Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes November 10, 2017

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Minutes

November 10, 2016

 7:00 p.m.

 

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

Members Present:  Roll Call: Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gill.

Members Absent:  None.

Also Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Acting Village Planner; Michael King, Law Director

Visitors: Art Chonko and George Fackler, III.

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.

ew Business:

Application #2016-131, submitted by Art Chonko, on behalf of Denison University, for the property located at 211 West College Street.  The request is for review and approval of a Conditional Use to allow for the construction of an enlarged parking lot at the southwest corner of North Mulberry and West College Streets to serve the future Denison Performing Arts Complex upon completion; and to allow for the construction of a reserved parking area that will align with the Cherry Street intersection on the west side of the proposed structure in order to serve large events.  The property is zoned Village Institutional District (VID), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in Art Chonko and Debra Walker Yost. 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, 88 Spruce Drive, Granville, Ohio stated:

He is seeking approval of a conditional use parking lot at the corner of North Mulberry and West College Streets, and for parking overflow on Cherry Street. 

Mr. Burge stated he would like the tree to be kept at the southwest corner of North Mulberry and West College Street.  Mr. Chonko stated he is comfortable with that condition.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-131:

 

a.         The proposed use is a conditional use with the zoning district, and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are metThe proposed use is a conditional use within the Village Institutional District under 1159.02(b)(4)(B) “Parking Lots to service a university or school (Ord. 11-2011. Passed 6-1-2011.)  All members stated Yes to this criteria.

 

b.         The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel.  The proposed (enlarged) parking lot on the east side of the future Performing Arts Center (PAC) will replace an existing parking lot that currently serves Ace Morgan Theater.  The proposed reserved event parking area to the west of the PAC will replace the existing driveway access and parking at Burke Hall, and will align with the Cherry Street intersection.  The proposed changes are in accordance with the current land use and transportation plans for the parcels.  All members states Yes to this criteria.

 

c.         The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal.  Presently, there are twelve (12) parking spaces located within the Ace Morgan Theatre parking area, and twenty-nine (29) parking spaces located within the Burke Hall parking area, which connects to West Broadway at the Cherry Street intersection, bringing the total to forty-one (41) existing spaces.

            The plans illustrate a total of sixty-six (66) proposed parking spaces located within the enlarged parking area at the corner of West College and North Mulberry Streets.  An additional curb cut off of West College Street is illustrated to help manage circulation within the lot.  Thirteen (13) reserved event parking spaces will be located in the area to the west of the PAC, bringing the total proposed parking spaces to seventy-nine (79).

 

            The proposed increase of thirty-eight (38) spaces should not place a significant or undue burden on streets or utilities.  The parking areas will be used most intensely during performances; the reserved parking to the west will be used almost solely for event overflow parking.

 

            Storm water increases will be managed as part of the overall larger project – including work in tandem with the Village to improve the storm water infrastructure along West Broadway and South Cherry Streets.

 

            Refuse disposal will occur in much the same manner as at present:  a utility yard located near the southeastern corner of the new PAC will house and conceal daily-use dumpsters.  Service to the dumpsters should be unimpeded and function should be unaffected.  As required (e.g. at the end of a performance run), larger dumpsters will be utilized at the loading dock, and removed as quickly as possible.  All members stated Yes to this criteria.

 

d.         The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.  Staff does not believe this use will be detrimental or disturbing to neighboring properties.  The proposed uses are in keeping with the present uses of the property as a theatre and performing arts campus with supporting parking areas.  All members stated Yes to this criteria.

 

e.         The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values with the surrounding areas. (Ord. 15-08. Passed 1-7-09)  Staff does not believe that the proposed use will diminish or impair established property values within the area, as they are a continuation of the existing uses.  Yes, all members agreed the conditional use will not significantly impair established property values within the surrounding area.

 

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2016-131, as submitted, with the condition of preserving the tree at the southwest corner of North Mulberry and West College Streets.  Second by Mr. Zimmers.  Roll Call Vote:  Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2016-132, submitted by George Fackler, III, on behalf of Fackler Country Gardens, LLC, for the property located at 2326 Newark-Granville Road.  The request is for review and approval of a variance to allow for a roof pitch on a structure that is less than the required 8/12 pitched in the District.  The property is zoned Suburban Business District (SBD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Gill swore in George Fackler, III and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

 

George Fackler, III, 323 Park Drive, Newark, Ohio stated:

He is seeking approval of a reduction in the roof pitch of a shed structure.  The reduction in pitch is so there will not be any obstruction for windows in other building.

The Board asked how the roof will hold with snow, and Mr. Fackler stated that the architect has created a roof that will hold the snow load.

 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-132:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Zimmers stated False, Mr. Kemper stated False, Mr. Gill stated False; Mr. Burge stated True, and Mr. Smith stated True; and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. _________ stated _________; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr.__________.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criterion 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. Burge stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.

Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Burge stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantialMr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.  (False 1 vote;  Mr. Smith stated “near true”.

                                               

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Burge stated False; all other BZBA members concurred or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Burge stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

(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 concurred.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

a.      Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members voted  2 True (Mr. Gill, Mr. Zimmers) and 3 False (Mr. Smith, Mr. Burge Mr. Kemper).

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All members stated True.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The board members unanimously voted 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, Mr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,  Mr. Burge stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Burge stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Burge stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.

 

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 #2016-132, as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote:  Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes) and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact Approval

 

New Business:

 

Application #2016-131, submitted by Art Chonko, on behalf of Denison University; 211 West College Street; Conditional Use to allow construction of parking lot at southwest corner of North Mulberry and West College Streets; and construction of parking area that will align with the Cherry Street intersection on the west side of the proposed structure:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-131. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2016-132, submitted by George Fackler, III, on behalf of Fackler Country Gardens, LLC.; 2326 Newark-Granville Road; Roof pitch variance:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-132.  Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), and Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Excuse member absences: (not necessary)

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes from September 8, 2016. Second by Mr. Burge.  Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Next Meetings (Tentative):

December 8th, 2016

January 12th, 2017

December BZBA and GPC Gathering Discussion

Meeting will be held on Saturday, December 10, 2016 from 9:00 am – 12:00 pm at the Carriage House at Bryn Du.

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.

 

BZBA Minutes September 8, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

September 8, 2016 7:00 p.m.

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

 Members Present: Roll Call: Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gill.

Members Absent: None.

Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planner, Michael King, Law Director

Visitors: Richard Downs, Tod and Evelyn Frolking, and Jay Snyder.

Citizen Comments: None.

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

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

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and
  • 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:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  • Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

New Business:

Application #2016-108, submitted by Richard Downs, on behalf of Paul Hammond and Tracee Laing, for the property located at 494 North Granger Street.: The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required twelve (12’) foot side yard setback to four (4’) feet along the northern property line; and to reduce the required forty (40’) foot rear yard setback to fifteen (15’) feet along the eastern property line to allow for the construction of a new detached carport structure. The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Richard Downs, and Debi Walker.

