Granville Community Calendar

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

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.