Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes May 11, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

May 14, 2015

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

 

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

 

Members Absent: Neal Zimmers and Jeff Gill.

Also Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

Visitors: Lindsay Schilling and Todd Parker.

Citizen Comments:  None.

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

Note:  The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)           The applicant;

(2)           The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3)           The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application;

(4)           Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

 

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)           Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)           Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position,

               arguments and contentions;

(3)           Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4)           Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)                 Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

 

New Business:

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

 

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

 

Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)               Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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

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

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

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

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

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

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

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

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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

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

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

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

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

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

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

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

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

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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

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

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was FALSE.

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

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

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

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

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burge said FALSE, Mr. Smith and Mr. Kemper said TRUE.

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, The BZBA members unanimously agreed this was TRUE.

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

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

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

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.

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

Findings of Fact

New Business:

565 West Broadway – Christopher & Lindsay Schilling - Application #2015-54:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-54.

 

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

243 Bryn Du Drive – Todd Parker, F5 Design/Architecture, on behalf of Brad & Cara Brautigan - Application #2015-62:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development District (PUD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-62.

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

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

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

Next Meetings:

June 11, 2016

July 9, 2015

August 13, 2015

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 7:21 P.M.

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.