Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 09/22/94

4
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Present:
Absent:
September 22,
Minut_en
1994
Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone
Lon Herman
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner·
Visitors: Brian Lindamood (Sentinel).Heather and Ray Titley (96
Briarwood)F, red Palmer (231 W. Maple),John Jessell(?21)6 (E.
College),Susan Burgin (100 Westgate Drive),Melissa Winters (318
Summit St.)M,ichael Caravana (209 E. Elm)
Minutes: August 25, 1994. Mr. Bellman had provided a rewrite of
the Bline section of the distributed minutes, and members preferred
his version. Mr. Krone moved to approve minutes with the
Bellman substitution for the Bline section. . Mr. Bellman
seconded, and MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Please be sure
the substitute is stapled to the rest of the minutes.
Citizen Comments: None
Old Business:
Susan Burgin, Cherry Valley Animal -Clinic, 100 Westgate Drive
Tabled from last meeting] Dr. Burgin wishes to receive a
variance for her two existing signs on the lot, a 24 sq. ft. sign
9- high, 15' from the roadway on Westgate, and one near. Route 16,
which is 72 sq. ft.,12 high and 30- from the highway. She repainted
the signs not realizing this change means the signs are
considered new signs. She needs a variance from the area
requirements and the number of,ground signs permitted per lot.
CJ / '114/-' Dr--- » +-J =jj 1- 41 KJ
As requested, Dr. Burgin has inestigated various possibilities
of changing her signage, i. e.,putting a sign on the
back of the building, which is impossible because of the way the
< ,building is constructedIr£m*oving the sign closer to theI_Z1A*-64- A9/ 1 buildingp#hdb if they move the sign backS*c:oming from the east,
16
i >
6h\ beet€usc- W, fl-thoo-t-her s6.4*16 peep=1e: would not be able to see the
Iljwbsf sviigenw; As."far
om the west there are bushes outside which will block the
as moving the sign parallel to Route 16, drivers
9 would have· to be right next to the sign in order to read it. If
she made the sign smaller, drivers speeding by would be unable to
read the sign and it would entail considerable expense. ,The
sign is sturdily anchored in cement. Other signs in the area are
large, i.e., W"endy's" (a lit sign) and the Leader-s "Printing,"
so Dr. Burgin does not feel her request is out of character. The
sign brings in a lot of business.
51)wjk4 7-6 -04 L4/ 1*
J.r-
Mr. Bellman stated that the sign is attractive with good
materials, wooden and painted, and is an improvement over its
predecessor, but the decision to be made tonight will affect all
future requests in the area. However, this lot is not under the
same zoning as the other three corners of the intersection, Mr.
Krone added. It is CSD, light industrial; therefore, according
to the criteria for variances, it. would not set a precedent for
ane-t-hsr zoning districts
Aju,ir,-6-06/Y« Ms. Caravana applied t he criteria to the application:
1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land or
structure which are not applicable to other houses in the area?
The special situation arises because of the pre-existing sign, - 1,
4
which was put up beforeAzoning and4-1Llle attention nap=a-4-4to- ci,u* j,
s-Uns. The structure has a kennel precluding a sign on the back. -2-rLl
Other businesses in that area have signs on buildings. Other 0..-121
businesses can just repaint their signs (or not, with impunity).
2) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the
zoning ordinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same area?It would because other
businesses in the area are able to advertise their businesses
with larger letters. Her sign is an aesthetically pleasing /
design, and the color scheme blends in well. The wooden ri-U, a
construction is in line with what,Re Abe looking for, and it is /
11' *f not lit. Its location behind the fGnce is another positive
feature. These businesses were constructed in a piecemeal 444
fashion, whereas new businessesw\ ill be developed morety - * '*
with the zoning ordinances in place. Other owners enjoy the4J7-
right to advertise, but csb: elis limited because of the circum-clu-2£2: 2*
stances of how her property 15 set up, and her business would
suffer if she had to erect a smaller sign.
3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the
applicant? No, because the circumstances were present when she
purchased the property. She did not create the circumstances.
She is not changing the location or increasing size of the sign.
4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any
undue privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area?
No, because they already have t+reT-- r*tr-a*dueest*e.6 / /r
5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,
safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working
in the area? The character of the area has already been
established, and the sign in question does not hurt the aesthetic ,
appearance; in fact, it is a pleasing wooden unlit sign.£FFXs far. A A /.U- as precedence goes, one sign granted a variance is an improve- t '-v"-1' '
ment, but ten more signs riding on coattails of this approval a-yw-+
E-j
would be displeasing. On the other hand, other properties will --,· be in a different zoning district and would need their own
approvals. 7
2
J OXY-+620»=»Sh l -
3
Mr. Krone suggested putting caveats on any future building
in the area, and if a new applicant was turned down, Dr. Burgin
would have to reduce her sign, but others felt this case should
be judged on its own merits to see whether it meets the criteria.
Perhaps the neighbors could be made award of the situation they
would face in submitting an application for sign changes. errtN:-EA -
ot.hee-rs-+nEEth-i-s mig--ht make people reluct'ant to repaint their Gf0- -
signs when they become shabby. Members:rOee'd* thatprecedences * ir'
neL,=a=p**en*for future applications on the other three corners.
