Harmony Lane, Granville, Ohio 43023 stated he wanted to commend the Frolking’s for their design and sensitivity. However, he is concerned with the setbacks adjacent to his property.  Also, he has two lots adjacent to where the new roadway will be installed from West Broadway and would like to see on-street parking allowed along this stretch of roadway.  He thinks neighbors in the future will want to have on-street parking.  He feels there may be too much density shown on the current plan, with a reduction in density then the homes could be moved away from the adjoining properties and the variances would not be necessary.

 

Seth Gross, 590 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated he lives right across the street from the proposed new roadway.  The need to ask for fifteen (15) different variances for a single project is clearly excessive.  He understands there could be an alternative such as apartments, but he felt like he would cross that bridge when he came to it.  He felt there were too many houses, too much density.  Mr. Gill asked him if he would feel better about it if there were only eight (8) houses. Mr. Gross responded, “Yes, he would feel better about it.”  However, he really wishes as a neighbor that he would have been approached prior to receiving a letter of notice from the Village.  His house will be the one directly across the street from the entrance with the headlights pointed right at him that will negatively affect his property value. That’s a big worry for him. Mr. Gill wanted to know if any kind of screening would help alleviate that.  Mr. Gross didn’t see how that would help. He’d be willing to look at options in the future.  The added traffic would also be concerning.  There’s a crosswalk in this area and close proximity to Wildwood Park, not to mention there’s a lot of traffic in this area anyway.

 

Mr. Frolking asked if he would be able to respond to some of the concerns which have been raised. Mr. Gill said there were still a couple of neighbors who wanted to speak so they would come back to Mr. Frolking.

 

Kathleen Solon, 585 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated her concerns are somewhat similar to Mr. Gross’ as they relate to traffic on the roadway. She would be in favor of variance #3 which limits the width of the public roadway.  She understands that the property is zoned for residential use, and was complimentary of the sensitivity of the design. The home closest to her home has a setback variance request and she is concerned about the impact of this proposed location.  She thinks a reduction in the number of homes would reduce some of the variances necessary with this plan.

 

David James, 615 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated he was one of the more directly impacted neighbors.  They’ve lived there for twenty (20) years.  He’s enjoyed the view and their generosity in keeping it as green space all these years.  Obviously, losing the view as they’ve enjoyed it is not something they’re excited about, but they trust the Frolking’s and the quality that they plan to build seems to make sense.  This is a unique piece of property which is landlocked, and driving down Broadway you’re not going to see any of this property. He’s concerned from an economic standpoint about several things.  The last thing they want back there is apartments, and there’s nothing that can stop them, they can do that now.  Planner Terry clarified that apartments require conditional use approval in this District from the BZBA. Mr. James went on to indicate he understands that, but it may not even need any variances.  From every standpoint apartments back there would be disastrous.  The Frolking’s are talking about building $300,000-$400,000 homes.  That would greatly increase the tax base for the Village and schools.  These homes will most likely be constructed for empty nesters, there’s not going to be very many homes built back here.  In general, he’s speaking in favor of these variances.  He’s concerned about the BZBA pushing them to do fewer homes that the project probably becomes economically infeasible.  And then they’re back to looking at what else they can do as they near retirement.  He would have a major problem with two-way traffic going all the way around the proposed loop.  He feels that one-way traffic is sufficient.

 

Planner Terry discussed the roadway and right-of-way widths in relation to utilities and easement areas.  She indicated there are many improvements within the right-of-way (i.e. sidewalks, tree lawns, lighting, water line, sanitary sewer line, storm sewer line).  She went on to discuss the easement areas associated with the water line and sanitary sewer line in conjunction with a reduction in the front yard setback which really causes issues for the future homeowners.  The homeowners begin to install trees within the front yard, where the utilities aren’t usually located and this creates problems.

 

Brian Coghlan, 2875 West Dublin-Granville Road, Columbus, Ohio stated he was asked to review the site plan after a few work sessions.  Just for clarification, Bird
& Bull is not the design engineer on this project; they are reviewing this strictly as the Village Engineer.  He is definitely in favor of green design, however, the biggest concern he sees with this site plan is storm water control.  Where is this water going to go?  There’s floodplain along the southern edge of the property and there’s a lot of water going down through the ditch, and it doesn’t appear that necessary storm water management plans have been put in place with this plan.  It appears as though the property owners want public amenities, with a lesser private standard.  Typically, apartments or condominiums have private roadways which allow for smaller roadways. Also, most of this property is going to have to be cleared in order to get it to properly drain.  He concurred with Planner Terry on her comments related to the right-of-way in regards to utilities and necessary easements. Typically, utility lines are not installed underneath roadways because of future maintenance.  The same for sidewalks, you would not want sidewalks on top of the utility line. 

 

Mr. Frolking had a few questions for Mr. Coghlan through his design engineer.  Law Director King indicated that Mr. Frolking could cross examine but that his design engineer could not.  Mr. Frolking stated that this is simply sketch plan review at this time, but the engineering has not been completed.

 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Coghlan about an apartment complex on this site in relation to the storm water concerns.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that the storm water could be a concern however detention could be done under parking lot areas.

 

Bill Warrant, 840 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio stated he is in charge of the homeowner’s association of the Shepardson Condominiums.  A few of the individuals who live along the eastern edge of the proposed development, within the condominiums, are opposed to the reduction in the setback.

 

Sandy Hartfield, 730 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio wanted to know why there was no variance for setback for Lot #4.  Planner Terry indicated this is actually a side yard setback, not a rear yard setback in this area – so no variance was required.

 

Mr. Frolking called witnesses: 

 

Ken Apacki, 352 Llanberis, Granville, Ohio stated he was in support of the project.  It’s economical and there is a need for people to age in place and this project would allow that.

 

Carol Apacki, 352 Llanberis, Granville, Ohio stated she hopes the Village will embrace this opportunity and allow for the development of a property which meets the needs of local residents.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the BZBA and Law Director were going to adjourn to the adjacent room for a short five-minute recess.  The Board then reconvened in session after several minutes.

 

Mr. Zimmers stated that with the issues raised on setbacks and other items that he would like to have an opportunity to reflect on and would like to see the application tabled.  Mr. Smith indicated he felt there could be some benefit to reflecting on this for some time as well.

 

Mr. Gill made a statement that Application #2015-24 would be continued at this time.

 

Mr. Burge rejoined the Board at 9:55 p.m.

 

114 Thresher Street - Frank Hassebrock - Application #2015-25:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the required rear yard setback from fifteen (15’) feet to five (5’) feet;

2.         To reduce the required southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to thirty-two (32”) inches; and

3.         To increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-six (26%) percent to allow for the construction of a new detached accessory structure in the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Frank Hassebrock and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

 

Cheri Mitchell, 114 Thresher Street, stated they have requested a variance to build a new attached garage which is within five (5’) feet of the rear property line.  The existing garage is within thirty-two (32”) inches of the side property line.  There is also a maximum building lot coverage variance. 

 

Mr. Gill indicated that the existing garage is basically being removed and a new garage is being constructed, but being shifted further back on the property.  Ms. Mitchell indicated this is correct.

 

Mr. Gill asked if the applicants have spoken with the surrounding property owners. Ms. Mitchell indicated they have spoken with surrounding property owners.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-25:

 

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.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Smith stated TRUE; Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

            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.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Burge.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Burge.

 

(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.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

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

 

(7)        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 BZBA members agreed with Mr. Burge.

 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

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.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2015-25, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

317 East Maple Street -  Mark Clapsadle; on behalf of Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert - Application #2015-28:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty one point three (21.3%) percent to allow for the construction of a one-story addition with walkout basement. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Mark Clapsadle and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

 

Mark Clapsadle, 2025 Granview Road, Granville, Ohio stated this is a replacement for a variance the Board granted two (2) years ago.  Now the project is similar, but slightly modified.  The lot coverage is now over by one point three (1.3%) percent total.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-28:

 

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.  Mr. Smith stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Smith.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

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

 

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

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

(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.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

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

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Gill stated this was not applicable due to the Board’s answer to question “A.”

 

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.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-28, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

314 East Broadway -  Mike Hoy; on behalf of The Historic Granville Inn, LLC - Application #2015-29:  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 the following variances:

1.         To increase the maximum square footage for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to thirty-six point six-two-five (38.625) square feet; and

2.         To increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from eight (8) feet to twelve (12) feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Mike Hoy and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

 

Mike Hoy, Columbus, Ohio, stated that they’re working with the Granville Inn to update the existing sign.  They would like to update the sign to show the new Granville Inn logo, but to keep the old historical sign and supports.

 

Planner Terry indicated any type a sign is refaced with different lettering/logo then the new sign is required to come into compliance, that’s why there’s a variance request.

 

Mr. Gill asked if the applicant could look at installing a ground mounted sign instead.  Mr. Hoy indicated that there is on-street parking which would interfere with the visibility of the sign, and that’s why the variance is being requested.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-29:

 

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.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE, because of the historic nature of the Inn; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

            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 this criteria is TRUE. 

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Burge, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

  

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE, given the current footprint of the structure.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is 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 that there are no special conditions.

 

Mr. Zimmers went on to point out that this is a special, historic sign in the Village and this should not set a precedent for other sign proposals in the future. 

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-29, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

Findings of Fact

 

New Business:

114 Thresher Street – Frank Hassebrock - Application #2015-25:  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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-25.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-25. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

317 East Maple Street – Mark Clapsadle, on behalf of Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert - Application #2015-28:  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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-28.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-28. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

314 East Broadway – Mike Hoy, on behalf of The Historic Granville Inn, LLC - Application #2015-29:  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 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-29.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-29. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (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 March 12, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

April 30, 2015

 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, Bradley Smith and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director, Michael King, Law Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager.