 Discussion: Richard Downs, 4174 Loudon Street NW, Granville, Ohio stated: 

He is seeking approval for the construction of a carport, which requires both side yard and rear yard setback reductions. Mr. Burge asked if the carport could be placed on the south side of the property, and Mr. Downs stated it could not, due to the location of the property owners’ garden and the relative lack of sunlight in the rear yard in other locations. Mr. Gill stated he agreed with the location of the carport and understood the significance of the garden to the homeowner.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-108:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Kemper stated False due to the location of the creek; all other BZBA members stated True and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. _________ stated _________; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr.__________.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was True, except Mr. Zimmers.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members states True.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Kemper stated False; all other BZBA members concurred or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Kemper stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Kemper stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance
  • 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 concurred.

 c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members voted 2 False and 3 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, Mr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.

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 #2016-108, as submitted with the addition of a stone retaining wall to allow carport to be at same height as driveway. Second by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2016-110, submitted by Tod and Evelyn Frolking, on behalf of the Village Roots Subdivision. The property is located near 605 West Broadway and consists of a four-acre (4) parcel, Parcel #020-51474-00.002 and a one-acre (1) parcel, Parcel #020-051526-00.000, which are being proposed to be developed as one property as a single-family residential development. The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required frontage to a right-of-way from sixty-five (65’) feet to forty (40’) feet for proposed Lot #6. The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Tod and Evelyn Frolking and Debi Walker.

Mr. Burge recused himself at 7:19 p.m.

Discussion:

Tod Frolking, 605 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio stated:

He is seeking approval for a variance of Lot #6, reducing the required right-of-way frontage from 65' to 40'. It is Mr. Frolkings’ understanding if all other setbacks are met the variance can be approved. All other setbacks are met on the property allowing this application to move forward.

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2016-110, as submitted. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

Mr. Burge rejoined the Board at 7:28 p.m.

Application #2016-111, submitted by Jay Snyder, of Steamroller Bagel, LLP, for the property located at 115 North Prospect Street: The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a proposed first floor restaurant use from four (4) spaces to two (2) spaces. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Jay Snyder and Debi Walker.

Discussion:

Jay Snyder, 2061 Jones Road, Granville, Ohio stated:

He is seeking a parking variance for two spaces instead of the required four spaces. He stated the sale of the property is contingent upon the approval of this variance request. There are currently zero parking spaces located on the property as the property line effectively traces the building footprint. 

The Board asked if leased parking spaces would count towards to spaces for the property. Mr. King stated they would indeed count toward the required number of spaces. The applicant stated he has not looked to lease any spaces due to the additional cost and that by leasing spaces he effectively removes spaces from general parking in the downtown area, which does not help the already challenging parking climate.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-111:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members concurred and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was True, with the exception Mr. Zimmers, who voted False.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Kemper stated False; all other BZBA members stated True. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Burge stated True; all other BZBA members concurred, with the exception of Mr. Kemper who voted False.Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members concurred or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Zimmers stated False; all other BZBA members concurred.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members voted 1 True and 4 False.
  • 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 concurred except Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers.

 c. 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, Mr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Kemper stated True; all other BZBA members concurred; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Zimmers stated True; all other BZBA members concurred.

d. 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 #2016-111, as submitted. Second by Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Burge withdrew approval, and Mr. Zimmers made a motion to table Application #2016-111.

Mr. Smith questioned how tabling the application would impact the property closing. The Applicant stated that they are set to close on October 1, 2016; if the application is not approved he will probably look elsewhere to establish the business.

Ms. Walker informed the Applicant of the fact that Park National Bank leases spaces. The Applicant did not feel customers would use those spaces. Mr. Smith agreed stating patrons would still park on the street near the business.

After further discussion, there was no second to table the application.

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2016-111 as submitted. Second by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (no), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-1.

 Findings of Fact

 New Business:

 Application #2016-108; Richard Downs, for Paul and Tracee Laing; 494 North Granger Street; Rear and Side Yard Setback Reductions: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District (SRD-B). Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-108. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2016-110; Tod and Evelyn Frolking, on behalf of Village Roots Subdivision; Parcels located behind 605 West Broadway: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District (SRD-C), and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-110. Second by Mr. Smith. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2016-111; Jay Snyder, of Steamroller Bagel LLP; 115 North Prospect Street; Parking Reduction Request: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village Business District, and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading.

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-111. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

Motion to Excuse member absences: (not necessary)

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes from May 12, 2016. Second by Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (abstaining). Motion carried 4-0.Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes from August 11, 2016. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Smith (abstaining), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (abstaining), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Next Meetings (Tentative):

October 13, 2016

November 10, 2016

December 8, 2016

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

BZBA Minutes August 11, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

August 11th, 2016 7:00 p.m.

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

Members Present: Mr. Burge, Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill

Members Absent: Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith

Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planner, Michael King, Law Director

Visitors: Bruce and Lisa Westall, Richard Downs, Josh and Alison Laughbaum, Ken Rittenhouse, John Klauder, Joseph Mangine and Diane Anci, Rodger Kessler, Clay Graham and Beth Edwards

Citizen Comments: None.

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

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

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and
  • 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:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  • Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board. 

Old Business:

Application #2015-107 (Amended), submitted by Bruce and Lisa Westall for the property located at 232 East Elm Street: The request is for review and approval to amend a previously approved setback variance along the western side yard to allow for the construction of a one-car garage. The amended request is to reduce the western side yard setback from the previously approved three (3’) feet to one (1’) foot to allow the applicants to construct the one-car garage in better alignment with the existing driveway. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Bruce and Lisa Westall, and Debi Walker 

Discussion:

Richard Downs, speaking for the Westall’ s, reported that the initial side yard setback variances did not match the measurements that were actually present. He stated that the contractors have proceeded to stake out the proposed foundation, and that Bruce Westall submitted an amended variance request per the correct measurements. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-17:

The Board Members agreed that the criteria as previously approved continued to be applicable to the amended request.

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2015-107 as amended. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Gill (yes) Motion carried (3-0).

New Business:

Application #2016-98, submitted by Alison and Josh Laughbaum, for the property located at 212 South Pearl Street. The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required ten (10’) foot setback along the southern property line to allow for the construction of a new detached garage structure. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Alison Laughbaum and Debi Walker

Discussion: 

Alison Laughbaum, 212 South Pearl Street, Granville, Ohio 43023, said:

Alison confirmed that the proposed 18’ by 20’ garage needs to be 1 foot from the lot line in order to be able to utilize the existing driveway, which varies from the required 10 foot distance. She stated that the current structure will be demolished, and a new structure will be built. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-98: 

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist, which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Burge stated true; Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill stated false, and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Burge stated true; Mr. Zimmers 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 propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was true. 

