Granville Community Calendar

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.

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.