 

Visitors: Nick Cavalaris, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Chris Avery, Evelyn Frolking, Tod Frolking, George Parker, Jordan Labocki, Ryan Badger, Doug Mill, Cheri Mitchell, Mark Clapsadle, Mike Hoy, Dena McKinley, Cynthia Feidler, Richard Downs, Tim Hughes, Thomas and Wendy Miller, Keith and Courtney McWalters, Jean Hoyt, Bruce Westall, Jeff Yost, Tim and Cathy Klingler, Nancy Recchie, Jeff Darbee, Melanie and Nick Schott and Mollie Prasher.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

 

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

 

New Business:

 

119-123 South Prospect Street – Nick Cavalaris; on behalf of Barbara Franks - Application #2015-23:  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 parking spaces from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces for the additional occupancy of the first floor only of the rear accessory structure for a restaurant use, and totaling seven hundred sixty-eight (768) square feet of space.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Nick Cavalaris, Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria, Cynthia Feidler, Nancy Recchie, Jeff Darbee and Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

 

Mr. Gill asked a question of the applicant prior to testimony being given about why there can’t be at least one (1) parking space provided on site? As opposed to requesting a variance to provide zero (0) off-street parking spaces.

 

Barbara Franks, 121 ½ South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated she could provide a parking space in the back that would actually be fine.  She wanted to point out that her property was originally retail, which requires one (1) parking space for every 150 square feet.  She stated she was mixing her use, so she’s actually decreasing the parking requirements to one (1) parking space for every two hundred (200) square feet. Mr. Gill stated Ms. Franks is, however, asking for a variance to reduce the required parking spaces to zero (0), but it looks like there could be one (1) off-street parking space allocated on the property which would change the nature of this variance request. Ms. Franks stated she could certainly provide one (1) parking space, the reason there are no parking spaces shown on the site plan is because no one in town has parking spaces and she was being held to a much higher accountability years ago for all of this sort of thing.  So, she said she’s just going to take the parking off the table; she will have no parking spaces just like everyone else.  Just like Alfie’s doesn’t have parking spaces, like the museum, etc.

 

Mr. Gill said he just wanted to get things straight prior to the Board moving forward with the variance request.  If the variance request moves forward as a request to zero (0) parking spaces and the Board votes no, then the applicant will either need to appeal or resubmit the application.  And, it sure looks like there could be one (1) parking space provided on-site, which would reduce the overall variance request.

 

Mr. Nick Cavalaris, 65 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio indicated the applicant could provide two (2) parking spaces, as indicated in his cover letter submitted with the application.  It talks about getting credit when changing the use from retail to restaurant, which is what the applicant is proposing to do with the application.  The code permits Planner Terry to actually administratively approve that which has been done for other businesses in town.  He again reiterated that they can provide two (2) parking spaces on-site and if that requires the submittal of a new site plan.  He would request that they table the application and provide an amended site plan showing the two (2) parking spaces.

 

Planner Terry indicated the applicant can certainly do that.  Just to keep in mind that with the showing of two (2) parking spaces, those parking spaces would need to meet the ten foot by twenty foot parking stall requirements.  If they can’t meet those code requirements, then the applicant could amend the application to show a reduction in parking spaces required from four (4) to two (2) and also request that the dimensions of the parking stalls be reduced as well.

 

Ms. Franks indicated there is sixteen (16’) feet beside the barn, and they park two (2) cars there every day.  She said if the code requires twenty (20’) feet then her lot isn’t that big.

 

Mr. Gill stated it’s a different sort of variance.  It’s asking for a complete reduction of the parking requirements to zero (0), which is something the Board would question since there does appear to be room between the buildings to allow for some parking.  There might be a path forward if there could be some parking provided on-site. 

 

Mr. Gill asked the applicant if they would be interested in tabling the application in order to consider revisions based on the discussion.  Mr. Cavalaris stated sure.  Ms. Franks indicated she would really like, everyone else in town is eating outside and doing business and she would like to be able to do the same thing on her property. It’s been a year, since November of 2013, when they filed the lawsuit against me to shut my business down - the injunction. Mr. Gill indicated that was not what was before the Board and the Board was simply trying to review a variance which would allow them to operate and get done what she wants to do.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated that’s what the applicant would like to do.

 

Mr. Smith stated he has no objection, but he didn’t want to get ahead of the game.  We’re not saying that we’re going to approve the variance, even if it’s amended.  If there are any other concerns or considerations that need to be raised before it’s tabled.

 

Mr. Zimmers agreed with Mr. Smith. 

 

Law Director King stated the other thing to consider is that there are other interested parties in attendance to speak on this issue, who may not be able to attend the next meeting, and that statements received from those individuals could affect how the application is viewed by the Board.

 

There was discussion about when the application could potentially reappear on the Agenda, based on the applicant’s resubmission timeline.  Staff indicated there would be a meeting in May and in June.

 

Mr. Smith indicated he didn’t want to drag things out, however he will not be in town for the June meeting.  And, so, he indicated an amended application showing two (2) parking spaces would be a different application however, some objections raised by the neighbors could change that viewpoint.  He wasn’t sure that any considerations raised by the neighbors would be substantially different regardless of the number of parking spaces.

 

Mr. Zimmers stated he will not be there for the May meeting.

 

Mr. Smith indicated he felt there would be some value in having the applicant move forward with their presentation of the application as to why they feel they need a variance from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.     

 

Law Director King indicated the applicant could always orally amend their variance request at this meeting to two (2) or one (1) parking space.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the Board would move forward with hearing the application, although the Board may not vote on the application this evening.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated he had some additional information to present.

 

Mr. Gill indicated he was sorry to interrupt Mr. Cavalaris, but the Board was going to need to have a quick side discussion in the adjoining room prior to moving forward. Mr. King joined the BZBA members and they adjourned to the front office.

 

Mr. Gill called the meeting back to order after reviewing some rules of procedure with the Law Director. 

 

Mr. Cavalaris discussed the packet of information he provided.  He reviewed the injunction which had been filed in 2013 and he has been working with Ms. Franks to comply with the injunction, but to also allow for further use of the property.  He went on to state he had been in a series of meetings with the Planner and Law Director to try to work through some of the issues.  Exhibit C, from 2014, Ms. Franks was still providing outside seating.  Mr. Gill stated he was confused because he thought the application was related to providing handicapped seating.  Mr. Cavalaris indicated Mr. Gill was correct.  Mr. Cavalaris went on to say that the applicant has worked with the Village, and has shown good faith, for the past year and a half.  This was about outside dining, but based on their negotiations with the Village, they have no outside seating.  He went on to say that it looks like every restaurant in town has outdoor seating.  The applicants have agreed not to provide outdoor seating in good faith.  The outcome of this negotiation was this variance application.  Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers only want handicapped seating in the barn.  The only reason when there’s a handicapped person.  The issue is Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers have worked with the Village for over a year.  They agreed to have everything inside, nothing outside. Not one request for anything outside, there’s three outside for one business on Broadway.  They don’t have any request for any outdoor dining or drinking on the front porch or the back.  They’ve followed essentially Mr. King’s plan to put everyone, to put handicap individuals in the back barn.

 

Mr. Gill asked if there’s no handicap parking space in the back how would the handicap individual get to the barn.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated they could utilize the shared driveway.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the Board is hearing all the arguments and history, but as the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, they have in front of them Application #2015-23, a request for a variance from four (4) to zero (0) parking spaces.  So, he wants to make sure things don’t get too far off track.  He again talked about having a parking space back on the property so a handicapped person didn’t have to utilize the shared driveway.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated “absolutely, yes, there is.”  Mr. Gill asked “and marking it handicap accessible?” Mr. Cavalaris again indicated “absolutely.”

 

Mr. Gill asked if there was anything else in the application that the applicant wanted to address prior to him asking the panel for additional questions.

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated the shared driveway issue is brought up by the Village.  Mr. Gill stated that was his question, how does a handicap person get to the building?  Mr. Cavalaris referenced a judgment action from a previous lawsuit between Mr. Franks/Mr. Rogers and their next door neighbor related to the shared driveway.  In one of the findings by Judge Spahr, was that the shared driveway shall remain open for commercial purposes.  Mr. Gill wasn’t questioning how the applicants would use the driveway, just how you would get a handicapped person from whatever parking they’re using to the back space in which the variance is relevant. 

 

Mr. Cavalaris indicated based on the interpretation of the Code, he can get into the legalities of whether since they’re going from retail to restaurant, which is a less intensive parking requirement, whether you get credit.  Under Section 1159.02 and 1159.03, if applicant is going from a more intensive parking requirement, which is retail (1/200), and then, if you’re going from retail to restaurant (1/150) which is less, no variance is needed.  I had this discussion with Mr. King and it was ignored in the Staff Report and somehow it doesn’t apply to Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers.  So, again, we’re trying to work with the Village.  We met their plan which is exactly what they came up with.  And, it’s only going to be used when there is a handicapped individual who needs these services.  It’s severely restricted. I think the applicants have shown a lot of good faith.  And, I was frankly surprised to get this Staff Report when it’s their plan. 

 

Mr. Gill asked if there were any questions from the BZBA panel.

 

Mr. Zimmers asked if it’s only going to be used if there’s a handicapped person who needs to access it.  There are a lot of people who qualify for the definition of handicapped (i.e. bad eyesight, etc.).  So, it seems to him that this is an effort to open up the barn for one handicapped individual with ten other people. It appears to him to be a subterfusion; I’m not saying that it is though.

 

Ms. Franks addressed Mr. Zimmers questions and indicated since the injunction she’s done nothing but follow the injunction.  She’s not allowed any handicapped people to eat.  She’s had to turn away local residents and their whole family and give them their food to go, because they couldn’t eat outside and she couldn’t let them eat in the barn. 