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred 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 concurred with Mr. Zimmers. 
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionThere was no finding.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members unanimously voted False. 
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members agreed that it was not applicable. 

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, Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areasMr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred 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. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2016-98, as submitted. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried (3-0). 

Application #2016-101, submitted by Ken Rittenhouse of Klauder Landscape Associates, on behalf of Joseph Mangine and Diane Anci, for the property located at 204 South Pearl Street. The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase total lot coverage from 47.2% to 57.8%, to allow for the installation of an in-ground swimming pool and associated paver decking/patio. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Ken Rittenhouse, John Klauder and Debi Walker 

Discussion: 

Ken Rittenhouse of John Klauder & Associates Landscape Design, 950 Old River Road, Granville, Ohio 43023, stated:

That, in summary, he was requesting an increase in total lot coverage from 47.2% to 57.8%. Mr. Burge asked for the measurements of the pool project. The pool will be 32’ x 16’, there will be a 4’ walkway on the east, north and south sides, and there will be seating on the west side. The Board had no further questions. 

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-101: 

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 stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyMr. Burge stated false; Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill stated true. 

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge. 
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Gill stated false; Mr. Burge and Mr. Zimmers stated true.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated false; Mr. Burge stated true; or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Burge stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge. 
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Burge stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Burge stated true; Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Gill stated false.
  • 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 concurred with Mr. Burge. 

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members voted ____ False and _____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, Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areasMr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.

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 #2016-101, as submitted. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried (3-0). 

Mr. Burge asked if this project was to be finished this year; Ken Rittenhouse said that the intention was to be finished this year.

Application #2016-102, submitted by John Klauder of Klauder Landscape Associates, on behalf of Bruce and Lisa Westall, for the property located at 232 East Elm Street. The request is for review and approval of a cut sandstone patio and steps, and privacy fencing in the rear yard. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in John Klauder, Bruce and Lisa Westall, Ken Rittenhouse and Debi Walker

Discussion: 

John Klauder of John Klauder & Associates Landscape Design, 950 Old River Road, Granville, Ohio 43023, stated:

The need for the patio and fencing is to provide for access from the back door to the garage, to accommodate 6 people, and to provide privacy. The increase in lot coverage (from 56% to 62%) is for the hard surface of the patio. Mr. Burge asked the size of the patio. Mr. Klauder state that it will be about 300 square feet. Mr. Burge asked if there would be a 6-foot fence on the east side of the property. It was confirmed that there will be a 6-foot fence around the rear of the property that will match fence belonging to the neighbor on the eastern side.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-102: 

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. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers. 

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was true.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred 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 concurred with Mr. Zimmers. 
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. false.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Zimmers stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers. 
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceMr. Zimmers stated false; Mr. Gill and Mr. Burge stated true. 
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members voted ____ False and _____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, Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areasMr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Zimmers; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Zimmers stated true; all other BZBA members concurred 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. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2016-102, as submitted. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried (3-0).

Application #2016-103, submitted by Rodger Kessler of Kessler Sign Company, on behalf of Uberburger, for the property located at 138 East Broadway (Upper Level). The request is for review and approval of a variance related to signage including the number of allowable colors in a sign, sign height and a request to have more than one sidewalk sign per building. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Gill swore in Rodger Kessler, Clay Graham and Debi Walker 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler stated:

He requested that the signs in question consist of 7 colors instead of 3, that the projecting sign be between 14’ and 16’, and that there could be second sandwich/sidewalk sign per building as opposed to one. He stated that there has already been an additional sign in front of the building for 8 years. Mr. Gill asked if he had spoken with the owners of Whit’s per the location of the sandwich board sign, and he replied that he had not. Village Law Director Michael King reminded Mr. Kessler that the Planning Commission must be the body to approve the location of sandwich board signs. Regarding the number of colors on the signs, Mr. Kessler shared examples of what he labeled “signs” in Granville that exceed the rule of 3 colors. Regarding the height of the projecting sign, Mr. Kessler said the height, to the very top of the sign, would not be more than 16’. Clay Graham said that the sandwich board sign will be the same as the Soup Loft used and put in the same space exactly. Mr. Burge confirmed that the sandwich board sign will be utilized to the left of Whit’s sign. Law Director Michael repeated that the Planning Commission will grant permission for a specific location of the sandwich sign. Mr. Gill questioned whether the same criteria applied for this variance as with other variance requests. Mr. King said that it did. Mr. Gill defended where the height limit would put the projecting sign, specifically in the center of the window by the business. Acting Planner Walker agreed. Mr. Gill asked if 16’ would put the sign where it needs to be. Mr. King interjected that the determination of the height of a business’s sign is the responsibility of the business owner when he/she applies for such a variance. Mr. Burge questioned whether the 3 signs should be considered separately regarding criteria. Mr. Gill responded that they would be considered as one unit unless one of the BZBA members needed them to be considered separately. Mr. King said that, if there were hesitations, they could be considered separately. Mr. King also reminded those in attendance that The Planning Commission may overrule on placement of the signs, but only the Village Council may overrule regarding color of signs.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-102:

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 stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge. 

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was true.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers stated false; Mr. Burge stated true. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Burge stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Burge stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Burge stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge. 
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Burge stated false; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge. 
  • Whether the “applicant’s” predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. (Mr. Zimmers mentioned that the applicant is not actually the property owner). The board members voted true. 
  • 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 concurred with Mr. Burge. 

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members voted ____ False and _____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, Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areasMr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Burge stated true; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Burge.

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 #2016-103, as submitted. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried (3-0). It was noted that there be a restriction that the sign is centered on the upstairs window, based on height, and that the applicant would be responsible for reporting the installed height to the Planning Office pose installation. 

Findings of Fact 

Old Business: Application #2015-107 (Amended); Bruce and Lisa Westall; 232 East Elm Street; Amended Side Yard Reduction Variance: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village District.

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried.

Application #2016-98; Alison and Josh Laughbaum; 212 South Pearl Street; Southern Side Yard Setback Reduction: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147 Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District. 

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried. 

Application #2016-101; Ken Rittenhouse for Joseph Mangine and Diane Anci; 204 South Pearl Street; Maximum Lot Coverage Increase: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147 Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District. 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried. 

Application #2016-102; John Klauder for Bruce and Lisa Westall: 232 East Elm Street; Maximum Lot Coverage Increase: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147 Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District. 

Mr. Zimmers moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried. 

Application #2016-103; Rodger Kessler for Clay Graham of Uberburger 232 East Elm Street; Maximum Lot Coverage Increase: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147 Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District 

Mr. Burge moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried 

Motion to Excuse Mr. Kemper’s and Mr. Smith’s absences:

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to excuse Mr. Kemper’s and Mr. Smith’s absences. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Mr. Gill (yes) Motion carried.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes for March 12, 2016:

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to table the BZBA meeting minutes for March 12th, 2016. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried

Next Meetings (Tentative):

September 8th, 2016

October 13th, 2016

November 10th, 2016

December 8th, 2016

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

BZBA Minutes May 12, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

May 12, 2016 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Larry Burge, Kenneth Kemper, Bradley Smith and Neal Zimmers.

