Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
September 10, 2015
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.