 

Mr. Gill restated Mr. Zimmers comments in a different way that things being what they are in Granville the barn probably would be open every night.  Therefore, we’ve got to look at with that consideration in mind, because there are handicapped people in the Village.

 

Ms. Franks stated there really isn’t a parking problem on the side streets.  If you want to come to Taco Dan’s, there’s parking in front of her business, unless there’s a funeral.

 

Mr. Gill indicated that Ms. Frank’s expectation was that the barn would be open almost every night.  Ms. Franks replied certainly she wasn’t going to say to the handicapped folks that they could only come on Monday’s and Tuesday’s because we’re not going to have it open other nights.  Mr. Gill summarized then that Ms. Franks comment was yes. Mr. Cavalaris said he understood Mr. Zimmers question, and it’s a good question, and he would be willing to make the commitment to a list of individuals who would qualify as handicapped, if that helps.

 

Mr. Burge asked about if a handicap individual comes to the restaurant with ten of their friends, do they eat in the barn alone or does everyone eat in there.  Ms. Franks responded that the non-handicapped friends would eat in the barn with their handicapped friend.  Mr. Cavalaris indicated there would be no outside drinking and no outside handling of alcohol by patrons outside, everything’s contained inside.

 

Ms. Franks read from a statement “I wish to apologize for the use of your time this evening.  My parking requirements are actually being reduced.  My restaurant business has taken over 50% of my retail business.  I really don’t see how these thirteen pages of applications for 2015-23 helps me in any way. The financial costs in my attorney’s fees is in excess of thousands and thousands of dollars.  Their suggestion for me to put in a ramp or retrofit my storage structure to the tune of thirty thousand dollars is not real.  I have an existing handicap accessible building approved by the State, the County and the Village. My property is very unique.  The barn was built prior to 1805.  You can see it in the pictures in the back of the room right there behind your screen.  From 1868 to the present this has been commercial use.  The barn was moved to the rear of the property in 1889 when Sam LeMartis built the first Victorian house.  O.S. Jones continued operating it until 1928 when the property became the funeral home.”

 

Mr. Gill asked Ms. Franks if she understood the Board was not bound by precedent when granting variances.  Ms. Franks stated yes.

 

Mr. Franks when on to read more from her statement “this funeral home used a smidgeon in judgement entry by Judge Spahr who ruled against my neighbor Sam Sagaria. Mr. Sagaria tried to take away my driveway.  It’s been a shared drive since 1894.  Mr. Sagaria’s house was not even built until 1911.  The judge also ruled against demolishing the barn, which Mr. Sagaria requested.  My property is located solidly within the commercial district, as are my other neighbors; the post office, the library, the police department, the Village offices and the funeral home.  All these places put way more stress on the parking requirements than all my businesses together.  And they have none, or little parking spaces.  Will the same newly concocted ideas such as ‘practical difficulties’ be used to stop the expansion of the other businesses in town.  Brew’s who has a new restaurant on the third floor?  The Pub which is doubling their size, taking over the James Store?”

 

Mr. Gill interjected and asked Ms. Franks to step away from the microphone as he felt she had strayed too far away from the matter at hand.  And, in the interest of time he wanted to let other affected property owners have the right to voice their testimony as well.

 

Nancy Rechhie, 122 South Prospect Street, Granville, stated she would like to read a letter into the record.  Copies were provided to the Board.  She stated her opposition as a neighboring property owner to the expansion of the Taco Dan’s restaurant, and to reduce the required number of parking spaces to zero.  “She had reviewed the detailed Staff Report and agreed wholeheartedly with Staff’s recommendation.  They’re especially concerned with the substantial detriment to nearby properties as a result of granting of the variance.  They own a single family home directly across the street.  With the exception of Taco Dan’s the street is a mix of single family homes and very low intensity businesses that do not operate in the late evening or attract a large number of patrons.  While they didn’t oppose the location of Taco Dan’s in the main building they’re opposed to any expansion into another building.  This increases the size of the business substantially while placing additional burden on existing limited on-street parking.  More patrons in this location until 11:00 at night also places the burden on the surrounding properties because of additional noise.  As the Staff Report indicated this is not a situation unique to this property.  Other remedies exist including a well-designed wheelchair ramp at the rear of the house or a well-designed wheelchair lift at the front.  What is appropriate is the commercial use on Broadway in the commercial district, is not necessarily appropriate on a side street where residents normally park.  The essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered by the granting of this variance. If the street is no longer viable as a residential area our property values will be negatively impacted.  Additional noise and movement of restaurant staff and customers between two buildings, the serving of alcohol in both buildings and the increased stress on limited on-street parking will all negatively impact the adjacent properties.  We would respectfully request the Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals deny the request for the variance.”

 

Jeff Darbee, 122 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio, “I’ll be brief.  This application is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Ostensibly it’s to accommodate people with disabilities.  The reading of the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, requires that it substantial equal accommodations for people with disabilities, and moving them to a barn at the rear of the property I don’t think meets the spirit of that law.  Regardless of that issue, from the applicants own plan it’s obvious that there are at least fifteen (15) seats proposed for this building, with room for at least eight (8) more for a total of twenty-three (23) at least within that building.  And the applicants themselves have indicated there won’t be just a single person with disabilities sitting in this building isolated from the other building.  There could be as many as twenty-three (23) or even more.  So even if they were able to provide the four (4) parking spaces required by the zoning code it still puts undue pressure on the neighborhood on a property that is not built to accommodate a commercial use of this intensity.  And it can only be a detriment to the neighborhood regardless of how many parking spaces they may be able to provide on the property.”

 

Mr. Cavalaris asked the Chair if he could cross examine the last witnesses.  He asked if Ms. Recchie and Mr. Darbee live in Granville.  Ms. Recchie responded “yes, we do have a weekend home here.” Mr. Cavalaris asked if their residence is in Columbus.  Ms. Recchie responded, “Yes, we live in Columbus, but we’ve had a property that we’ve occupied here for twenty-seven (27) years.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked if they were historic preservationists.  Ms. Recchie responded “yes, we are.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked if this plan utilizing handicap seating in the rear barn preserves the façade of the building.  Ms. Rechhie responded “that they have done work with many different historic properties as a part of historic preservation tax credits and we have found that there are many, many ways to sensitively and design handicap access very, very well into the main building.  Personally, my mother was in a wheelchair for seven (7) years and being sent to a secondary location is not a very appropriate thing to do.  We think there is a way to design a more appropriate lift or ramp.”  Mr. Cavalaris responded that wasn’t his question, he was talking about the front façade.  Ms. Recchie responded “You could.” 

 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated he has lived there since 2007.  Relative to the variance proposal will focus on four (4) specific issues.  The first is safety and liability issues, second is noise pollution, third is sanitation, litter and trash, and fourth is property rights.  The Village originally approved four hundred (400) square feet for this use and then the applicant immediately expanded to the entire structure, the front porch and the rear of the property.  The Village then filed an injunction to prohibit the use of the property beyond the originally approved four hundred (400) square feet.  The property owners then came to the Village and expanded their permit to include the entire front structure.  The property owners have always contended that they wanted a restaurant/bar in the rear building and a beer garden in the back.  The property is zoned for small commercial uses, not large restaurant uses.  The shared driveway is very narrow and would be difficult for handicapped individuals to navigate.  The violation of the noise ordinance constantly will only increase with the occupation of the rear structure.  There has been property damage to his property and feels like this will only increase with the expansion into the rear structure.  Five (5) of the seven (7) structures in the area are residences.  Please vote against the variance proposal.

 

Mr. Cavalaris asked the Chair if he could cross examine the last witness. Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria if he lives in Upper Arlington.  Mr. Sagaria responded “It doesn’t matter.” Mr. Cavalaris said it was a yes or no question.  Mr. Sagaria responded “I own 117 South Prospect Street and I’m there five Saturdays.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria if he was aware that this property is zoned commercial, just as Mr. Sagaria’s property is zoned commercial. Mr. Sagaria responded “absolutely.”  Mr. Cavalaris stated that Mr. Sagaria has a number of cameras pointed at Ms. Frank’s and Mr. Roger’s property.  Mr. Sagaria responded “No, they’re not.” Mr. Cavalaris asked where they were pointing.  Mr. Sagaria responded “They’re pointing at my perimeter.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria about the pictures he had presented earlier showing shrimp on his property, and whether Mr. Sagaria was aware of who put the shrimp on his property.  Mr. Sagaria responded “It happened right after a shrimp boil that happened in Taco Dan’s backyard.”  Mr. Cavalaris asked Mr. Sagaria again if he was aware who put the shrimp there.  Mr. Sagaria responded “No.”

 

Mr. Smith questioned Mr. Sagaria stating that he was speaking for other neighbor’s in the area and whether there would in fact be other neighbors to speak on this application.

 

Jeanetta Pyle, 123 South Pearl Street, Granville, Ohio wanted to speak, however, Chairman Gill indicated that since she was not an interested party she would need to hold her comments.

 

Mr. Smith questioned whether Mr. Sagaria’s testimony that he represented other people in the neighborhood should be discounted and only assigned to him as his testimony.

 

Mr. King stated that if Mr. Sagaria were to state that with nothing to back it up you could give it whatever weight you deemed appropriate.  If additional parties who have standing step to the microphone and say, and identify themselves, and it’s determined they have standing and support Mr. Sagaria then the Board can give that testimony weight as they deem appropriate.

 

Mr. Gill asked Mr. Sagaria if he would like to call anyone as a witness.  Mr. Sagaria called Jeanetta Pyle to the microphone.

 

Jeanetta Pyle, 123 South Pearl Street, Granville, Ohio stated she agrees with everything that Mr. Sagaria said and everything Mr. Darbee and Ms. Recchie have said.  I was prepared to talk about the history of the property if the Board would like to hear it.  Mr. Gill deferred that history.  Ms. Pyle indicated she is against any expansion of the business to other parts of this property, and feels that any expansion will negatively impact her property value. 