I- EL«« If Dr. Burgin9s6ells2thra+e--b4u s)in4«e'As-s, the variance would run 41e'N€( A
with the 5155tnessr--*
ot-z'ize:la-nd . Any new sign would need to
apply for variance. Mr. Bellman suggested placing a time limit
after which the situation will be reviewed by 68€.Dr. Burgin 8 1-3/ 4/
reminded the group that she has suffered 'considerably with this
whole application and would not wish to go through such stress
again in five years or so.
Mr. Bellman suggested limilinL-thec- ritcti a to this
application, c,GAs-: izcT-STTY the special cirdumstances of the animal
clinic 5TFTT,a/n. m*uL-allowing prcccdcntidl reference in the
Setr*reCOMK r*one added that technical ly we <be-1·d bee-errecet-* deny thi-5/ application, but the special ci'rcumstances tend to
favorleapplicanrt.+6.c-«Z-k-1-<-* J. '<,
4-6,2c»-ra-l- < MR. KRONE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, AND
MR. BELLMAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Ms.
Caravana volunteered to submit a finding of f:ctl nA Y New Business:
r*}- 1.UY·-
V
Fred Palmer, 231 West Maple -Fence variance
The Palmers are requesting a variance for a 48" white picket
fence which has been partially installed » nd which will match an
existing fence. The variance is requested for the picket fence r
partially installed and the proposed fence along West Maple
Street. The existing chain-link fence was installed under an old
permit issued several years ago. The added height is to protect
their dogs from intruders; the height limitation for fences in
front yards in 42".Two neighbors stopped by the office to
indicAte their approval. The property is' on a shrubbery covered
hill, and the house is down from the road, so the fence would not
block anything anyway. 1
Members
variance:
applied the criteria to the application for
1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land or
structure which are not applicable to other houses in the area?
The fact that the house is set back 200' from the fence and that
the fence is above the level of the house constitute special
circumstances. The house is at the border of the residential
area of town, and the fence would not interfere with any
neighbors.
2) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the
zoning ordinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same area? There are other picket
fences nearby, and Mr. Palmer already has a partial fence.
3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the
applicant? The layout of the land is not a result of Mr.
Palmer' s action, and he needs a fence for his dogs. Originally
it was a pasture with a fence.
4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any
undue privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area?
No one has been denied a variance of picket fences in this area.
0@786 5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,
safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working
in the area? These areas would not bejaffected. Actually, the
fence is a very attractive design, and j.(t would help keep the
dogs contained. 1 - 1,
Mr. Krone moved to approve application; Mr. Bellman
seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meeting:
8: 00 p. m.
October 27, 7 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
1. .
Addendum to Minutes
Findings of Fact for Burgin Sign Variance Request
Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hearing September 22, 1994
Request: Dr. Burgin requested relief from the Granville Village sign
requirements which allow only one 35 sq. ft, ground sign and one 8 sq. ft.wall
sign per wall. Within the past year Dr. Burgin bought a veterinary practice
located at 100 Westgate Drive. When she bought the practice two ground signs
were in place, one 24 sq. ft, sign addressing Westgate Drive and one 72 sq. ft.
sign located behind the building 30' from Route 16. Dr. Burgin repainted the
signs, changing the graphics and colors, not realizing that, according to code,
this alteration made here signs new. Since the signs were considered to be new
by the Zoning Administrator, Dr. Burgin sought a variance to retain the two
existing signs in their present location.
Issue: The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals understood that the intent of
the Zoning Code section that applied to this case was intended to create
opportunities to bring non-conforming signs into conformance with current sign
standards. The Board was also very concerned with setting a precedent with
respect to sign standards in this rapidly developing area of the Village.
However, after careful consideration of the facts of this case, the BZBA arrived
at the conclusion that the particular circumstances of this case were unique and
met the Board' s criteria for approval.
a) Are there special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to
the land or structure which are not applicable to other land or structures
in the zoning district?
In this case the zoning district is limited to the northeast corner of the
intersection of Cherry Valley Road and Route 16 which is zoned Community
Service District. This area was developed before the existing zoning
ordinances came into effect. The 72 sq. ft sign has existed in its
existing location for a number of years and is not being enlarged or moved
in any manner. The building located on this property also presents
special limitations. Dr. Burgin would have practical difficulties in
erecting or painting a wall sign facing Route 16 because several fenced
kennels have been previously constructed on the south side of the
building, leaving no visible wall space. Painted wall signs are the
manner in which most other properties in this district have accomplished
signage needs on the south side of their properties.
b) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district.
Almost all other properties in the Community Service District have signage facing Route 16. Most of the signs are larger than Dr. Burgin' s and are
painted on the rear walls of each structure. A literal interpretation of
the zoning ordinance would put Dr. Burgin' s property at a disadvantage
compared to neighboring properties by taking away her ability to advertise in a similar manner.
1
c) Do the special circumstances and conditions result from actions of the
applicant.
Dr. Burgin bought the property and its signs in their existing condition.
Existing conditions, specifically the location of the kennels, prohibit
the erection of a conforming wall sign on the south side of the structure
facing Route 16. Dr. Burgin has not moved or enlarged the sign. She did
contribute to her dilemma by re-painting the signs without knowledge of
the zoning implications.
d) Would granting the variance confer on the applicant any undue
privilege denied by this ordinance to other lands and structures in the
same zoning district.