Members Absent: Jeff Gill

Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planning Department and Mike King, Law Director.

Visitors: John Noblick, Frank Triveri, Kathleen Triveri, Robert Parsley, Lea Ann Parsley, Brian Parsley, Eric Albery, Jackie Hill

Citizen’s Comments: As no one appeared to speak, Vice Chair Smith closed Citizens’ Comments.

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:

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject o the application; and
  • Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application was approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  • Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

New Business:

Application #2016-43, Chuck Davis, on behalf of Frank and Kathleen Triveri, 220 Thresher Street

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

This request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from thirty-(30’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a deck extension along the front façade. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Smith swore in Debi Walker, John Noblick, Frank Triveri and Kathleen Triveri.

Discussion:

John Noblick, Davis Construction, advised BZBA that this application was for the repair and replacement of a front deck. Part of the current deck on the left side of the front porch currently extended out and same distance that was being proposed for the replacement portion of the right side of the deck. A portion of the old deck and stairs will be removed and replaced. The deck and color of the deck will look the same except with the right side extended out the same distance as the current left side.

Mr. Burge asked if the reduction would maintain the wooden posts. Mr. Noblick responded in the affirmative. Mr. Triveri added that a wooden post would be added to the corner.

Frank Triveri, 220 Thresher Street, indicated to the Board that this application was to replace the worn out section of the left side of the deck, which would not be extended from its current location with the right side of the deck being extended to match the left. Mr. Triveri could not see any harm in this requested extension as it would cause minimal intrusion. The repairs would improve the appearance and street appeal of his home. The setback would be maintained at the same extension as the existing left side.

Acting Planner Walker added that the setback was being reduced to only five (5’) feet, not seven (7’) feet. This deck was added prior to the establishment of the existing zoning code. The house was already built within the right-of-way.

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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 stated TRUE 4-0.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.
  • Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  •  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All Board members stated TRUE.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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. Zimmer made a motion to approve Application #2016-43 as presented. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll call vote to approve Application #2016-43: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes) and Zimmers (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2016-43 was approved.

Application #2016-48, Brian and Lea Ann Parsley, on behalf of Robert and Ruth Ann Parsley, 204 North Granger Street

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

This request is for review and approval of variances to reduce the required twelve (12’) foot side yard setback along the northern property line to seven-point-five (7.5’) feet, and to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to thirty-four-point-five (34.5%) percent to allow for an addition to the home along the northern elevation.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Smith swore in Debi Walker and Lea Ann Parsley. 

Discussion:

Lea Ann Parsley, 232 North Granger Street, indicated that she was presenting this application on

behalf of her parents, Robert and Ruth Ann Parsley. The family in in process of renovating this house built in 1856, prior to indoor plumbing. They hoped to restore as much of the house, but it would be necessary to add bathroom and laundry facilities to the home. The application requested the removal of the current north-side addition to be replaced with a two-story addition in the same location that would be closer to the property line. There would also be an additional one-story addition on the north side of the house. Ms. Parsley indicated that she had spoken with her neighbors and they had expressed support for the project.

Acting Planner Walker added that this lot was small. The request was for a reduction of side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to seven point five (7.5’) feet. Staff was in support of the variance.

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: Mr. Smith stated TRUE that there were special circumstances peculiar to this land; whereas Mr. Burge, Kemper and Zimmers stated FALSE 3-1.and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.

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 stated TRUE 4-0.

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

  • 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, Smith and Zimmers stated TRUE; whereas Mr. Kemper stated FALSE that a reasonable return could be returned 3-1.
  • Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  •  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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 #2016-48 as presented. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll call vote to approve Application #2016-48: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Burge (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2016-48 was approved.

Application #2016-49, Eric Albery, on behalf of Jackie Hill, 2371 James Road

Open Space District (OSD)

This request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback along the eastern property line from fifty (50’) feet to forty (40’) feet to allow for the construction of a new single-family home.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Smith swore in Debi Walker, Jackie Hill and Eric Albery.

Discussion:

Eric Albery, Albery Construction, LLC, advised the BZBA that this lot was plotted prior to the property being in the Village and the current zoning. Ms. Hill selected a smaller home design to accommodate the lot, but still needs to request a variance. The side yard setback of fifty (50’) feet was being reduced to forty (40’) feet. 

Jackie Hill, 2371 James Road, indicated that she had the support of her adjoining neighbor.

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated TRUE 4-0 with Mr. Zimmers stating that the property was built prior to the Village’s annexation and assignment of a zoning district. and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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 stated TRUE 4-0.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.
  • Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  •  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All Board members stated FALSE 4-0.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Zimmers and Kemper stated FALSE; whereas Mr. Smith and Burge state TRUE as the design plans could be reduced to fit the existing lot.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

c.That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All Board members stated TRUE 4-0. and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All Board members stated TRUE 4-0.

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 #2016-49 as presented. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll call vote to approve Application #2016-49: Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), and Burge (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2016-49 was approved.

Finding of Fact

New Business: Application #2016-43, Chuck Davis, on behalf of Frank and Kathleen Triveri, 220 Thresher Street – Front Yard Reduction 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 made a motion to approve Application #2016-43 as presented. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll call vote to approve Application #2016-43: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2016-43 was approved as presented.

Application #2016-48, Brian and Lea Ann Parsley, on behalf of Robert and Ruth Ann Parsley, 204 North Granger Street – Side Yard Setback Reduction and Maximum Building Lot Coverage

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 made a motion to approve Application #2016-48 as presented. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll call vote to approve Application #2016-48: Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2016-48 was approved as presented.

Application #2016-49, Eric Albery, on behalf of Jackie Hill, 2371 James Road – Side Yard Setback Reduction

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1165, Open Space District (OSD), and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2016-49 as presented. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll call vote to approve Application #2016-49: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #2016-49 was approved as presented.

Staff Report: CVS Parking Variance Follow-up

Village Manager Stilwell provided the Board with a memorandum and a copy of the letter of appeal of the CVS application requesting a parking reduction. He indicated that as Manager he had the option to appeal any BZBA decisions to the Village Council. He commented that he was not questioning the contribution of the BZBA at all. In the interest of preserving available parking in the downtown business district, this appeal was filed. Staff had attempted to meet with CVS representatives on several occasions to offer alternative solutions that would not lost any parking. Manager Stilwell advised that following the BZBA hearing of April 14, 2016, he met with a CVS representative to discuss possible options. He appreciated all of the Board’s efforts and wanted them to know that this appeal was not a reflection of their work or decision making process.