 

Mr. Sagaria indicated he would like to call Bob Johnson as a witness. 

 

Bob Johnson, 218 East Elm Street, Granville, Ohio stated he would like to suggest that in a residential mixed area, with residential and business both, the only way it works is if there’s a partnership.  That the two parties get along and are communicating on a regular basis and it’s clear that is not happening.  He suggested a good way to start a better relationship would be for two approaches.  The first would be to retrofit or adapt the house and the other would be what they’re proposing.  To get rid of the suspicion that they’re simply using that for additional capacity for business that the first proposal seems to make more sense.  To retrofit the house to accommodate the handicap individuals, as opposed to the rear structure.

 

Mr. Sagaria said the site plan shows gates/fence that will enclose the back, so essentially they’re also asking to enclose the back yard, which has already been dealt with. Mr. Gill indicated that was not a part of this variance request.

 

Chris Avery, 343 Cedar Street, Granville, Ohio stated he owns the property directly next door, to the south, where he operates his dental practice.  He expressed his opposition to the variance request.  He does not have any opposition to the use of the front building for Taco Dan’s with customers entering and exiting at the front of the property.  He has concerns with the occupation of the rear structure and with no additional parking being provided when Taco Dan’s patrons may try to utilize his rear parking or Park National Bank’s parking areas directly next door, especially during the evening hours.  There would also additional noise pollution at the back of the property.  He questioned why the residential neighborhood would have to put up with additional noise and increased parking demands with the occupation of the rear structure.  He feels that the addition of handicap access to the front structure would accommodate the needs of the property owners, without occupation of this rear structure.

 

Cynthia Feidler, 580 Richards Road, Columbus, Ohio and 117 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio, partner to Mr. Sagaria, she stated that the neighborhood has already changed since Taco Dan’s opened and can only change negatively with additional occupation of the rear structure.

 

Mr. Smith had a question for Mr. Cavalaris.  Mr. Cavalaris had indicated that the property has been proven to be a commercial use through the use of the driveway.  Mr. Smith pointed out a section of the judgement entry from the lawsuit for the shared driveway which stated that the driveway can continue to be used as it has been in the past.  Mr. Cavalaris responded that’s the essence of this variance request.  It’s an unusual lot with two different buildings with different uses, which creates a hardship.  Mr. Smith then asked Mr. Cavalaris if he believed the further use of the barn in the back for a restaurant use was consistent with the court’s judgement regarding the driveway being used as it has in the past. Mr. Cavalaris indicated he did feel it met that standard, and is zoned commercial.

 

Mr. Gill proposed that with changes in status, and parking requirements/criteria that this meeting be continued until the next meeting.

 

Mr. Smith had a question for the Law Director.  He stated Mr. Cavalaris had raised an issue regarding Section 1159.03 and the need for a parking variance, and wanted to know the exact status.  Do the applicants have a variance now for retail parking to go from six (6) to zero (0). Law Director King responded when the rear structure was approved it was approved as an accessory use to Footloose.  As an accessory use it was not approved as a primary retail use and because of that it was not required to meet the requirements for additional parking spaces that a retail use would have triggered.  Mr. Smith asked what does Footloose operate under now – does it have a variance or does it have parking.  Law Director King responded Footloose operates in the main building.  Planner Terry responded the front structure is a grandfathered structure so it has had retail and commercial uses in the past, so if it changes from a more intensive parking use to a less intensive parking use then additional parking is not required.  Mr. Smith asked then why does 1159.03 not apply in this case.  Law Director King indicated it would apply if the rear structure had been approved as retail use.  Then those parking requirements would have applied and then Mr. Cavalaris would be correct.  But the rear structure was not approved as a principal use it was approved as an accessory use with no parking requirements.  Mr. Smith asked so the grandfathering applies only to the front structure and not to the entire property, not to the rear structure.  Law Director King indicated that was correct. He clarified that since the applicant is going from an accessory use in the back, which was not required to have any additional parking, and now they’re proposing a change to a restaurant use which does trigger parking.  That’s why they need to get a variance from four (4) to zero (0).  Mr. Smith asked if the applicants were to use the back structure for retail would they be required to provide six (6) parking spaces.  Planner Terry responded yes.  Essentially, the barn was originally set up as storage.  Meaning that the area was not manned by an employee, there was no cash register on site; it was simply overflow for goods that could not fit in the front structure. Mr. Gill asked if it had ever been permitted for anything else up until this point. Planner Terry indicated yes.  Mr. Smith again questioned if the applicants were to put retail in the barn would they need a variance. Law Director King responded “yes, they would need a variance.”

 

Ms. Franks again reiterated that the barn has been used commercially independently since 1868.  So, it’s the oldest existing commercial building in town. 

 

Law Director King indicated that just being zoned commercial does not trigger parking requirements.  The Granville Code requires off-street parking at the time that the commercial use is brought forward.

 

Mr. Gill made a statement that Application #2015-23 would be continued at this time.

 

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000 – Village Roots; Tod & Evelyn Frolking - Application #2015-24:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C).  The proposal consists of twelve (12) single family lots located on approximately five (5) acres of land.  With the layout proposed by the developer the plan would require the following sixteen (16) variances:

 

Subdivision Design Standards variance, as follows:

To receive a variance from the Subdivision Design Standards requirement that sidewalks shall be located within all street rights-of-way, both sides of the street, and instead allow for the sidewalk to be located on one side of the street only within the entire development.

 

Roadway variances, as follows:

1.         To reduce the required right-of-way width for a new public right-of-way from sixty (60’) feet to forty (40’) feet;

2.         To reduce the required roadway width for a new public street from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty-four (24’) feet within the interior subdivision roadway;

3.         To reduce the required roadway width for a new public street from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty-two (22’) feet for a two-way street system on Whitney Street; and

4.         To reduce the required roadway width for a new public street from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty (20’) feet for a one-way street system within the interior subdivision roadway.

 

Single family lot variances, as follows:

1.         Lot #1:  To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty-seven (27’) feet.

2.         Lot #2:  To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty-five (25’) feet.

3.         Lot #3:  To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to twenty (20’) feet.

4.         Lot #5:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

5.         Lot #6:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

6.         Lot #7:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

7.         Lot #8:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

8.         Lot #9:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

9.         Lot #10:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet;

10.       Lot #11:  To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet; and

11.       Lot #12: To reduce the required front yard setback from thirty (30’) feet to twenty (20’) feet.

            As shown on the submitted site plan labeled ‘Exhibit A.’   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Tod Frolking, Evelyn Frolking, George Parker, Jordan Labocki, Doug Mills, Ryan Badger, Brad Hartfield, Keith Newhouse, Ralph Ottensmeijer, Thomas and Wendy Miller, Seth Gross, David and Wendy Hames, Brian Coghlan, Sandy Hartfield and Alison Terry.

 

Mr. Burge recused himself from the discussion, as an adjoining property owner, and was seated in the audience.

 

Discussion:

 

Ms. Evelyn Frolking, 605 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated they have really made efforts to work with the Village and Board to achieve their site layout while abiding by the zoning rules.  She discussed the energy efficiency of the homes, community garden, and sustainability of the property.  They’ve owned the land for thirty (30) years and want to be good stewards of that land and to the community.

 

Mr. Todd Frolking, 605 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated the variances are largely identical.  The most significant variances are related to the roadway and right-of-way variance request.   He received a copy of the Village Engineer’s report which detailed many items that will really be triggered at the next phase of platting.  He read a sentence from the Engineer’s staff report regarding “support of a minimum street width of twenty-four (24’) feet with two-way traffic and on-street parking on one side.”  Mr. Frolking explained that he supported that width for a portion of the homes that are laid out in the site plan. He wants the road at the front of the subdivision to be a maximum of twenty-two (22’) feet with no on-street parking, and as only an entrance to the property.  In regards to the other portions of the property, they’re requesting twenty (20’) feet with one-way traffic only. 

 

Mr. Gill pointed out that the doesn’t think Staff feels this portion of roadway will be utilized as one-way, but that the residents would use it for two-way traffic ultimately.  He referenced North Plum Street which is seventeen (17’) feet in width as an argument for narrower roadway widths for this development.  Planner Terry indicated that the older streets in town are grandfathered, and that any new streets are required to meet a larger standard.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the procedure that the Board would utilize to review the criteria for the numerous variance requests before them.

 

Mr. Frolking stated that his engineer has discussed putting the sanitary sewer line along the eastern property line instead of within the right-of-way, which would allow for a narrower right-of-way. He went on to discuss the difference between the setbacks for the homes and the right-of-way width.  That he wants to the homes to be pulled up close to the street. He went on to state that they’ve owned the land for a long time and have had horses on this property.  He’s not a proponent of large lot development.  They’ve had a large number of people approach them to develop the property they would prefer not to just sell it off.  He presented a plan showing multi-family apartments that could fit on the property without the need for variances, but that’s not what they want to do. They’re trying to market this for empty nesters who want to downsize.

 

Mr. Zimmers asked Mr. Frolking why they’re not able to design the streets with a twenty-four (24’) feet road width.  Mr. Frolking indicated he doesn’t see a need to make the streets two-way.  And, that some of it is aesthetics.  They’re trying to have closed spaced homes with the most green space possible.  Broadway in front of his house is roughly twenty-four (24’) feet in width, which is too wide.  “To put that back in that small field to serve three houses, to him is an abomination.”  Even twenty (20’) feet is too much.  There probably is enough room to squeeze all the homes together to make the roadway twenty-four (24’) feet in width. There’ve been lots of studies that indicate narrower roads have less traffic accidents than wider roads.