Other businesses in this zoning district have previously erected signs
which are "grandfathered". Most of these other existing signs are
actually larger and more visible than Dr. Burgin' s thereby serving their
function adequately. Undeveloped properties in other adjacent zoning
districts will have the opportunity to be developed in a more uniform
manner under the new zoning and signage requirements. Prospective
developers and property owners will be able to construct structures that
respond to the property' s signage needs and to the current zoning code
signage requirements and they will not have to deal with issues of preexisting
signs.
e) Would granting the variance adversely affect health safety and general
welfare of other persons residing or working in the area.
The character of the area in question is well established and the existing
72 sq. ft. sign has existed for a number of years. Approving the variance
will not adversely affect the general welfare by introducing more signage
or visual clutter. To the contrary, the recent painting of the sign has
enhanced its a6pearance.
In the future other pre-existing signs in this zoning district will
deteriorate and it is likely that other business may wish to upgrade signs
from time to time. An overly strict interpretation of the zoning code in
these cases might negatively affect the appearance and general welfare of
the zoning district. The Board did not want to set a precedent which
would encourage business owners to allow existing signs to deteriorate
rather than improving them. While bringing non-conforming signs into
conformance is generally preferable, the granting of variances similar to
the one granted to Dr. Burgin may be appropriate. While variance requests
will always have to be considered on the particular facts of each case,
the general consensus of the Board was that if there are practical
difficulties in bringing the sign into conformance or if improvements be made in can a pleasing manner without increasing the number, size or garishness of signs, a variance might be appropriate.

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 10/27/94

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 27, 1994
Minutes
Present: DanB- em*a*n, Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Gilbert Krone,
Eric Stewart
Absent: Dan Bellman
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner
Visitors: Greg Ross (536 Welsh Hills Road),John Ross (327 E.
Broadway)
Minutes: September 27, 1994. Extens ive revisions were suggested by
Ms. Caravana, and the most expeditious manner to explain them is to
retype them and include them here. Mr. Krone moved to approve
minutes as amended, Mr. Stewart seconded, and MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
John and Leta Ross, 484 South Main Street (IGA)
The Rosses are requesting approval of two new awning signs at
the IGA, which will need several variances from the new sign
ordinance. The vinyl canvas awning, red with white letters, will
be located at the north end of the building. The IGA symbol on the
awning is 12 sq.ft, and the phrase " Hometown Proud Market" is
approximately 5 1/2 sq.ft.,compared the maximum of 6 sq.ft.,and
positioned on the vertical drop, rather than on the specified
diagonal. The IGA oval material will be lit from lights mounted
under awning.
The current sign saying "IGA"will be removed if necessary.
Only 2 signs are permitted per business; there are currently 4, and
the Rosses are requesting a fifth. The maximum number of permitted signs on the lot is 4, and there would be 17 with the current application. The maximum sign area of any given building is 24
sq.ft. The variances necessary are 3: the excessive size of the
sign, having the sign on the diagonal of the awning, and for exceeding the maximum number of signs per parcel.
Mr. Ross indicated they will move out the Moore Pizza sign and insert the IGA's address instead. There is also a changeable
wleattlel.r sign there. Two wall signs are permitted, but only one per Ms. Caravana thought that considering the size of the building, two wall signs would be appropriate, but she would prefer
that the existing IGA sign be removed or moved to a different wall. Members felt that the IGA is one building and the other shops along there one building. Members considered whether the current application for two signs could be considered one sign. Mr. Krone
would prefer taking down the IGA sign on the Thrift shop door.
Mr. Krone applied the application to the criteria:
10/27/94
1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land or
structure which are not applicable to other houses in the area7
The store has only had the one little low identifying unlit IGA
sign on the building, and a sign needs to be visible from the
street, as permitted by the ordinance.
2) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the
zoning ordinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same area7 There are a lot of large
signs, pre-existing the zoning code, enjoyed by other businesses in
the area, and they are generally closer to the street. Two of
these businesses recently received variances for large signs.
Denial of permission to advertise in the requested manner would
deprive Mr. Ross of the same privileges his neighbors have.
3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the
applicant7 The business has been there for a number of years.
That the zoning code resticts the size is not of Mr. Ross's making.
He bought it before the code went into effect.
4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any undue
privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area7
Others in the area have not been denied variances. Mr. Ross is
making a reasonable request for a more appropriate identification
sign and upgrading the appearance of the building at the same time.
5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,
safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working in
the area? The sign would be appropriate and the subdued color
scheme appears to be attractive.
Mr. Herman moved that the application be approved contingent
to the following stipulations: that the the sign on the most north
door be removed, and the current IGA logo be removed or moved to the southern end of the west wall if desired, so as to not add any more signs. The variance will apply to the vertical portion well as the diagonal portion. Mr. Krone seconded, as AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Selection of Vice Chair. It was moved and seconded that Mr. Krone
be selected as Vice Chair, and SELECTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8 p.m.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, November 30, 7 p.m.

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 11/14/94

MEMO
Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals
Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner
November 14, I994
Meeting on Wednesday,November 30, 1994.
The November meeting has been canceled due to a lack of applications. The December
meeting is still scheduled for Thursday,December 22, 1994.
BZBA Closing Comments
The requested joint meeting of Council and BZBA has not yet been scheduled by Council. I will
notify you as soon as I am given a date by Council.