Mr. Kemper indicated that he was hesitate to support the application, but was unsure what a delay would gain. He would have appreciated more clarity from staff if a specific recommendation was warranted.

Mr. Zimmers stated that he asked the CVS representative if this application was pursuant to changes begin made by CVS system wide due to a lawsuit. Mr. Zimmers stated the testimony indicated that this application was unrelated. Manager Stilwell responded that staff was anxious to find alternative solutions to losing additional parking for whatever reason. CVS initially received a large parking variance in the initial plans then additionally reduced parking spaces with the addition of the drive thru.

Mr. Smith disagreed that Village staff recommendation was to deny the application. A request to table was different representation. He requested that staff review the tapes to confirm if staff mentioned denying the application as this aspect was an important part of the record. Staff indicated several options that were provided to CVS. The option to add an additional handicapped space as street parking was not a viable option. Removing the wall was not viable as the wall served a purpose and per CVS testimony was a benefit to the store. The applicant was also against tabling this application. Mr. Smith felt that the approval of the application was an appropriate decision. Mr. Smith read the final staff comment of the CVS staff report as confirmation of his position.

Other Business

Manager Stilwell provided the BZBA with a written summary of a current media topic regarding the installation of a sidewalk around the Middleton Assisted Living facility. Mr. Stilwell explained that the installation of the sidewalk has been merely postponed until Middleton has determined the use of the out lots and Licking County has made a decision regarding pursuing a pedestrian walkway across the Cherry Street bridge.

Mr. Zimmer discussed that possible reduction of the speed limit on Columbus Road/Cherry Street from 45 mph to a slower speed to protect Middleton residents as they pull out of the facility onto Columbus Road. Manager Stilwell indicated that the Village had attempted to work with ODOT and the Licking County engineer on several occasions to reduce the speed limit. That portion of the roadway was in Granville Township. As the roadway becomes busier and more businesses were developed, the speed limit may be more apt to be reduced. The Village was working on installing street lighting along a portion of that roadway.

Mr. Smith acknowledged that Manager Stilwell was retiring from the Village. He and the Board thanked Manager Stilwell for his service over the past five years.

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to excuse Mr. Gill from the BZBA meeting on May 12, 2016. Second by Mr. Burge. Motion carried without objection.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

The Board requested to approve the April 14, 2016 minutes at their June 9, 2016 meeting.

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Kemper made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Burge. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.

Next Meeting:

June 9, 2016

July 14, 2016

BZBA Minutes April 14, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

April 14, 2016 7:00 p.m.

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

Members Present: Roll Call: Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Smith.

Members Absent: Mr. Gill

Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planner, and Michael King, Village Law Director

Visitors: David Solomon, Karl Schneider and Jack Lucks

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:

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and
  • 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:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  •  Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

New Business:

Application #2016-17, submitted by David Solomon, of Larson Design Group, on behalf of Greg and Patricia Ream for the CVS Store #0396, located at 200 East Broadway: The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces from seventeen (17) to sixteen (16). The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in David Solomon and Debi Walker.

Discussion: David Solomon, of Larson Design Group, 1000 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 201, Williamsport, PA, 17701, stated that CVS Store #0396 has a contract with Larson Design Group for architecture, interior, and exterior remodel work. The variance request is for a parking variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from seventeen (17) to sixteen (16), in order to provide an ADA handicapped van accessible parking space that will meet the current ADA code. Mr. Solomon shared the required size of a van accessible handicap parking space as being eleven feet (11’) in width. The current space measures nine feet (9’) in width. Mr. Zimmers inquired as to the original required number of parking spaces? Ms. Walker and Mr. King stated the original number of required spaces required for the structure was twenty-one (21). Also noted was the fact that the property owner reduced, without a variance, the number of spaces from twenty-one (21) to seventeen (17) at approximately the same time of the creation of the drive-thru lane on the north side of the structure. Staff added that no documentation could be found in the property file addressing any change through the BZBA. Mr. Zimmers questioned if the request was related to pressure surrounding a current settlement from a CVS lawsuit. Mr. Solomon stated the increase was not due to a lawsuit, but every year CVS tries to become more ADA compliant. Mr. Burge asked Mr. Solomon as to the possibility of removing the wall currently adjacent to the handicap parking space. Mr. Solomon noted the wall was Village property and CVS was originally required to install the wall in its current location. Mr. King responded to the statement noting he was not aware that the Village required CVS to install the wall as a condition of the original approval. He further added that if the wall was removed, it could possibly create the space needed without reducing the number of current parking spaces. Mr. Solomon countered Mr. King’s statement by saying without the wall in its current position, the possibility of a driver going through the store may increase. Mr. Solomon shared there are already customer complaints related to the lack of handicapped parking on site. He added that CVS typically likes to have three (3) or four (4) handicapped parking spaces, which were not currently available at this current location. He went on to add that the proposed handicapped space (that staff offered as an alternative solution) on the street would not count towards CVS requirements. Mr. Burge asked if it would be possible to narrow all of other parking spaces on site in order to gain the required width for the handicapped space. Mr. Solomon stated it would be tight, but if Village is willing to grant a variance CVS would consider reducing the size of other parking spaces. He summarized stating that CVS’ goal was to provide anyone with a disability adequate parking on site.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-17:

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. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated True; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith voted False (the expressed that they were unaware of other businesses in the Core Business District facing the same handicapped parking issues as CVS).

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was True.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Zimmers voted False; Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Smith stated True; (They added their vote was based with consideration for the number of parking spaces originally required for the structure and the applicants’ narrative addressing this criteria).
  • 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 varianceAll members voted False.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All members voted False.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionAll members voted True.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceMr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers voted True; all agreeing the brick wall could come down creating additional needed space. Mr. Smith voted False: stating the applicant’s desire is to not have the enlarged parking space directly in front of the businesses door.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All members voted True. 

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All members voted False. The members stated their vote was based on previous actions taken by the property owner – specifically the four (4) parking spaces removed adjacent to the drive-thru lane shortly after the installation of the drive-thru window – which has resulted in fewer parking spaces overall on the property.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, All members voted True; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted True; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All members voted True; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsAll members voted True.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions to be imposed.

Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2016-17, as submitted. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (no), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 3-1.

Mr. King stated he wanted to make the Applicant and Board aware that should they chose to table the application, Mr. Solomon could provide additional information for the Board to consider at the next meeting. However, if the Board denied the application, they could not accept the same application again. Mr. Solomon, on behalf of CVS would then be required to go to Licking County Common Pleas Court to have them overturn the Board’s decision.

Application #2016-23, submitted by Karl Schneider, of Raccoon Creek, LLC, for the 8.379 acre parcel (No. 020-042252-00.001) located at the northeast corner of Columbus Road and Weaver Drive.: The request is for review and approval of a Conditional Use, to allow for senior independent living cottages. The property is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in Karl Schneider, Jack Lucks and Debi Walker.