 

Mr. Zimmers indicated the Village Council has decided that twenty-six (26’) feet is the standard in the code, and who is the BZBA to disagree with that.

 

Mr. Frolking indicated they’re aware of the issues with the Suburban Residential District-C zoning, and they’re not looking at developing it as a sprawling subdivision.

 

Mr. Gill indicated that they’re looking at what the current code requires. 

 

Planner Terry indicated the Village’s Municipal Engineer was in attendance and Village Staff would like for him to be able to testify.

 

Brad Hartfield, 770 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio stated he lives adjacent to the proposed subdivision.  Mainly the setbacks are the issue, on the east side of the plan.  It is requested to be only twenty (20’) feet.  There is a manhole in this area which is only a short distance from the property line, so he doesn’t know how they’ll be able to dig that close to a sanitary sewer line.  Is the area within the back portion of the property under EPA protection.  The trees along the property line will most likely be destroyed with only a twenty (20’) foot setback.

 

Keith Newhouse, 633 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated he would like to speak in favor of what the Frolking’s want to do, which is to keep the road narrow.  He would like the road to be as narrow as possible.  He doesn’t want to see an apartment complex down there.  There’s already a large volume of water that goes down the street now.  Some of the water issue will need to be addressed with the Village Engineer.

 

Ralph Ottensmeier, West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio stated he is concerned that the twenty (20’) foot setback is too small; he would like to see it be a minimum of forty (40’) feet total.  Otherwise, he’s okay with what the Frolking’s are trying to do with the property.

Thomas Miller, 1 Harmony Lane, Granville, Ohio 43023 stated he wanted to commend the Frolking’s for their design and sensitivity. However, he is concerned with the setbacks adjacent to his property.  Also, he has two lots adjacent to where the new roadway will be installed from West Broadway and would like to see on-street parking allowed along this stretch of roadway.  He thinks neighbors in the future will want to have on-street parking.  He feels there may be too much density shown on the current plan, with a reduction in density then the homes could be moved away from the adjoining properties and the variances would not be necessary.

 

Seth Gross, 590 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated he lives right across the street from the proposed new roadway.  The need to ask for fifteen (15) different variances for a single project is clearly excessive.  He understands there could be an alternative such as apartments, but he felt like he would cross that bridge when he came to it.  He felt there were too many houses, too much density.  Mr. Gill asked him if he would feel better about it if there were only eight (8) houses. Mr. Gross responded, “Yes, he would feel better about it.”  However, he really wishes as a neighbor that he would have been approached prior to receiving a letter of notice from the Village.  His house will be the one directly across the street from the entrance with the headlights pointed right at him that will negatively affect his property value. That’s a big worry for him. Mr. Gill wanted to know if any kind of screening would help alleviate that.  Mr. Gross didn’t see how that would help. He’d be willing to look at options in the future.  The added traffic would also be concerning.  There’s a crosswalk in this area and close proximity to Wildwood Park, not to mention there’s a lot of traffic in this area anyway.

 

Mr. Frolking asked if he would be able to respond to some of the concerns which have been raised. Mr. Gill said there were still a couple of neighbors who wanted to speak so they would come back to Mr. Frolking.

 

Kathleen Solon, 585 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated her concerns are somewhat similar to Mr. Gross’ as they relate to traffic on the roadway. She would be in favor of variance #3 which limits the width of the public roadway.  She understands that the property is zoned for residential use, and was complimentary of the sensitivity of the design. The home closest to her home has a setback variance request and she is concerned about the impact of this proposed location.  She thinks a reduction in the number of homes would reduce some of the variances necessary with this plan.

 

David James, 615 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated he was one of the more directly impacted neighbors.  They’ve lived there for twenty (20) years.  He’s enjoyed the view and their generosity in keeping it as green space all these years.  Obviously, losing the view as they’ve enjoyed it is not something they’re excited about, but they trust the Frolking’s and the quality that they plan to build seems to make sense.  This is a unique piece of property which is landlocked, and driving down Broadway you’re not going to see any of this property. He’s concerned from an economic standpoint about several things.  The last thing they want back there is apartments, and there’s nothing that can stop them, they can do that now.  Planner Terry clarified that apartments require conditional use approval in this District from the BZBA. Mr. James went on to indicate he understands that, but it may not even need any variances.  From every standpoint apartments back there would be disastrous.  The Frolking’s are talking about building $300,000-$400,000 homes.  That would greatly increase the tax base for the Village and schools.  These homes will most likely be constructed for empty nesters, there’s not going to be very many homes built back here.  In general, he’s speaking in favor of these variances.  He’s concerned about the BZBA pushing them to do fewer homes that the project probably becomes economically infeasible.  And then they’re back to looking at what else they can do as they near retirement.  He would have a major problem with two-way traffic going all the way around the proposed loop.  He feels that one-way traffic is sufficient.

 

Planner Terry discussed the roadway and right-of-way widths in relation to utilities and easement areas.  She indicated there are many improvements within the right-of-way (i.e. sidewalks, tree lawns, lighting, water line, sanitary sewer line, storm sewer line).  She went on to discuss the easement areas associated with the water line and sanitary sewer line in conjunction with a reduction in the front yard setback which really causes issues for the future homeowners.  The homeowners begin to install trees within the front yard, where the utilities aren’t usually located and this creates problems.

 

Brian Coghlan, 2875 West Dublin-Granville Road, Columbus, Ohio stated he was asked to review the site plan after a few work sessions.  Just for clarification, Bird
& Bull is not the design engineer on this project; they are reviewing this strictly as the Village Engineer.  He is definitely in favor of green design, however, the biggest concern he sees with this site plan is storm water control.  Where is this water going to go?  There’s floodplain along the southern edge of the property and there’s a lot of water going down through the ditch, and it doesn’t appear that necessary storm water management plans have been put in place with this plan.  It appears as though the property owners want public amenities, with a lesser private standard.  Typically, apartments or condominiums have private roadways which allow for smaller roadways. Also, most of this property is going to have to be cleared in order to get it to properly drain.  He concurred with Planner Terry on her comments related to the right-of-way in regards to utilities and necessary easements. Typically, utility lines are not installed underneath roadways because of future maintenance.  The same for sidewalks, you would not want sidewalks on top of the utility line. 

 

Mr. Frolking had a few questions for Mr. Coghlan through his design engineer.  Law Director King indicated that Mr. Frolking could cross examine but that his design engineer could not.  Mr. Frolking stated that this is simply sketch plan review at this time, but the engineering has not been completed.

 

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Coghlan about an apartment complex on this site in relation to the storm water concerns.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that the storm water could be a concern however detention could be done under parking lot areas.

 

Bill Warrant, 840 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio stated he is in charge of the homeowner’s association of the Shepardson Condominiums.  A few of the individuals who live along the eastern edge of the proposed development, within the condominiums, are opposed to the reduction in the setback.

 

Sandy Hartfield, 730 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio wanted to know why there was no variance for setback for Lot #4.  Planner Terry indicated this is actually a side yard setback, not a rear yard setback in this area – so no variance was required.

 

Mr. Frolking called witnesses: 

 

Ken Apacki, 352 Llanberis, Granville, Ohio stated he was in support of the project.  It’s economical and there is a need for people to age in place and this project would allow that.

 

Carol Apacki, 352 Llanberis, Granville, Ohio stated she hopes the Village will embrace this opportunity and allow for the development of a property which meets the needs of local residents.

 

Mr. Gill indicated the BZBA and Law Director were going to adjourn to the adjacent room for a short five-minute recess.  The Board then reconvened in session after several minutes.

 

Mr. Zimmers stated that with the issues raised on setbacks and other items that he would like to have an opportunity to reflect on and would like to see the application tabled.  Mr. Smith indicated he felt there could be some benefit to reflecting on this for some time as well.

 

Mr. Gill made a statement that Application #2015-24 would be continued at this time.

 

Mr. Burge rejoined the Board at 9:55 p.m.

 

114 Thresher Street - Frank Hassebrock - Application #2015-25:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the required rear yard setback from fifteen (15’) feet to five (5’) feet;

2.         To reduce the required southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to thirty-two (32”) inches; and

3.         To increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-six (26%) percent to allow for the construction of a new detached accessory structure in the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Frank Hassebrock and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

 

Cheri Mitchell, 114 Thresher Street, stated they have requested a variance to build a new attached garage which is within five (5’) feet of the rear property line.  The existing garage is within thirty-two (32”) inches of the side property line.  There is also a maximum building lot coverage variance. 

 

Mr. Gill indicated that the existing garage is basically being removed and a new garage is being constructed, but being shifted further back on the property.  Ms. Mitchell indicated this is correct.

 

Mr. Gill asked if the applicants have spoken with the surrounding property owners. Ms. Mitchell indicated they have spoken with surrounding property owners.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-25:

 

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.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Smith stated TRUE; Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

            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.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Burge.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Burge.

 

(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.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

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

 

(7)        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 BZBA members agreed with Mr. Burge.

 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

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.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2015-25, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

317 East Maple Street -  Mark Clapsadle; on behalf of Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert - Application #2015-28:  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty one point three (21.3%) percent to allow for the construction of a one-story addition with walkout basement. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Mark Clapsadle and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

 

Mark Clapsadle, 2025 Granview Road, Granville, Ohio stated this is a replacement for a variance the Board granted two (2) years ago.  Now the project is similar, but slightly modified.  The lot coverage is now over by one point three (1.3%) percent total.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-28:

 

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.  Mr. Smith stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Smith.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

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

 

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

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

(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.  Mr. Zimmers stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Burge stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

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

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Kemper.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Gill stated this was not applicable due to the Board’s answer to question “A.”