Bob Evans Restaurants is currently preparing their Conditional Use application. I would expect
for either the December or January meeting.

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 05/27/94

Ok
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May 27,1994
Minutes
Present: Dan Bellman,Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Chuck Meteer
Abse,11:
Also Present: Doug Tailford,Village Planner
Visitors: W.S. Klopfer (2402 Newark- Granville Road),Bryan Rapp (679 Burg),Susan Diduk/ Kent Maynard
335 N.Granger)G, eorge &Marian Calhoun 6(53 Burg)M, ary Kay Larimer 6(70 Burg)B, ryan Law 3(46 East
College), George Fackler (303 parker Street), Arabelle Reynolds (2489 Newark-Granville Road)
Minutes: Mr.Meteer moved to accepl minutes as prepared,Mr. Krone seconded,and the minutes of April
28, 1994,WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizen Cominents: None
Old Business
George Fackler,2362 Newark-Granville Road
A[) Plicatio,1 tabled from last,neeting.}Mr.Fackler is requesting a variance from the required selback
iii order to add to tlie existing warehouse. A setback of 60'is required when abutling a residential properly;
he would need a variance of 39:Height of theaddition will be 16'.The application has Granville Planning
Commission approval conlingent on BZBA approval of variance. BZBA members met at 7 p.m. this evening
lo perilse the $itualion causing conflict at Fackler'$.
Mr.Fackler explained that tl,e business is growing,and there is insufficient space to store vehicles,
causing an unsigt[l,y situation and inviting rust. The original building was built to proper setback regulations
with no variances,but with Ille new zoni,18 codified,these no longer apply. He wants to go no higher than
tlie lowest port of (le eave; it would be a pole barn type of building,as it,conspicuous as possible.
Ms. Caravana began to apply specific criteria but met with the unique zoning situation and the
cthorneceerrenassoonfsthwehnyetihgehvbaorrisa.ncTerosyhoaunlddSntoatcbeeygBruatnleter d2(:31 8()8aeNsethweatircksG-,2r (a)pnrvoilpleertRyodeavdah)lau.datwiornittfeonr thaelenteteigr hcbitionrgs, 3( )
at,d safely cor,cert,3 with more traffic at the business. Mr.Klopfer,another neighbor,was also concerned with
what would.happen in the fulure
m,&40'ju#,d¢ . 0&#156£*<44#.<
Mr.Hurst Iwad staled (lkal fackler'$is ap*mitted use under the old and under the old ordinances,andU
Me. Fackler legally may expaid, tlie warehouse) Tliere are two parcels.the warehouse and lhe resident4ia4l#/- house;the other buildilig,the retail business,is on another properly- Members questioned Mr. Fackler about 0 j
possible alternatives for expansion Iii order to avoid a variance,but he informed the group 11,at he has already
corisidered other options and some of the problems would be. (1)traffic would have to loop around the house
2) il's arcl,itecturally impossible and tlie roof would leak if extended atiother way,3 ()he would need another
variance for a 96'warehouse. i
Mr, Meteer was concert,ed about a con,merclal property abulting a residential dwelling,a proximity whidi tlie ordinat,ce separated by its 60'setback requiremetil,a,id saw no hardship on Ihe owner;l (,erefore,
a variance should not be granted. Also,we are not denying him a,Trt!in,g we are granting someone else.
ID: 614 227 4492 PAGE 3/4
A Al A.' A.
i
1
i
JUN-23-94 03: 06 FROM: PORTER WRIGHT
0 -1 9 ZJ Z PAGE 3/4
2
Mr.FackMleermabsesrusrewdertehecognrcoeurpnetdhaalto n(gwilhtrie neigliborsabouttheunkemp{situationoftheproperty,and expai,sion.I.le is willing to clean upI,taisndwoheuldhopbeesptahretlynesioglivbeodrsbwyipllulting velilcles into zlie warehouse do the same. The fence does not belo,ig to Fackler's,bul lie is willitig to laridscape If (I,e fence is removed. MS.CARAVANA MOVEDTO APPROVE THE VARIANCE and applied the criteria: ( thpeerceiawlecriercsupneiscitaalicceirscupmecstualniacretsobtehcealuasnedtohersbturuilcdtiunrgewwahsicinhacorennfoormtaapnpcleicabletootherhouses1in)Athreeathreerae? oitfw1a1es'zbouniilnt.gMordr.inKaronnceedperopvriidveedapinppliuctaai,tlsooffroigrh t1(s)and 2()W,ould a literalwinitthersperetbtaactikonreqoufitrheempernotsviwsihoenns Facklers' landisnotsimilarlootlerproperties,sospceocmiamlcoirncluymesntjaonyceedsbpyreovthaeilr.propertiesinthesameareat notgrant3ltig)Dhoilntheavsapreiacniaclecwircouuilndstdaenpcreivserehsimultoffrowmhaatdoiotlne,srshave,althoughitwoAuf,sld.Cbaeraavnaninacdoindvneontiethnicnek. ofll,e applicant?Thebusinesshasexpanded
as far as it can without a variance.
to other4$in)Wthoeualdregari?ntGinrganttliinegvtair,iatcecorf,er o(applicantaly, undue privilegedeniedbytlils ordinance e vallance probablywould confer undueprivilegesbecause there isno
ocher business out tliere.
