Granville Community Calendar

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.

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.