 

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.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; all other BZBA members agreed with Mr. Zimmers.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-28, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

314 East Broadway -  Mike Hoy; on behalf of The Historic Granville Inn, LLC - Application #2015-29:  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 the following variances:

1.         To increase the maximum square footage for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to thirty-six point six-two-five (38.625) square feet; and

2.         To increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from eight (8) feet to twelve (12) feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Mike Hoy and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

 

Mike Hoy, Columbus, Ohio, stated that they’re working with the Granville Inn to update the existing sign.  They would like to update the sign to show the new Granville Inn logo, but to keep the old historical sign and supports.

 

Planner Terry indicated any type a sign is refaced with different lettering/logo then the new sign is required to come into compliance, that’s why there’s a variance request.

 

Mr. Gill asked if the applicant could look at installing a ground mounted sign instead.  Mr. Hoy indicated that there is on-street parking which would interfere with the visibility of the sign, and that’s why the variance is being requested.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-29:

 

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.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE, because of the historic nature of the Inn; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

            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 this criteria is TRUE. 

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Smith stated TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Burge, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

  

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE, given the current footprint of the structure.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is 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 that there are no special conditions.

 

Mr. Zimmers went on to point out that this is a special, historic sign in the Village and this should not set a precedent for other sign proposals in the future. 

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2015-29, as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

Findings of Fact

 

New Business:

114 Thresher Street – Frank Hassebrock - Application #2015-25:  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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-25.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-25. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

317 East Maple Street – Mark Clapsadle, on behalf of Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert - Application #2015-28:  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 (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-28.

 

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-28. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

314 East Broadway – Mike Hoy, on behalf of The Historic Granville Inn, LLC - Application #2015-29:  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 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-29.

 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-29. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (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 March 12, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.

 

Next Meetings:

May 14, 2015

June 11, 2015

July 9, 2015

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.

 

Next Meetings:

May 14, 2015

June 11, 2015

July 9, 2015

BZBA Minutes March 12, 2015

 

Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

March 12, 2015

 7:00pm

 

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

 

Members Present:  Jeff Gill (Chair), Bradley Smith (Vice-Chair), Larry Burge, Kenneth Kemper, and Neal Zimmers.

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planning Director.

 

Visitors:  John Noblick, Scott Kennedy, Tod and Evelyn Frolking, Jordan Labocki, Rochelle Steinberg, Jean Hoyt, Ryan Badger and Doug Mill.

                       

Citizen’s Comments:  None.

 

Description of Procedure:  Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

 

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  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.

                 

Old Business:

Scott Kennedy, 423 East College Street, Application #2014-121, Amended

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to point four-seven (0.47) feet from the eastern property line. This application was originally tabled on October 9, 2014.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick.

Discussion:

Mr. John Noblick, 12037 Bolen Road, stated the plan is to remove the existing garage and foundation, which has been flooded at times by the neighbor’s yard drainage.  The original plan to add a second story onto the garage has been replaced with a reduced second story addition and a deck on top of the garage.  An orange snow fence will be installed to prevent any encroachment onto the neighboring property and driveway during construction.

 

Mr. Burge asked if the project would resolve the flooding problem and was answered that the raising of the garage floor would take care of the problem.  The deck will solve the problem of any loss of sunlight to the neighboring house.

 

Planner Terry indicated staff was in favor of the variance request.

 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2014-121, Amended:

 

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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

            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 this criteria is TRUE. 

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE, the proposed variance is not substantial. 

 

(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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.   

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE, given the current footprint of the structure.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is 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.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is 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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2014-121 (Amended) as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried ­­­5-0.

 

Work Session:  Village Roots Development, Variance Discussion

 

Todd and Evelyn Frolking, 605 W. Broadway, the developers of the property, stated they have adjusted the road width to meet the fire chief’s concerns.  The lots have been expanded to meet the minimum sixty-five (65’) foot lot width requirement and all lots now also meet and exceed the eight thousand (8,000) square foot lot area requirement as well.  They feel the variances regarding the front and rear yard setbacks are minor. And, that the reduction in the right-of-way width from sixty (60’) feet to forty (40’) feet and the roadway width from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty (20’) feet is also a minor variance. 

 

Discussion between the developer and the Board centered for a time around the Service Director’s request for a minimum of twenty-two (22’) feet and why the developer could not meet that proposed roadway width.  The developer indicated the proposed road would accommodate one-way traffic and allow for parking on the outside edge of the roadway. 

 

Mr. Zimmers inquired about the need for two (2) ingress/egress points for emergency access to the development.  Planner Terry indicted that our Fire Chief did not feel that two (2) access points were necessary for this development. 

 

Mr. Burge questioned why the entry cannot be off Harmony Lane.  The developers indicated they preferred to bring the roadway into the property from East Broadway, as there might be neighbor objections to bringing it down Harmony Lane.

 

Mr. Smith observed that Terry Hopkins, Service Director, feels that twenty-two (22’) feet would be better for traffic flow, allowing for parking and snow clearing (buildup).  The developer indicated they like the smaller feel of the roadway and they’re just trying to save the Village costs in the long run – it would be less roadway to maintain.  Planner Terry indicated that, yes the roadway would be maintained by the Village in perpetuity and that’s why the Service Director is so concerned about the minimum width of the roadway. 

 

Mr. Gill informed the developer that the Board takes the Village Staff recommendations very seriously. 

 

More discussion centered on construction of sidewalks and whether they would be within the public right-of-way.  Planner Terry indicated that sidewalks were required for all subdivision development in the Village and that they are required to be placed within the public right-of-way. 

 

The Board questioned whether the homes would have basements.  The developer indicated that some may have basements while others would not.  Planner Terry indicated that the utility department would need to weigh in on whether a whether basements would be allowed within this proposed subdivision as the sanitary sewer lines may not be deep enough to allow for them. 

 

Mr. Smith commented that Denison has stated it would be nice to have more affordable housing for Denison professors, similar to this type of development.  The developers indicated they were not sure about the price point for the homes yet, but that they most likely would not be affordable for the lower paid faculty.

 

Mr. Gill asked the developers if they had spoken with the neighbors about their proposal.  The developers indicated that they had and that all of the neighbors were in favor of this project.  Planner Terry inquired if the developers had spoken with any of the Shepardson Condominium residents as they would be the closest adjacent land owners.  The developers indicated they had not spoken with those neighbors.  Mr. Gill went on to explain that if neighbors showed up in opposition to the project that their objections could sway the Board’s decision, or the neighbors could appeal the Board’s decision to the Village Council.   The Board pointed out that with an appeal the Village Council could overturn any variance decision and that might cost the developer quite a bit.  The Village Manager also has the right to appeal any BZBA decision.  The developer indicated they will approach the Village Manager privately to discuss the project again. 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approval

 

Old Business:

Application #2014-121 (Amended), 423 East College Street, John Noblick; Side Yard Setback Variance: The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-121 (Amended).  Seconded by Mr. Burge. 

 

Roll call vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes from January 8, 2015:

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to amend the BZBA meeting minutes for January 8, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote to amend the minutes: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Smith was absent from that meeting).

 

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for January 8, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes from February 12, 2015:  

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for February 12, 2015.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge were absent from that meeting).

 

Motion to Adjourn

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.   

 

Next Meeting:

April 9, 2015

BZBA Minutes February 12, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

February 12, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Members Present:  Kenneth Kemper, Bradley Smith and Jeff Gill.

 

Members Absent: Neal Zimmers and Larry Burge.

 

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

 

Visitors: Kathryn Raker, George Parker, Evelyn and Todd Frolking, Doug Mill, Jordan Labocki.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

204 South Main Street – Kathryn Raker - Application #2015-6The 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 conditional use to allow a structure to be occupied as a two-family dwelling.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Kathryn Raker.

Discussion:

 

Mrs. Kathryn Raker, 204 S. Main Street, Granville, Ohio 43023, stated that she would like to have conditional use approval for her building to have two apartments, one upstairs and one downstairs. 

 

Mr. Smith asked if the conditional use is approved, how long does the conditional use apply.  Mr. King replied that the conditional use applies for as long as they rent it as a two-family structure. If the use should happen to be discontinued for two years or more then the owner would need to re-apply for the same use.  Planner Terry said that recent code change allows for a two-family structure in the business district.  Parking spaces are adequate for the property.  Mrs. Raker asked if the property would be immediately rentable.  Planner Terry explained that there would be a two week appeal period before renting would be permitted.

 

Section 1145.03, 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 and does meet with the applicable development standards as outlined in the Staff Report.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; this use is a conditional use in this District.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Kemper.  

 

(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.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and transportation plans for this area.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

 

 (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 land.  Changing a portion of the property to a solar array will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; it will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

 

(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.  The applicant has indicated there will be little to no noise from the operation of this proposed solar array facility, except close to the energy storage system battery and inverters.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; the use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Kemper.

 

(e)        The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE. All other BZBA members concurred with Mr.Kemper.

 

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2015-6 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Work Session:  Village Roots Development, Variance Discussion

 

No swearing in was necessary for this work session.

 

Mr. George Parker, 4207 Klotz Rd., Gahnna, Ohio stated that he was representing the property of Todd and Evelyn  Frolking, 605 W. Broadway, Granville, Ohio.  The property is comprised of 5 acres within the village limits and the applicants feel the property might be suitable for cluster housing development.  The Frolking’s explained their background with the property, including the animals and farming done there.  The zoning of the property is Suburban Residential District- C (SRD-C). The plans proposed are for small, quality, efficient homes with a central green space.  The focus may be on active empty nesters with space for gardens and a holistic vision to benefit the community.  Plans have been drawn up by George Parker, Architect. 

 

Chairman Gill expressed interest in the idea and asked the owners if they would contemplate taking the idea to Village Council for consideration. He stated that the property layout might work better as a two-family development, rather than single family, given the proposed width of the streets, clustering of the homes, etc. The Board then discussed the possibility of a zoning amendment to the SRD-C text at the Council level versus a variance request before the BZBA. 