residgi„o5r)wwooruklidnggrinantthinegatrel,aeTvakriawnocueldadverselyaffecthenttlis,afetyandgeze,ralwelfareofolle,rpersons ofthebusiness. Ageneralcleanu-pappliecsertotatinhlisycafrfietectriootnh.eArplseoo,ple,butitwould tidy upmeappearance that there isan abundanceofevidence thatno otherway toexpandMhisrwFaacrekhleorunseeedasndtosactoisnfvyinthceethegroup wexaisrittsedwiathssinurta!teic,ceos d1(e1,i.eI*,e .a(l,n,ouLsse-w!a,poeudldbureilmdaining.aMrers.Kidreonnceew,raantlteerdtahnanenregvineretienrgs'pointofview.Mrn.eBieglhlmboarns 1 f o u r.etireelhteo1lu,s-9e4,typfeeolHfela*n,d*es9ca0-p*in*gtoeb*lei.inMst"ra.llBedelaI[nnadnm1ao!inu,tgaliitnaedw,rittencommitmetontcdoemsmcreibricniagl.uusrep l4a n 5s** tMo ra.dFdacpkllaenrsfeflotrhaedhdardeaslsreinadgye ,i)pgroib,voidresd'cohniscerarnlisonaaboleu,theincarcecaespeteddanthdismaasisnitganimnienngthesourto n e'ew.anAtlethdouhgimh NewarkG- ranville Road. MOTION FAILED FOR LA u
MS.CARAVANA MO AND 1 NO ( Mr. Meteer).
Py, trt
riveway to the residence on I COND.
0 TABLE THE APPLICATION. VOTE PASSED SY A VOTE OF 3 AYES
tfu ve·l€V410 t l t\ Sc«, R,tdiot 4, A-"«4 , /. ,-,-0 J .-a ranger crri#r'k*. refS, { ':F 0 9/ Susan Ddutl.td Kent Ni1; 9i,r;i};j6 -3 Atfil(t*-
lieirhomTIe,e,wohwicnhersneweidssh to remove existing screet,porch and construct an L-shaped addition to theback of receivedarchitecturalappraovvaarliafrtoicmetohfe1G6'P"Cfr.oTinltetlyiehanvoertahttseidmepsteedtbackrequirementof 10'.Thishas already aspossible. ThespecialcircumstanceIsthalthehouseilselfalreadytsoitbsewaisthcionntshisete1n0tw'reitqhutihreemoreigninta,anldhouse ntheeedremmoorveaslpoafcleilefoprothrechla,tuhnedaryddroitoiomnawnodubldatbhero6om"fatrhtheeyrefnrovmisitohne,alontdlitnheepthlaunmtbhiengporchwas. Theowwneitrhs arth2!s-IMr..FBer]nImauaititpoil inet*hd'-etid,Jocrnitoetriwaant tosacrificeanydrivewayspaceortruncatoenthlyearllooowfsfineex.pansion 1)Are there special circu to the ap 1)- ' . peculiar to the land or structure which are not agEc#able to
Ier houses 1,2 th
Other houses 2)would a' t e;ral intefpretatiot)of tlie provisions of t!e,zoning ordinatice deprive applicant of
VG rightscoin,o¥n,lyenjoyedbyoilierpropertie$intikesamearear Olle,rhornesin theareahavefamilyrooms.
f6,814 -227-4482 ---
j
j
1
f
i
i
pA-d- E-4--4/ - ---
24A;w-,C-Eaf
0214 604-M_R 1.0*73
rhe bogie requires more square feet,and <lils is the only practical way to do it.
3)Do the sl,ecial circumslances result from actions of the applicant?The owners did not build the
homf|Term. erer*we8i6ncr*ea-se1- m*r,SIYace lo aaner1€0-r-rnoree- or1tempefefr4eife** r-- 4) Would grantitig tlie varialice confer to applicant any undue privilege denied b ce
lo others in the areaT Olliers in the area erijoy tile same privileges Oiduk and Maynard wan ndwould
be aesthetically pleasing. VOL *i441*
5)Would granting the variance adversely affect health,safety and general welfare of ot e
residing or working in the area? No. The plans have been well thought out and will. blend with the
neighborhood.and it would appear to be an enhancement.
MR.BELLMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION;MR.METEER SECONDED,AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bryan and Christine G. law, 346 East College Streer
Tlie Laws wish to expand tlie current carporl from 12'to 18'or,d build a 12'x12'storage garage in
the back of ilie carport. The cart,ort will need a variance of 9'6"from the side yard setback and the storage
garage will require a varia,ce of 7'from tile side yard requirement.A dead tree would have to be removed.
Tlie immediate neighbors to tlie west, Mr. Kessler and Ms. DeZwarte. are in favor the the application;
however,they believe U,e driveway should not be widened ail the way to the street,only next to the carport
entrance in order to preserve the shrubs. They also wish for the Laws to put lattice work and plants on the
side of tlie carport to lessell tlie impact of two cars being parked very close to tlieir properly,and Mr. Law
stated tliat he would mainlain che [andscapilig and install a lattice. He stated that he has no outdoor storage
and additional garagec/arport space wi 11 help protect his cars and keep the second one off the street. A twocar
garage requires a 16'door,and l,e ca,not decrease tile space between the cars because of a supporting
post il, tlie middle.
