Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes August 13, 2015

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

August 13, 2015

7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Gill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Jeff Gill, Bradley Smith, Larry Burge, Ken Kemper and Neal Zimmers.

 

Members Absent: None.

Also Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director and Mike King, Law Director.

Visitors: Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Bruce and Lisa Westall.

Citizen Comments:  None.

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

NoteThe items listed on this agenda under Old and 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.

 

Old Business:

 

Four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-051474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000 – Tod & Evelyn Frolking – Application #2015-24, Amended: The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C).  The proposal consists of nine (9) single family lots located on approximately five (5) acres of land.  With the layout proposed by the developer the plan would require the following two (2) variances:

 

 

Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C):

1.         To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-five (35’) feet on Lot #1.

2.         To reduce the minimum rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-five (35’) feet on Lot #2.

            As shown on the submitted site plan labeled ‘Exhibit A’. 

Mr. Burge recused himself at this point in the meeting and from this application, as an adjoining property owner, and was seated in the audience.

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Steve Mershon, Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Mike King, Law Director, started the discussion with an explanation regarding the variances the Board would be reviewing. He indicated the BZBA would only be reviewing the two (2) rear yard setback variances, as opposed to variances related to right-of-way width, roadway width, sidewalk on only one side of the street and the spacing of driveways.  It was determined after further review of the code that only the Planning Commission could review the roadway, right-of-way and sidewalk items and that a recommendation would need to be made to the Village Council for those deviations from the code requirements.

Tod Frolking, 605 West Broadway, briefly reviewed the modifications since the previous April meeting, changing the number of lots from twelve (12) to nine (9) and changing the roadway from a loop road to a single road with a cul-de-sac at the end.  They would like to preserve the large trees on the front of Lot #1 and Lot #2 and this is why they don’t want to move the houses forward to meet the rear yard setback requirement. 

Mr. Frolking indicated he had a letter from Barbara Pursley, 840 West Maple Street, which he would like to read into the record. Mr. Smith recommended the Board accept the letter and allow it to be read and Mr. Gill indicated the letter could be read aloud by Mr. Frolking.  Ms. Pursley expressed delight that the setback request would preserve the two trees and that the tree line should be retained.

Mr. Gill asked the applicant “what if we say no?” Mr. Frolking replied “then Granville is not a Tree City.”  Mr. Gill then responded “so the reason for the variance request is to save trees?”  Mr. Frolking stated yes and the geometry of Whitney Street does not allow for flexibility with the roadway and right-of-way alignment. 

Larry Burge, 870 West Maple Street, questioned how these proposed lots related to the Shepardson Condominiums and the historical 10 foot right-of-way deeded between the two properties.  He indicated the bulk of trees on the property are in this north-south right-of-way and some Shepardson homes are within 20 feet of the vegetation.

Brad Hartfield, 770 West Maple Street, stated his condominium faces the proposed common area and the 10 foot right-of-way is now a utility right-of-way.  He began questioning the setback for one of the homes along the southern portion of the development, but was informed by Staff that the setback of the home was not before the Board for a variance and would be reviewed at the time of Planning Commission platting.  He expressed concerns that there were no elevations for the proposed homes; that drainage on the site could be a problem; and that the aquifer could be compromised by the building of homes within the southern area of the development and that the EPA should be consulted.  He stated the Shepardson Condominiums already having flooding problems.  Mr. Frolking stated the proposed development sits below the Shepardson Condominiums and water would not flow towards them.

Bill Moore, 840 West Maple Street, spoke as the President of the Shepardson Condominium Homeowner’s Association and indicated they were in support of the project.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-24, as 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 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.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper stated this was FALSE; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated 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; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE; Mr. Gill stated this was FALSE.

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. Zimmers stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated 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.  Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill state this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated 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.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper stated this was TRUE; Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith stated 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 FALSE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill stated this was FALSE. 

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 #2015-24, as amended.  Second by Mr. Smith.  Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Mr. Burge rejoined the Board at this time.

New Business:

 

232 East Elm Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-107:  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the following variances:

1.         To reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to three (3’) foot;

2.         To reduce the northern rear yard setback from ten (10’) feet to one (1’) foot; and

3.         To increase the maximum lot coverage from fifty (50%) percent to fifty-six (56%) percent; to allow for the construction of a one car detached garage in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Bruce and Lisa Westall, Patti Urbatis and Alison Terry.

Discussion:

Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated the application for variances is to allow for a one-car garage to be constructed at the rear of the property in direct alignment with the driveway from East Elm Street.  They had originally considered putting the garage behind the home, but the angles make it too difficult to navigate the turn.  Also, putting it behind the home would obstruct the kitchen window and they do not want to obstruct the neighbors’ views. 

Mr. Gill asked if there had ever been a garage in this location and the answer was “not to our knowledge.” 

Margaret Gjessing, 228 East Elm Street, was interested in the design and color of the roof of the garage.  Mr. Gill indicated this would be a question for the Planning Commission when this project appears before the Commission for architectural review.

Patti Urbatis, 537 Mt. Parnassus, stated that many homes in the Village have garages next to the house and it would be a normal situation. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-107:

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. All Board members agreed this would be TRUE.

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

(1)               Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return without the variance; 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. Gill and Mr. Smith stated this was FALSE, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers stated this was TRUE.

(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.  Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge voted TRUE; Mr. Kemper, Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith voted FALSE.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. 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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2015-107 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote:  Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Findings of Fact

Old Business:

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, Amended:  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 #2015-24, as amended and revised on June 23, 2015.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-24, Amended. Second by Mr. Zimmers By voice vote the motion carried 4-0.

New Business:

232 East Elm Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2015-107:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-107.

 

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-107. Second by Mr. Zimmers. By voice vote the motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve the Minutes of July 9, 2015.

Mr. Zimmers indicated there needed to be a correction to his statement on page 4 concerning the 133 South Cherry Street application discussion.  The correction was noted in the minutes. Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve the Minutes of July 9, as amended.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Motion approved by voice vote 4-0.

 

Next Meetings:

September 10, 2015

October 8, 2015

November 12, 2015

 

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn.  Second by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried 5-0. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:46 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.