 

The property owner’s further described the proposal, indicating that the front yard setback for homes would be thirty (30’) to forty (40’) feet from the front of the home to the street edge, and would include the driveway area for parking.  The properties would have lines of demarcation rather than property lines. 

 

Chairman Gill stated he was not sure the BZBA can make that distinction.  Setback codes were written for a purpose.  He also indicated he understands the theory behind the proposal, but can’t deviate to this extent from the Code.

 

The Frolking’s provided examples of other properties.  Planner Terry pointed out that there would be more than 33 variances required to approve this proposed layout and Staff felt the number of variances requested were substantial. 

 

Discussion progressed to roadways and public services, emergency services and the well head protection isolation radius.  Planner Terry stated that the service department has concerns about snow removal and the fire department wants a two-way twenty-four (24’) foot wide roadway.

 

Planner Terry suggested that the applicants consider a layout which included two-family dwellings with private streets.  This would allow for a much narrower private roadway width and would solve the majority of the variance issues. She also indicated she had reviewed the project and her staff comments were before the Board, including comments from the Fire Chief, Utilities Director and Service Director.  She proceeded to review the comments she received from other Departments.  She indicated she felt the applicant should look at modifying the proposal to greatly reduce the number of variances requested.

 

The Board provided further feedback to the Frolking’s regarding their proposal.  The Frolking’s indicated they would consider the Board’s recommendations and look at modifying their proposal.

 

Findings of Fact

New Business:

 

Kathryn Raker – 204 South Main Street - Application #2015-6  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 and Chapter 1159, Village Business District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-6.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to excuse absent member(s):

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse the absences of Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge.  Seconded by Mr. Smith. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

There was no quorum from the January 8, 2015 meeting so no action was taken.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr.Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:18 P.M.

 

Next Meetings:

March 12, 2015

April 9, 2015

May 14, 2015

BZBA Minutes January 8, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

January 8, 2015

 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.

 

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

 

Visitors: Seth Patton, Art Chonko, Jeremy King, Susan King, Jamey King, Aaron VanOstran, Jamie Jankowski, Shawn Shaler, Kathy Williams, Rod Williams, Lucas-Miller Family, John Crecca, Jeff Zettler, Jim Neuenschwander, Bill Wilken, Andrew Morris, Stacey Morris, Tim Collins, Gill Miller, Kathy Standly, Dixon Miller, Tom Pendergast, Michael Boaz, Bret Stiltner, Barb Stiltner.

 

Citizen Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

Parcel numbers 020-051586-00.000, 020-051544-00.000 and 020-051608-00.000 - Seth Patton; Denison University - Application #2014-187 the property is zoned Institutional District (ID).  The request is for conditional use review and approval of a photovoltaic energy facility (solar array) to provide solar energy to Denison University and its buildings. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – During the course of the evening’s discussion Mr. Gill swore in the following individuals: Alison Terry, Seth Patton, Jeremy King, Art Chonko, Aaron VanOstran, Jamie Jankowski, Kathia (Kathy) Williams, Gill Wright Miller, Christopher Lucas-Miller, and Tim Collins. 

 

Discussion:

 

Mr. Seth Patton, on behalf of Denison University, stated the request before the Board is for a Conditional Use to allow the University to install a solar array to provide solar energy to the campus. The proposed solar array will be located in an area to the east and north of the softball fields on a portion of the Denison Biological Reserve, which is currently vacant. Mr. Patton stated the University does not feel the proposed solar array will create a services burden, nor will it be a nuisance to, nor will it have an effect on neighboring property values. He further stated the point of access will be from North Pearl Street and will not contribute additional vehicular traffic. Mr. Patton expressed the University had been pro-active in addressing concerns of the neighboring property owners through the retention of Jobes-Henderson Engineering. The firm has been working with the University to develop vegetative screening to be installed between the array field and the neighboring properties.

 

Mr. Patton went on to read from a statement prepared by Jeremy King, Denison Environmental Sustainability Coordinator, “Denison University strives to be an exemplar steward of the natural world and a sustainability leader, supporting the wellbeing of the University, Granville and the world beyond. This project is one effort moving forward Denison’s aspiration to be carbon neutral by the year 2030. The University has made a decision to move away from coal based energy options and has ceased (stepped down) operations of the coal powered steam plant located on South Main Street. Bringing the proposed solar array on-line is a move toward the goal of diversifying energy providers to the college and managing peak electrical loads.’

 

Mr. Patton stated the University has given ample consideration to environmental considerations associated with the project by preserving and enhancing the current conditions. He further stated he felt the question and answer booklet provided by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources to the Board members is comprehensive and supports the project and addresses concerns regarding protection of the environment.

 

Mr. Patton concluded his opening statement by offering that he would be happy to answer questions directly related to the project.

 

Mr. Zimmers stated he was appreciative of the additional supporting documentation.

 

Mr. Gill asked if there was any supporting testimony from witnesses that might speak to the basics of the equipment being installed and the impact on neighboring properties.

 

Mr. Chonko, on behalf of Denison University, 88 Spruce Drive, Granville, Ohio stated the proposed solar array would provide approximately 1.75 Megawatts of power to the University. He added that a number of public meetings had been held in an effort to carefully address neighboring property owner concerns.  Denison has investigated using vegetation, berms, or some other landscaping to address visual concerns to neighboring property owners.

 

Mr. Gill inquired as to the University’s consideration of the vegetative buffer and soil berming between the array and homes along Welsh Hills Road; and the potential sound from the array as it relates to the neighboring homes.

 

Mr. Chonko stated brush buffering and soil berming will be added as needed to screen the project as it progresses. He added the sound from the array when near it, would be typical of being near any transformer.

 

Mr. Burge inquired as to the impact of the proposed array on the wildlife [within the Biological Reserve]

 

Mr. Chonko responded by saying the array will be fenced and there isn’t anticipation of much impact overall given the size of the Biological Reserve.

 

Jeremy King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, Granville, Ohio: stated he is employed by Denison University and is also a resident of the village adjacent to the proposed location of the solar array. Mr. King shared information addressing the questions of potential sound from the array by way of a discussion with Oberlin College. Oberlin College has an array similar and slightly larger than the proposed array and when asked about sound from the array, Oberlin responded by saying ‘What sound?’  Mr. King added that the transformer will produce an audible hum much like any transformer that can be heard when standing next to it; however as you move away from the transformer the noise becomes inaudible at approximately 150’. He indicated the location of the transformer on the displayed map and stated that it will be at one of the farthest possible locations from the neighboring properties. He further added the array panels will move approximately every 15 minutes to follow the sun. The sound generated from the movement will be intermittent and inaudible beyond 150’.  Mr. King went on to address the concern of the project on wildlife and added that with projects of this size, environmental impact studies are conducted. Part of that environmental study is a biological assessment. He indicated that an environmental engineering firm was hired to conduct that work. According to their study there were no issues with endangered species, however the protected Indiana Bat could exist on site and their nesting habits will dictate when construction can occur.  Mr. King went on to discuss and share photographic evidence of the existing vegetative border between specific neighboring properties including 493, 411 and 535 Welsh Hills Road, and the proposed location of the solar array. He discussed the intention was to retain as much of the existing vegetation as possible and to provide berming and additional planting as needed in order to provide sufficient screening of the array. The array itself will be at its tallest point approximately 8’ from the ground.

 

Gill Wright Miller, 411 Welsh Hills Road stated she and other adjacent property owners had prepared a statement (Refer to Exhibit ‘AA’) from which she was prepared to read on behalf of the group. Ms. Miller began reading read from Exhibit ‘AA’. After a brief period of time Mr. Gill reminded her to be certain her comments were relevant to the Conditional Use request before the Board.

 

Mr. Zimmers stated as I understand your testimony, Ms. Miller, you’re saying that this use is not classified as a conditional use.  However, this particular section also contains language which states “accessory uses…to service an institution,” under Section 1169.02 (b)(2).

 

Ms. Miller stated that she did not, and proceeded to outline the neighbors’ objections to the project. She stated the neighbors were given inadequate time, insufficiently accurate mapping and supporting documentation to prepare a proper rebuttal; however the group has strong concerns regarding the sound generated by the array; the tendency of the areas topography to conduct/channel/funnel/amplify sound; the potential impact on wildlife within the proposed boundaries; and the potential economic impact on neighboring properties. Ms. Miller introduced Exhibits ‘A’- AEP Energy Project Update dated September 23, 2014 and Exhibit ‘B’ – Potential Arrays-Several Examples, into the record stating that these documents were the latest information the group had been given and since their creation, the proposed location of the array had changed. 

 

Ms. Miller stated Oberlin’s project would not be a good comparison because of the difference in topography in the Granville area and because Oberlin’s facility is not near a residential neighborhood.

 

Ms. Miller raised the question as to whether the proposed solar array was a compatible use under the Institutional District.

 

Michael King, Village Law Director, stated yes, under Chapter 1169, Institutional District,  1169.02 (b) (2) Accessory Uses such as maintenance shops and storage areas to service an institution are customarily compatible with the proposed solar array.                                                             

 

Ms. Miller, inquired as to whether there was any research submitted that addresses the potential economic impacts on the modest neighboring property owners? She stated that it was her contention that Denison would not be placing the proposed array in this particular location if the homes surrounding it were of greater value. She asserted that the proposed project location amounts to class discrimination. She further stated that the University has not run studies nor not shared further supporting documentation after a neighborhood meeting held in October of 2014. She stated the University had promised to provide noise level simulations that have not taken place.

 

Mr. Burge, reminded Ms. Miller of the Oberlin Colleges’ response as to the question of sound from their solar array.