Corisiderable discussion ensued about lile practicalitiesof this application. Ms.Caravana did not think
that every lot In the village can have a two-car garage. Even though KessleDr/elwarte are not opposed,she
wanted to take a lons view,and this approval for a 6 variance would affect rheir property. By denying this
applicatio,i, BZBA would not deny whal oc!ers in the neighborhood have,and she would prefer a storage
somewliere else on the property. Mr.Bellman added that owners should be able to add on to their homes
but there are limits on the Law properly 50 close to tile lot line,atid he did not think the application met the
crileria. Mr. Law said there is a close neighbor with a new two-car garage. Ms. Caravana suggested an
enclosed one-and-a-half car garage,but Mr.Law would not want todo that. Mr.Meteer would have problems
willi a closed garage,not.an open carport. A closed garase would need more than 6'setback.
MR. KRONE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION CONDITIONALLY UPON ITS BEING
LIMITED TO THE EXISTING 3'SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT,AND IT 51·IALL ALWAYS REMAIN AN OPEN
TYPE GARAGE,AND THE DRIVEWAY SI-A[ ll NOT BE WIDER THAN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. TIME
EXISTING 51-IRUBS ON KESSLERD/EZWARFE PROPERTYWILL REMAIN IN PLACE AND MAINTAINED. MR.
METEER SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. 1-le applied the criteria to (he application:
1) Are there special circus,l„a,ices peculiar to the land or structure which are not applicable to
otl,er 1,ouses in tlie areal livis is a corner lot willi limited space because the house is so big and placed on
lie center of the lot. It is debatable wl,ettier there are a majority of (wo-car garages in tlie neigliborhood,so tl,is issue was mool.
2)Would a litcral inleri)relatiot, of [I,e provisions of the zoriir,g ordinance deprive applicant of
riglits com,„only enjoyed by other properties in ti,e same area?Agait,s,ome oilter homes il,the area have
stornge rooms atid twc>ca. r carporls in violatioll of the ordinance.
3)Do tlie special circutristances resc,lt fron,actions of ihe aliplicat1,( The house was built at an
1
t
i
F.LI
fi
3,&r
PORTER,WRIGHT,
MORRIS &ARTHUR
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
41 South High Street
Columbus. Ohio 43215-3406
Main Telephone #6:1 4( )227-2000
Main Facsimile Telephone #6:1 4()227-2100
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
SENDER'S FACSIMILE RECEIVING t. ( 614)227- 4492
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR OR F YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS
RECEIVING THIS COMMUNICATION, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
DATE:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT, WORK PRODUCT, OR OTHER LEGAL PRIVILEGE.
THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
ENTITY NAMED AS RECWENT. IF THE READER OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
THE DrrENDED RECPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFE[D THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
USER R 43 CLENT/ MATTER #:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET 9
REMARKS: #AA 1 OLe d240 5cvq4. p./fj ne-o-046444
Q 1' -14 t U n g= N .4 4 - '*-
FROM:
Daniel A. Bellman
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE SENT BY:
0 ORDINARY MAIL
0 MESSENGER
m
PHONE #:
227-2220
0 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE
0 THIS WILL BE THE ONLY FORM OF DELIVERY
Naples.Florida · Washington,D.C.
XEMM-F 1
Cincinnati • Cleveland • Columbus • Dayton •
PLEASE DELIVER TO:
NAME:
FIRM: 436U' l t*q 1 ZoHT.EJ 1«ae7** CITY:
FACSIMILE #: CONFRMATION #:
earlier date with insufficient storage space, and tlie zoning code was being modified at the time he bought the
liouse.
4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any undue privilege denied by this ordinance
lo others in the areal Others have not been denied similar privileges in the area.
5)Would granting the variance adversely affect health,safety and general welfare of other persons
residing or working in the areal No. The appearance of two cars in a small spot might not be as aesthetically
pleasing, but most families now have two cars and need room to park them. We are deciding on the greater
weight in regard to tlie facts. Mr. Krone added that it's hard to apply new criteria to 60-year-old houses and
we want to follow tile spirit of tlie ordinance while not depriving the owner of enjoying and improving his
properly.
TI-IE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3 AYES AND 1 NO (Mr. Bellman).
Brian Rapp, 679 Burg Street
Mr. Rapp wishes to construct a 22'x24'detached garage with loft, requiring a variance of 5' from the
side yard setback requirement of· 14' in SRD. Special circumstances exist precluding his building anywhere
else because of the peculiar location of tlie liouse on the lot and because of the hill and because he does not
want to put the garage in front of tlie house or on top of tlie leechbed. The nearest house is quite far away
froin the proposed garage location.
Ms. Caravana addressed the criteria:
1) Are tliere special circumstatices peculiar to tlie land or structure wlilch are not applicable to
other houses iii the area? This is a small house willi limited space to add on because of the special
topographical circulnstances and location of tlie house on the lot.
2) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of tlie zoning ordinance deprive applicant of
rights commoily enjoyed by otlier properties iii tlie sanie areal While there are no other nearby homes in
similar situatiotis, no particular harm would ensue to approve the variance.
3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the applicant?The house was bought without
a garage,and he feels entitled to one. The unique lot circumstances were there when he bought the property.
4) Would granting tlie variance confer to applicant any undue privilege denied by this ordinance
to others iii the areal Others have not been denied similar privileges in the area.
