Granville Community Calendar

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

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.