 

Ms. Miller, stated that the topography is this situation was different than that of the Oberlin installation and that Denison should provide for a simulation that would be specific to the proposed site including views from the neighboring properties toward the array, sound level simulations, wildlife impact, and vegetative buffer specifics – e.g. height, species, berming and maintenance of the buffer.

 

Mr. Chris Lucas-Miller, 595 Welsh Hills Road, offered descriptions of two white papers he felt were relevant to the proposed Conditional Use request and asked if they might be taken under the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals consideration.

 

Discussion took place as to their particular relevance to the request before the Board. Law Director King offered admission of the documents and cautioned that the Board could assign weight of Exhibit ‘D’ or any other exhibits.

 

Mr. Zimmers, pointed out to Mr. Lucas-Miller that the submitted evidence references a coal burning power plant. He indicated the Board is not considering the use of this property for a coal burning power plant, which makes this submitted evidence irrelevant.

 

The papers are attached to these minutes as Exhibit ‘C’ – Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions: Solar Siting and Sustainable Land Use; and  Exhibit ‘D’ - Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley: The Effect of Power Plants on Local Housing Values and Rents, Lucas W. Davis, May 2010.

 

 

Kathy Williams, 469 Welsh Hills Road, stated her concern was for the potential impact the installation process (footings) would have on ground water and subsequently her wells production.

Law Director King, reminded the audience and Board members the focus of the proceedings are the five Conditional Use criteria that must be answered. He added that although possibilities of extenuating circumstances exist, the Board requires evidentiary testimony illustrating that the installation would pose a real threat.

 

Ms. Williams further stated she bought this property to be next to the Biological Reserve, not a solar installation.

 

Mr. Zimmers indicated this is still a biological reserve, it will just a have a solar array located in it too.

 

Mr. Gill offered a summary of the concerns as presented by the neighbors and redirected his questioning to Mr. Patton for the University’s response to those concerns. The issues and concerns raised most often by the neighboring property owners included: total acreage of the array and its’ location; management and augmentation of the existing vegetative buffer and proposed earth berming into the future; potential light pollution from the array if illuminated; disturbance of groundwater as the result of construction [e.g. footings]; impact of array on wildlife.

 

Mr. Patton, stated the location of the array has shifted to its’ present location as the result of the environmental impact study. He added the significant existing vegetation buffer between the project site and the neighboring properties will not be disturbed, rather, the approach is to add materials to it as needed to provide adequate screening. Plans to manage the earth berming include the installation of a mix of deciduous and evergreen materials. Any subsequent loss of berming plant material will be replaced to maintain the visual screening.

 

Mr. Gill asked how the buffer area will be maintained.

 

Mr. Patton stated the buffer area would be left in its natural state, but that Denison would be willing to commit to maintaining the visual barrier.

 

Mr. Gill asked the species of plants that would be added within the buffer area.

 

Mr. Patton indicated evergreen and deciduous.

 

A representative from AEP indicated the array would not be illuminated.

 

Aaron Van Ostran, on behalf of Jobes-Henderson and Associates, 55 Grant Street, Newark, Ohio 43056, stated the underground construction associated with the installation of support posts for the array should not have an impact on the water table as the posts are driven directly into the ground.

 

Mr. Burge inquired as to Mr. VanOstrans' involvement in the impact study.

 

Mr. Van Ostran indicated a staff biologist authored the impact study.

 

Mr. Gill inquired as to the Army Corp permitting process and the projects compliance.

 

Mr. VanOstran stated the project is in keeping with the Army Corps of Engineers requirements and is mindful of the streams, wetlands and Indiana Bat habitat that [may] exist within the project boundary. He added the trees which [may] provide nesting locations for the Indiana Bat will be felled out of season.

 

Mr. Chonko stated the projects boundaries had shifted from the original outline shown to neighboring property owners at the meeting on October 4th, 2014 as the result of the environmental impact study which indicated potentially archaeologically sensitive sites, causing the boundary to shift north and east from the original location.   

 

Mr. Patton went on to state that one section of the Biological Reserve has a donor restriction, the “Norpell Section” which prohibits it from being developed.  The portion of the Biological Reserve where the solar array is planned is not within that section and has no restrictions.

 

Mr. King stated that he would agree to an annual meeting with the neighbors to address any future concerns.  He hopes this solar installation will be beneficial and that neighbors would be supportive of this project.

 

Mr. Gill questioned the ability of Denison to provide a simulation for the neighbors.

 

Mr. King stated this area is a “sound bowl” but he doesn’t think the neighbors will be able to hear any noise over the traffic noise generated from Welsh Hills Road.

 

Mr. Kemper asked how Denison and AEP came up with the number of panels proposed, size, acreage, etc.

 

Jamie Jankowski, 155 W. Nationwide Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio, AEP Energy Representative, stated AEP looked at Denison’s electrical usage and then determined the acreage for a solar array in order to provide the needed power to the University.

 

Mr. Kemper asked if ecological compliance had been completed.

 

Mr. Jankowski stated the siting resources and the studies required by the various regulatory bodies have been completed.  The environmental surveys have been signed off on.  The panel locations were modified directly as a result of the environmental study.

 

Mr. Burge asked what percentage of need will this contribute.

 

Mr. Jankowski indicated fifteen percent total annual capacity with fifty percent at the peak of summer.  The solar array and fencing will also be located a minimum distance of one hundred fifty feet from any residential property lines.

 

Mr. Burge asked the concerned parties if the additional information provided by Denison made any difference or clarified concerns raised by the neighboring property owners.

Ms. Miller stated that Denison had only shared intentions not any clarification.  She cited information contained on page 7 from Exhibit “AA.”  She stated more efficient panels could be installed and less land area would be used as a result.

 

Tim Collins, 535 Welsh Hills Road, inquired as to why a study wasn’t done that addressed the affect this project could have on neighboring residential properties.

 

Mr. Gill asked for clarification from Mr. Collins on this question.

 

Mr. Collins indicated that environmental studies were done that dealt with specific site issues but wanted to know why a study wasn’t done regarding the effect of this proposed project on property values in the area.

 

Mr. Gill asked Denison to address this question.

 

Mr. Patton stated Denison doesn’t know if this project will affect area property values, either as the existing Biological Reserve or as a solar array.

 

Mr. Gill called for a discussion and review of the criteria for Conditional Uses by the Board.

 

Section 1145.03, 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 and does meet with the applicable development standards as outlined in the Staff Report.  Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; he agrees that the proposed conditional uses meets the use standard category of “Accessory uses such as maintenance shops and storage areas to service an institution”, as indicated in Section 1169.02(b)(e) of the Zoning Code and outlined in the Staff Report.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.  

 

(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.  The Village of Granville & Granville Township Joint Comprehensive Plan, July 18, 2012 shows this area as “Institutional” in the Future Land Use Plan. Under Section V. Economic/Development Policy and Strategy Recommendations, 2) Business  Development, k) it states “Minimize the visibility of telecommunication, utility, and energy generation technologies to behind buildings where possible.”  The applicants are proposing the location of this energy facility in a wooded area within the Denison Biological Reserve.  It will be located on the back portion of the physical plant property on interior parcels with little to no frontage onto Welsh Hills Road.  

Mr. Zimmers stated TRUE; it’s still a biological reserve and institutional property, even with the development of solar array, therefore it does meet this criteria.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

 

 (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 land.  Changing a portion of the property to a solar array will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; it will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services.  All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.

 

(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.  The applicant has indicated there will be little to no noise from the operation of this proposed solar array facility, except close to the energy storage system battery and inverters.  Mr. Burge stated FALSE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers concurred with Mr. Burge.  Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; he does not think enough information was presented in order to make a determination on this criteria. 

 

(e)        The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas.  Mr. Zimmers stated it was a personal judgment in this case, and that there was insufficient evidence presented to allow the Board members to come to a conclusion related to this criteria. Further, Mr. Zimmers stated there was no credible evidence to indicate there would be any negative impact on the adjacent properties. All other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

 

Mr. Gill asked Denison if they would be agreeable to a condition of approval regarding the long-term maintenance of the landscape area.

 

Mr. Patton indicated Denison would be agreeable to this condition.

 

Mr. Zimmers indicated he thinks Denison should meet with the neighbors at least once following the completion of the project to ensure the landscape buffer area is sufficiently installed and screens the neighboring properties.  He doesn’t think Denison should be required to hold an annual meeting with the neighbors.

 

Mr. Patton indicated he would appreciate the Board not imposing an annual meeting in perpetuity.

 

Ms. Miller suggested an annual meeting with the neighbors for the first ten years after the project is completed.

 

Mr. Gill discussed having an annual meeting with the neighbors for at least the first five years after installation of the solar project.  He suggested this should be included as a condition of approval.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2014-187, as submitted, with the condition that a fifty (50’) foot rehabilitated, vegetative landscape buffer be installed to further protect the 1 percent annual chance flood areas from any potential runoff impacts caused by development of the site, to further strengthen this floodplain corridor and to provide screening from the solar array area to the neighboring residential properties. (Boundary to be as delineated on the map “Denison Solar Array – Conditional Use Request (with distance to homes and floodplain)”) This condition shall be placed on this application as allowed in Section 1145.04(c), additional conditions permitted to be imposed by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals; and with the condition that Denison commit to an annual meeting, to discuss and address issues and concerns with the solar installation and landscape buffering, with the neighboring property owners for a total of five years.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact

New Business:

 

Denison University - 020-051586-00.000, 020-051544-00.000 and 020-051608-00.000 - Application #2014-187  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 1169, Institutional District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-187, with conditions.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-187. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve Absence of Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the absence of Brad Smith.  Second by Mr. Burge.  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 November 13, 2014.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve Meeting Schedule for 2015:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting schedule for 2015.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 4-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM.

 

Next Meetings:

February 12, 2015

March 12, 2015

April 9, 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.