Granville Community Calendar

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

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.