Discussion:

Karl Schneider, of Raccoon Creek Senior Living LLC, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 305, Columbus, Ohio, stated that he was a partner in the group that owns the parcel located at the northeast corner of Weaver Drive and Columbus Road, and the adjacent Middleton Senior Assisted living facility property. Mr. Schneider stated the group is aware of an increased demand for independent senior housing and feels this parcel would be a natural location for approximately fifteen (15) independent garden cottages, which will be approximately 1,200 square feet and contain two (2) bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms. The cottages would be associated with the Middleton facility, and leased to individuals age of fifty-five (55) years old and older. Mr. Burge asked if the buildings would be similar in appearance to the Middleton facility proper. Mr. Schneider stated fourteen (14) units would be in the form of duplexes; one unit would be a triplex. He shared the exteriors may be white brick, similar to the Middleton Assisted Living main building; but felt the materials would be mixed, to create a separate and distinctive feel for the project. Mr. Schneider added the future residents of the garden cottages would have access to amenities offered by the Middleton facilities main building, including work-out opportunities, and places to socialize.

Jack Lucks, 152 North Drexel Avenue, Bexley, Ohio, stated added that all units would have attached garages. Mr. Burge asked Ms. Walker if there had been any feedback from the adjacent property owners. Ms. Walker stated there have been no communications from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper both had concerns to the potential traffic generated by the cottages and the speed limit on Columbus Road. Mr. Schneider stated he would work with the Village to discuss speed limit related options as needed.

The BZBA reviewed the following Chapter 1145.03 Conditional Use Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-23:

1) Section 1145.03, Criteria for Approval:

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals shall make the following determinations with respect to an application for a conditional use permit:

(a) The proposed use is a conditional use with the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The proposed use is a conditional use within this Zoning District under 1173.02

(b) (10) “Mixed-use combinations of multi-family residential, retirement community, nursing homes, or assisted living structures”. All members voted True.

(c) The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel. In the Comprehensive Plan it states under Expanding Housing Opportunities, II. Goals:

2) Recognize the Limited Number of Affordable Housing Opportunities for Seniors: 

Because of a low supply of rental unit and higher housing prices, there may be greater demand for affordable rental housing. Generally, the cost of rent is significantly higher in Granville area than statewide. The housing market could be met by the private sector… Further, as a communities population ages, many of the senior residents would prefer to remain in the area to be with friends and family. As many people are living much longer than they used too many years ago, they often have a longer duration where they will be retired in their lives. This puts a premium on creating housing opportunities that can allow them to stretch their retirement savings much longer than had been previously needed. This means building smaller senior villas for empty nesters to downsize into as they will need…

Also, the Purpose & Intent of Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District states "the purpose and intent of the Village Gateway District is to create an attractive, well-designed entrance into the community that will provide suitable areas for mixed uses in a visually-integrated, high-quality neighborhood setting. The Gateway District will have residences along with a moderate concentration of various types of compatible businesses and offices to service neighborhood needs. Special enhancements will include the preservation of existing natural resources, a useful pattern of open space and walking trails, integrated architecture and design that reflects the traditional architectural styles of Granville, adequate parking, appropriate landscaping and screening, desirable aesthetics, and creative site design intended to eliminate adverse effects of traffic congestion. The Village Gateway District is intended to provide increased tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance and preserving or enhancing the quality of life and property values in the Village and Granville Township." 

Based on the above, staff feels this use meets the intent of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Gateway District purpose. The requested conditional use is also in accordance with transportation plans for the area. This is the only requested use on this parcel. All members voted True.

(c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. Additional supporting narrative submitted by the applicant for the proposed Independent Living Cottages addresses this criteria as follows: “Current Village services (sewer, water and trash) all are located on or near site and meet capacity for proposed development. This development will have no impact on the Granville Schools as the use is for residents 55 and older.” All members voted True.

 (d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. Staff does not believe this use will be detrimental or disturbing to neighboring properties. The independent living cottages will be located adjacent to the Middleton Senior Living facility. The applicants’ intention is to provide the garden cottage residents with select services through the Middleton facility. The proposed cottages should not constitute a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. All members voted True.

(e) The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values with the surrounding areas. (Ord.15-08. Passed 1-7-09) Staff does not believe that the proposed use will diminish or impair established property values within the area. All members voted True.

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2016-23, as submitted. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

Findings of Fact

New Business: Application #2016-17; David Solomon, of Larson Design Group, on behalf of Greg and Patricia Ream for the CVS Store #0396, located at 200 East Broadway; Parking Reduction Variance: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

Application #2016-23; Karl Schneider, on behalf of Middleton Senior Living, LLC, 8.97 Acre Parcel No. 020-042252-00.001; Conditional Use: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1145, Conditional Use, Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District, and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-5. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

Motion to Excuse Mr. Gills’ absence: Mr. Burge made a motion to excuse Mr. Gills’ absence. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes: Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes from March 10th, 2016. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (unable to vote), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Next Meetings (Tentative):

May 12th, 2016

June 9th, 2016

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kemper. All in favor voice vote in the affirmative. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

BZBA Minutes March 10, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

March 10, 2016 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Larry Burge, Kenneth Kemper and Neal Zimmers.

Members Absent: Jeff Gill and Bradley Smith

Also Present: Debi Walker, Village Planner.

Visitors: David Gaul

Citizen’s Comments: As no one appeared to speak, Mr. Zimmers closed Citizen’s Comments.

Description of Procedure: Mr. Zimmers 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:

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject o the application; and
  • 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:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  • Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

New Business:

Application #2016-13, David Gaul, 2355 James Road

Open Space District - (OSD)

This request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback along the western property line from fifty (50’) feet to twenty-five (25’) feet to allow for the construction of a covered porch at the rear of the garage. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Zimmers swore in Debi Walker and David Gaul. 

Discussion:

David Gaul, 2355 James Road, advised the Commission that his plans were to remove the

existing concrete slab and kennel, pour a new concrete slab for the kennels and cover it with a wooden roof. The compound would be moved east, away from the property line, but still within the fifty feet. This configuration would allow the dogs access into the garage during inclement weather. The roof would be the same architecturally as the house roof. The kennel was currently not visible from the street and the new location would not be visible. 

Mr. Burge asked if the neighbors had voice any objections. Acting Planner Walker indicate no neighbors had approached the Village.

Mr. Zimmers asked Mr. Gaul if he owned this home prior to the annexation. Mr. Gaul responded in the affirmative.