5)Would granting the variance adversely affect health,safety and general welfare of other persons
residing or working in the areal The house is well screened and should not affect any neighbors. In fact,
retaining several trees enhances the general welfare.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED 10 APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A 7' SETBACK FOR A 22' GARAGE.
MR. BELLMAN SECONDED AND I r WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjoumme,it: 10:30 p.m.
Next Meetig„: Thuisday, June 23, 7.30 11.iii.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Thursday
Jun092016

BZBA 06/23/94

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
June 23,1994
Mitiutes
Prese,it: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Lon 1-lerman Gilbert Krone,
Absent: Chuck Meteer
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner
Visitors: W.S. Klopfer (2402 Newark-Granville, Road),George Fackler (303 Paiker Street),Troy Butler (2388
Newark-Granville Road),Rachel Demis (Columbus),Fritz Rizor (9844 Burg),Jon Ulmer
Minutes: Mr. Bellman made some recommendations to the mitiutes of May 26:
Utider Fackler,Paragraph 4, line 1, "F.a.c.kler's is a permitted use under the old ordinance,and Mr.
Fackler legally may expand the warehouse under the 'use' criteria. At issue before the board was whether an
atea' variance should be granted. . . ."
Page 2 under Section (5),Line 6, "rat.he.r.than reverting lo commercial use,which was relevant
to the screening of the expansion under the 'health, safety, and general welfare' criterion. Mr. Bellman
thought. , . ."
Page 2, Section (1) under Diduk and Maynard after the question mark: " Yes, it merely extends the ,
liouse,built by previous owners. It will be built consistent with existing structures and tliere will be no further
encroachment into tlie setback."
Page 3, line 3: "The owners did not build the home.,and thus the building line was created much
earlier by previous ownersan.d.t.h.e addition would be aesthetically pleasing."
Mr. Krone moved to approve minutes as corrected, Mr. 1- lerman seconded, and the motion was
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizen Com,Fients: Notie
Old Business
Geoige Fackler, 2362 Newark-Granville Road
Application tabled from last meeting.}Mr. Fackler is requesting a variance from the required setback
in order to add to the existing warehouse. A setback of 60' is required when abutting a residential property;
he would need a variance of 39'.1-leight of the additioti will be 16'.The application has Granville Planning
Comnlissioti approval contitigent on BZBA approval of variatice.
Troy Butler expressed concern witli the Warehouse dominating the view from his house; he felt it
would be better if set back to the required setback. Mr. 1-lerman asked whether an enlarged warehouse might
provide space for equipment presently kept outside, and Mr. Butler felt that it might but that it also might
create more business and traffic. Eveii a warehouse as big as proposed could not contain all the vehicles
outside. Ms. Caravana asked how Mr. Butler would feel about a large new warehouse built on the property
and reniinded him that Fackler's could, withiti tlie zoni,ig ordinance, still expand quite a bit. Mr. Butler said
he had not considered this. Neighbors were also concerned about aestlietics in general and possible property
devaluation. Mr. Krone reminded Mr. Butler that if the expansion took place to the north in an L-shaped
building, he would not need a variatice and public iliput would not be possible.
1
Mr. Fackler brought to the nieeting requested at last meeting: i.e.,1 () an engineer's viewpoint of
possible alternative plans, 2()assurances tliat the house will remain a residence,3 ()future plans for the house,
4) type of landscaping to be done, 4()plans for maintaining the south side of the property, and addressing
neighbors' concerns about iticreased use of tlie driveway to the residence on the east. (1) 1-le brought iii some
revised drawings of his proposed 24'x96' addition, assuring the group that he had his neighbors' concerns in
mind. Ile explained the drawbacks of expanding anywhere else, i.e.,increasing height of the roof. ( 2)He
promised no increased traffic tior parking problems and worked out his plans in order to maintain safe
operation of trucks as far away from where children play as possible. Lengthy discussion took place over the
abovementioned issues and possible alternatives. Mr. Fackler was unable to predict what might happen to
the property in the future and hesitated to make proinises lie might not be able to keep.
3) If the house is torn down or nioved, immediately a screen will be installed as a buffer of natural
landscaping, evergreens and deciduous trees. If the fence deteriorates, Fackler's will repair or replace it with
landscaping. Fackler's have no plans to change the house. A fence of even 8' high would not screen the
warehouse from the house, and Fackler's prefers landscaping. Mr. Fackler foresees no additional noise levels.
4) Clean-up has already beguii {applicant shows photographs} and promised to keep the area
orderly. A monitoring niechanism was discussed, aiid Mr. Fail ford assured the group that the neighbors would
keep him informed,but without a commercial maintenance code, his enforcement powers are limited. Mr.
Fackler said that if it becomes necessary to park a vehicle outside overnight, it will be moved first thing in the
moini,ig.
In answer to Mr. Fackler's questioti about what could be stored back there,the group was divided.
Leaving ati avenue for fire vehicles was foremost, and precluding unsighuy views from the neighbors was
impottant. A felice would hide most of the area. An area 5' high and 5'out from the building was discussed.
The exhaustive concerns now boiled down to four: ( 1) the spacein fro,it of the business, ( 2)the area
between the residence and the business, ( 3)keeping the place clean in cooperation with the Zoping Inspector,
and limiting the quantity of junk and allowing a neat storage pile 5' high, and (4) replacing the fence or
landscapitig to be agreed upon with Mr. Butler, and traffic limitations on the property.
