Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes
March 12, 2015
Call to Order: Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Jeff Gill (Chair), Bradley Smith (Vice-Chair), Larry Burge, Kenneth Kemper, and Neal Zimmers.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director.
Visitors: John Noblick, Scott Kennedy, Tod and Evelyn Frolking, Jordan Labocki, Rochelle Steinberg, Jean Hoyt, Ryan Badger and Doug Mill.
Citizen’s Comments: None.
Description of Procedure: Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:
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.
Scott Kennedy, 423 East College Street, Application #2014-121, Amended
The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to point four-seven (0.47) feet from the eastern property line. This application was originally tabled on October 9, 2014.
Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick.
Mr. John Noblick, 12037 Bolen Road, stated the plan is to remove the existing garage and foundation, which has been flooded at times by the neighbor’s yard drainage. The original plan to add a second story onto the garage has been replaced with a reduced second story addition and a deck on top of the garage. An orange snow fence will be installed to prevent any encroachment onto the neighboring property and driveway during construction.
Mr. Burge asked if the project would resolve the flooding problem and was answered that the raising of the garage floor would take care of the problem. The deck will solve the problem of any loss of sunlight to the neighboring house.
Planner Terry indicated staff was in favor of the variance request.
The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2014-121, Amended:
a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.
b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.
The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:
(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.
Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.
(2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE, the proposed variance is not substantial.
(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.
(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.
(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.
(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is FALSE.
(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE, given the current footprint of the structure.
c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.
d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria is TRUE.
e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.
Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2014-121 (Amended) as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.
Work Session: Village Roots Development, Variance Discussion
Todd and Evelyn Frolking, 605 W. Broadway, the developers of the property, stated they have adjusted the road width to meet the fire chief’s concerns. The lots have been expanded to meet the minimum sixty-five (65’) foot lot width requirement and all lots now also meet and exceed the eight thousand (8,000) square foot lot area requirement as well. They feel the variances regarding the front and rear yard setbacks are minor. And, that the reduction in the right-of-way width from sixty (60’) feet to forty (40’) feet and the roadway width from twenty-six (26’) feet to twenty (20’) feet is also a minor variance.
Discussion between the developer and the Board centered for a time around the Service Director’s request for a minimum of twenty-two (22’) feet and why the developer could not meet that proposed roadway width. The developer indicated the proposed road would accommodate one-way traffic and allow for parking on the outside edge of the roadway.
Mr. Zimmers inquired about the need for two (2) ingress/egress points for emergency access to the development. Planner Terry indicted that our Fire Chief did not feel that two (2) access points were necessary for this development.
Mr. Burge questioned why the entry cannot be off Harmony Lane. The developers indicated they preferred to bring the roadway into the property from East Broadway, as there might be neighbor objections to bringing it down Harmony Lane.
Mr. Smith observed that Terry Hopkins, Service Director, feels that twenty-two (22’) feet would be better for traffic flow, allowing for parking and snow clearing (buildup). The developer indicated they like the smaller feel of the roadway and they’re just trying to save the Village costs in the long run – it would be less roadway to maintain. Planner Terry indicated that, yes the roadway would be maintained by the Village in perpetuity and that’s why the Service Director is so concerned about the minimum width of the roadway.
Mr. Gill informed the developer that the Board takes the Village Staff recommendations very seriously.
More discussion centered on construction of sidewalks and whether they would be within the public right-of-way. Planner Terry indicated that sidewalks were required for all subdivision development in the Village and that they are required to be placed within the public right-of-way.
The Board questioned whether the homes would have basements. The developer indicated that some may have basements while others would not. Planner Terry indicated that the utility department would need to weigh in on whether a whether basements would be allowed within this proposed subdivision as the sanitary sewer lines may not be deep enough to allow for them.
Mr. Smith commented that Denison has stated it would be nice to have more affordable housing for Denison professors, similar to this type of development. The developers indicated they were not sure about the price point for the homes yet, but that they most likely would not be affordable for the lower paid faculty.
Mr. Gill asked the developers if they had spoken with the neighbors about their proposal. The developers indicated that they had and that all of the neighbors were in favor of this project. Planner Terry inquired if the developers had spoken with any of the Shepardson Condominium residents as they would be the closest adjacent land owners. The developers indicated they had not spoken with those neighbors. Mr. Gill went on to explain that if neighbors showed up in opposition to the project that their objections could sway the Board’s decision, or the neighbors could appeal the Board’s decision to the Village Council. The Board pointed out that with an appeal the Village Council could overturn any variance decision and that might cost the developer quite a bit. The Village Manager also has the right to appeal any BZBA decision. The developer indicated they will approach the Village Manager privately to discuss the project again.
Finding of Fact Approval
Application #2014-121 (Amended), 423 East College Street, John Noblick; Side Yard Setback Variance: The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-121 (Amended). Seconded by Mr. Burge.
Roll call vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.
Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes from January 8, 2015:
Mr. Zimmers made a motion to amend the BZBA meeting minutes for January 8, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to amend the minutes: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0. (Mr. Smith was absent from that meeting).
Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for January 8, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes from February 12, 2015:
Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for February 12, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge were absent from that meeting).
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
April 9, 2015