The following considerations shall be examined in the review and the public hearing of an application for a variance:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved: All Board members stated this was FALSE 3-0. and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. All Board members stated this was FALSE 3-0.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0.
  • Whether the variance is substantial. All Board members stated this was FALSE 3-0.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. All Board members stated this was FALSE 3-0.
  •  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All Board members stated this was FALSE 3-0.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All Board members stated this was FALSE 3-0. The property owner purchased the property prior to the Village’s annexation and the application of the current zoning code.
  • 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 FALSE with Mr. Burge stating TRUE 2-1.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0. and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas,

All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0. and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,

All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0. and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All Board members stated this was TRUE 3-0.

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 #2016-13 as presented. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2016-13: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Zimmers (yes). Motion carried 3-0. Application #2016-13 is approve as presented.

Finding of Fact

New Business:

Application #2016-13, David Gaul, 2355 James Road – Side Yard Variance

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1165, Open Space District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2016-13 as amended. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2016-13: Kemper (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Burge (yes). Motion carried 3-0. Application #2016-13 is approved as presented.

Motion to Approve Absent BZBA Member:

Mr. Kemper made a motion to excuse Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith from the March 2, 2016 BZBA meeting. Second by Mr. Burge. Motion carried.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

The February 11, 2016 minutes could not be approved as there was not a quorum of members in attendance at that meeting. The minutes will be reviewed during the April 14, 2016 meeting.

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kemper. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.

Next Meeting:

April 14, 2016

May 12, 2016

BZBA Minutes February 11, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

February 11th, 2016 7:00 p.m.

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

Members Present: Mr. Kemper, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Smith.

Members Absent: Mr. Gill and Mr. Zimmers.

Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planner, Michael King, Law Director

Visitors: Pat Kelley, Karl Schneider, and Gerald Newton.

Citizen Comments: None.

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

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

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and
  • 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:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  • Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

New Business:

Application #2016-2; 128 West Maple Street; Pat Kelley, of Kelley & Associates, Architects, on behalf of Richard and Beth Long: The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback along the eastern property line from ten (10’) feet to three (3’) feet, to allow for the construction of a single-car garage with covered side porch/carport, at 128 West Maple Street. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in Pat Kelley.

Discussion:

Pat Kelley, of Kelley & Associates, Architects, 51 North 4th Street, Newark, Ohio: The project is for the construction of a single-car garage with an attached carport at the rear of the property and on the east side of Mr. Long’s property. The required eastern side yard setback is ten feet, and he would like to reduce it to three feet to allow the homeowner to align the extension of the existing driveway with the proposed garage and to maximize the remaining area in the rear yard. Mr. Kelley shared that the homeowners had been in conversation with the neighbors and have received a letter of support from the neighbor to the east, Karen Chakoian.

Acting Planner Walker stated that at only 50’ wide, the lot is narrower than most village lots, presenting challenges for any future additions or modifications on the property. The homeowners presently have no garage. The applicants have received support from the effected neighbor to the east. With that, staff favors approval.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-2:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Smith stated True; 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 propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criterion was True.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  •  Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members voted 1 True and 2 False.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

c.That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/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, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

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 #2016-2, as submitted. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2016-5; 1500 Weaver Drive and the adjacent Parcel No. 020-042252-00.001 at the northeast corner of Weaver Drive and Columbus Road; Karl Schneider of Raccoon Creek Senior Housing LLC, on behalf of Middleton Senior Living: The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum height of a fence in the front yard setback from forty-two (42”) inches to forty-eight (48”) inches, to allow for installation of crossbuck style fencing along Weaver Drive and Columbus Road. The property is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in Karl Schneider.

Discussion:

Karl Schneider, of Raccoon Creek Senior Living LLC, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 305, Columbus, Ohio, stated: Mr. Schneider was running late to the meeting, Ms. Walker discussed the project with the Board members stating Mr. Schneider received approval for the increase in the fence height from Planning Commission contingent upon the Board granting the required fence height variance. Ms. Walker added Mr. Schneider’s near term plan is to install the fence along the 1500 Weaver Drive property to the corner at Columbus Road, and when proposed construction of the Middleton Garden Cottages on the adjacent parcel was complete the fence would continue northward toward the conservation easement line.

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Burge stated False, while Mr. Kemper stated True; Mr. Smith concurred with Mr. Kemper and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Smith stated False; 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 propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criterion was True.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members voted 0 True and 3 False.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

c.That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members voted 1 False and 2 True. Mr. Burge feels the decision to raise the height is based on aesthetic reasons only.

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, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

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 #2016-5, as submitted. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Application 2016-6; 2710 James Road; Gerald Newton; The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback along the western property line from fifty (50’) feet to twenty-five (25’) feet, beginning one-hundred-fifty (150’) feet from the north property line, to allow for the construction of a single-family home. The property is zoned Open Space District (OSD).

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in Gerald Newton and Debi Walker.

Discussion:

Gerald Newton, 1178 Evansdale Avenue, Newark, Ohio, stated: Mr. Newton stated that he and his wife have owned this property for the past three years. They would like to build a home on the property where the pole barn is currently located. When they purchased the property it was in Union Township, and was annexed into the Village of Granville in 2008. The future home will be site approximately 150 feet off the road. Mr. Newton stated he is requesting that the western side yard setback be reduced by 25 feet – from 50 feet to 25 feet to allow for the construction of the future home with a possible garage on the west side of the structure. Ms. Walker informed the Board members the neighbors to the west of the Newton property have expressed support of the request.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-2:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Smith stated True; 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 propertyThe BZBA unanimously agreed this criterion was True.

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the variance is substantialMr. Smith stated True, while Mr. Kemper stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Smith stated False; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictionMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members all voted False.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The board members all voted True.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areasMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.

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 #2016-6, as submitted. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Findings of Fact

New Business:

Application #2016-2; 128 West Maple Street; Pat Kelley of Kelley & Associates, Architects on behalf of Richard and Beth Long; Side Yard Setback Variance: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2016-5; 1500 Weaver Drive and Parcel No. 020-042252-00.001; Karl Schneider on behalf Middleton Senior Living LLC; Fence Height Variance: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-5. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2016-6; 2170 James Road; Gerald Newton; Side Yard Setback Variance: Approve Findings of Facts and Associated Standards of Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1165.03, Open Space District

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-5. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

The minutes from the January 14th Hearing are still under review and will be voted on upon their completion.

Motion to Adjourn

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

The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.

Next Meetings (Tentative):

March 10, 2016

April 14, 2016

BZBA Minutes January 14, 2016

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

January 14, 2016 7:00 p.m.

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

Members Present: Roll Call: Kenneth Kemper, Larry Burge, Neal Zimmers, Bradley Smith and Jeff Gill.

Members Absent: None

Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planner, Michael King, Law Director

Visitors: Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Andy Franks, Sam Sagaria, Barrett Lawlis, Ben Rader, Bob Johnson, Tim Hughes, Chris Avery, and Jodi Melfi

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:

  • The applicant;
  • The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
  • The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and
  • 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:

  • Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
  • Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
  • Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

Mr. Gill shared that at the close of the December BZBA meeting, Board members came to a point where they had to table Application #2015-23 in the hopes of having time for further deliberation on the testimony presented. Mr. Gill added that at this time, the Board chooses to adjourn to deliberations. Mr. Burge moved to adjourn to deliberations at 7:02 p.m., seconded by Mr. Zimmers.

Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (yes) and Gill (yes). The Board went into deliberation.

The Board returned to the Chamber at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Gill called the meeting back to order.

Old Business:

119-123 South Prospect Street – 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.

Discussion:

Andy Rogers, 210 E Maple Street, stated there have been a total of 67 parking variance applications and to date none have been denied. Mr. Gill stated the Board would not be taking further testimony, that portion of the hearing was closed.Mr. Gill inquired of the Board for any statements to be shared with everyone, post deliberations.

Mr. Zimmers offered his opinion, reading a statement for the record. He began by stating Barbara Franks, the business owner, testified that she wants to regain patron seating she felt was taken away from here by an earlier Village order; that she had lost considerable revenue ($220,000); and that she felt the Village had not stopped the expansion of other (similar) businesses in the Village Business District.

Andy Rogers, also an owner, claimed a parallel between Taco Dan’s location, and a restaurant located on North Prospect Street, at the December BZBA meeting, and felt they are being discriminate against in parking for expansion. Mr. Zimmers stated that, in his opinion, there are a lack of physical similarities in the North and South Prospect locations.

Mr. Zimmers continued by stating, Law Director King said limited handicapped usage would be hard to enforce; that given past dealings with the owners, they cannot be trusted. Mr. Zimmers continued stating that Ms. Franks and her former attorney admitted that if one ‘handicapped’ individual used the expanded facility, everyone in their party would be able to use it as well. He continued stating that would open the door to easy abuse. He then read a definition of the term ‘disability’ according to the ADA. He added he is also unsure if the owners would comply with the limited handicap seating (should the parking variance be granted); he personally sees the request to accommodate handicap customers as a subterfuge for overall business expansion.

Mr. Smith added that he would be making comments following specific criteria. Mr. Gill stated that the Board had taken all testimony at their last meeting, had decided to carry over the matter in order for members to digest the considerable discussion and evidence and were ready to review the criteria related to the request.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-23:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill. Mr. Smith added that all buildings in the District suffer from the same types of problems that predate ADA accessibility and that he doesn’t find anything unique in this particular situation and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

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 stated, 4 FALSE; 1 TRUE (Mr. Smith).

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill added that the restaurant can continue to operate without the variance.
  • Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill added that he request is from four (4) parking spaces to zero (0) parking spaces.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper stated TRUE; Mr. Smith and Mr. Gillvoted FALSE, Mr. Smith added that he doesn’t feel it really changes the use of the property or altering the physical appearance; or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Smith stated FALSE; all other BZBA members stated TRUE. Mr. Smith added that the reason for his vote is because the variance is for parking spaces, testimony leads us to believe is that people don’t want the building to be used as it is being used at this time, and that he doesn’t feel the variance would make that much of a difference as to whether those properties would suffer substantial detriment Mr. Gill added that his vote because of the court order that governs the shared access and the possible conversion of that access not only for vehicular but personal access to the property.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill. Mr. Smith added the applicant testified that she was not aware and again, our tradition norm, which is legally well grounded is that it is know that this is a zoned community and people are aware of the restrictions when they purchase property.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The board members stated 3 True (Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge and Mr. Kemper), and 2 False (Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill). Mr. Smith added that he doesn’t feel it can to do what they want to do they need a variance. Mr. Gill also vote false there was a discussion in the spring about adding parking and the discussion was never revisited.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Smith stated TRUE; all other BZBA members voted FALSE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A Mr. Smith and Mr. King shared that this question is not applicable as the Board found in question a, there are no special circumstances related to the land or structures.

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, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Gill stated FALSE; Mr. Smith stated TRUE and added again he feels the most of the concerns discussed are conjectural at this point, Mr. Gill added that the shared drive as the sole access related to the expansion creates true grounds for concern whether we are talking about handicapped accessibility or the general public; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, Mr. Burge and Smith stated TRUE; Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Gill and Mr. Kemper stated FALSE, Mr. Gill added that while the Board appears to be split on this issue, there is concern for that; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Smith stated TRUE; all other BZBA members stated FALSE; Mr. Smith noted again that the ongoing issue is with parking in the (Core Business) District and that almost every business has that problem, and that we as a Board, nor as a (Village) Council, come up with a solution to the issue. Mr. Gill noted that as he has stated numerous times in the past, it is incumbent on Village Council at some point in the very near future –although he has been making this comment for about four years – to figure out how to address this issue without parking variances and congestion downtown, but promoting business and new opportunity downtown.

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 moved to Deny Application #2015-23, seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Smith (no) and Gill (yes). Motion Passed (4-1) to Deny Application #2015-23. 

New Business: 136 North Prospect Street – Jodi Melfi of Jodi Melfi Design, on behalf of Mathnasium (Diane Curtis) - Application #2015-180: 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 increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs allowed per building from one (1) to two (2), to allow the use of a sidewalk sign at 136 North Prospect Street, a.k.a. Mathnasium.

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, of Jodi Melfi Design, 130 North Prospect Street - #K, Granville, Ohio, stated, the business is a mathematics tutoring facility serving students in elementary through high school. The sign would only be out during business hours and it does not interfere with the pedestrian walk way. The sign would help clients locate the building from Broadway. Ms. Melfi also stated this would be the only sidewalk sign on the North Prospect side of the building; this will be the second sidewalk sign for the building, the first being permitted to Fly Method Cycle, LLC located around the corner at 230 East College Street.

The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2015-180:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill, and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

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

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

  • Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.
  • Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.
  • Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the varianceMr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.
  • Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Gill stated FALSE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.
  • Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.
  • Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a varianceThe board members voted 1 True, and 4 False.
  • Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/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, Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areasMr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Gill; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, Mr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred withMr. Gill; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streetsMr. Gill stated TRUE; all other BZBA members concurred withMr. Gill;

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 #2015-180, as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried ­­­(5-0).

Findings of Fact

Old Business: 119-123 South Prospect Street –Barbara Franks - Application #2015-23: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. The Board of Zoning & Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-23.

Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Zimmers (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried (5-0).

136 North Prospect Street –Jodi Melfi of Jodi Melfi Design for Mathnasium – Sidewalk Sign - Application #2015-180: 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 #2015-180.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-180. 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. Smith made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for April 30, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Zimmers (yes) Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Kemper (yes) and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for December 10, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Kemper (yes) Smith (yes), Burge (yes), and Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Burge made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Zimmers. Motion carried 5-0. 

The meeting adjourned at ­­­­8:01 p.m.

Next Meetings (Tentative):

February 11, 2016

March 10, 2016

April 14, 2016

 

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.