Mr. Bellman began sorting the above conditions into a formal motion, with Mr. Herman seconding,
and tlien the criteria could be addressed.
1. Visual Barrier o,1 North Side
The property owner will maintain a visual barrier at the nortli side of the property, facing Newark-
Granville Road, so as to visually shield tlie warehouse from the road. This will be accomplished in one of
Iwo ways:
A. The owner will maintain the building immediately north of tlie warehouse as-a-Fesidenee- and will
maititain the current trees and other landscaping in that area or
B. If the house is removed at some point iii the future, the owner will install landscaping, including
conifers and deciduous trees,to shield the warehouse from the view of Newark-Granville Road. I f the properly
ow,ier undertakes this second option, the trees itistalled will be of sufficient landscape height (conifers 5' to
7' tall;deciduous trees at least 10'to 12' tall)and the trees should be of a variety that will hide the warehouse
within a few years.
2
11. Visual Barrier on East Side d
Board members were coycerned about the impact of tlie warehouse expansion on the adjoining
property owner on the east sideAc/cordingly, the Board conditioned its approval on a visual barrier being
maintained to shield the east side owner's house froin a view of the warehouse. This will be accomplished
in one of two ways:
A. Tlie current fence and tree line betweeli tlie properties will be maintained or
B. If the fence deteriorates or the tree line is eliminated,the property owner,in coordination with the
east side owner, will either
1. Provide a new fence.a-edteHreeli-ne or
2. Install landscaping which includes 5'7-' conifers and 10'1-2' deciduous trees staggered in
a 15' wide buffer strip from the southwest corner of the east side owner's property.
The main purpose of this condition is to shield the east side owner's house from a view of the warehouse.
To accoinplish tliis, the barrier shall extend from a point beginning at the southeast corner of Fackler'spropertyI / (
extending northward to a point 35' iii front (or tiorth)of the warehouse. The Board encouraged the-PIpect¥ e
gorwonwenr btoy btheegintimtheethlaendfesnccaepidnegtedreiosrcaritbeesd. in Section 2 immediately so that the landscapingwould be fully 3, ,
Ill. Maintaining a Neat and Orderly Appearance and Reduci,ig a Fire Hazard
The perimeter of the property surrounding the warehouse shall be maintained in a neat and orderly
manner willi no debris or stored items being placed near the property line. On the south side the property
shall be maintained in this manner from the southeast corner of the property heading west to a point 20'west
of the warehouse. On the east side, the area to be maintained neatly starts at the southeast corner of the
property heading northward to a poitit 35' north of the warehouse, including the new addition. The only
exceptions to this condition areas follows:
A. Storage is allowed 01,tlie east side of the building, stacked neatly,no more than 5' from the side
of the building and no more than 5' high, as long as the visual barrier described in Condition 11 is
maintained and
B. The board is willing to consider another exception for the south side Of the building, but only if
requested by the properly owner for review at another meeting of tlie board,at which time testimony
will be taken.
IV. Nortl,east Driveway
The driveway at the northeast side of the property on Newark-Granville Road, will not be used as a
pi imary ingress or egress for commercial vehicles of Facklet's business.
Agreet,ie,it
The property owner understands that the variaiice has been granted based on these conditions and,
through his acceptance of this variance request approval, the property owner agrees that tiese conditions are enforceable by the Village of Granville.
1
Criteria:
The Board then applied the criteria of the zoning ordinance to the conditions stated for approval:
1. Are there special circumstances peculiar to tlie latid or structure which are not applicable to
other houses iii the area?This is the only area zoned commercial in this area. The property was brought into
the village several years ago and was in conformance with all zoning codes when it was built.
2. Would a literal i,ilerpretation of the provisions of the zonilig ordinance deprive applica,it of rights
coli,ino,ily e„joyed by other properties in tlie saine area? Agaiti, the situation is unique and no other
businesses exist iii tlie area. Adhering to the minimum setback would deprive him of expanding his business
iii the way he deems most appropriate.
3. Do the special circumstances result from actions of the applicant? When he purchased the
propei'ty the business was smaller and could be contained within the buildings extant, but increased business
requires more storage space. Again, tlie situation is unique to the area.
4.Would granting tlie variatice confer to al,plicant ai,y ui,due privilege (lenied by tl,is ordinance to
olliers in the areal No other busitiesses exist;therefore, none have made application. All due consideration
has been granted to neighbors by botli tlie applicant and the Board.
5. Would granting the varialice adversely affect health,safety and general welfare of other persons
residing or working in the areal The board and the applicant have worked diligently to address all concerns
to not only protect the health, safety, and general welfare of neighbors but also, hopefully, to enhance the
neighborliood by a general cleati-up. The Board feels that it has worked hard to create a solution that they
think will address tlie concerns of the owner and the neighbors as well as the Board.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE TI-IE ABOVE CONDITIONS;MR. BELLMAN SECONDED,AND
Tl-IEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY API'ROVED.
Adjouri,ine,il: 10:30 1)in..
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
Board ofZoning B&uilding Appeals
Please sigii iii belo,v
498-3-1·-q
ATTENDANCE
NAME ADDRESS
U-M-_t<BLZ 4)36% 0 2 -4 0)·tk i.c.3,02