GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 13, 2002
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main,
Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair)
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld
Citizens Present: Sharon Sellitto, Joe Hickman, Ned
Roberts, Scott Hickey, George Evans, Brian Newkirk
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Citizens’ Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of October 28, 2002:
Ms. Lucier brought up a confusing phrase on Page 3, Line
5, about the fact that Mr. Dorman “has the authority to
cite…” This topic will be discussed later in this
meeting, so approval of minutes was postponed until next
George & Mary Evans, 126 S. Cherry Street – Fence
Mr. Dorman has initiated a new video system,
whereby he photographs a property on the agenda to clarify
what the site looks like. This historic wrought iron fence
was previously installed next door and before that it was
at the Opera House. The fence is 28 ½” high and is about
1’ from the sidewalk.
It is already installed, much to the despair of Sharon
Sellitto, who had to return to GPC three times with her
own application. She thought everybody should be treated
the same, and she was surprised to see how quickly the
applicant received a permit. Although Ms. Evans said she
wanted to install it before it rusted, Ms. Sellitto said
it would not have rusted that quickly. Joe Hickman said
Ms. Evans came to speak with him and she did try to go
through the process, and he wanted to be sure GPC was
aware of this fact. He also wanted GPC to try to find a
process by which to streamline the application process.
Mr. Parris has no problem with the fence but he does have
a concern that the applicant did not go through the
correct process. We have a lot of applications where
people have not received a permit or where they have put
up something other than what was approved. One reason for
a hearing is so that neighbors may have an opportunity to
express their concerns. Ms. Evans did speak to her
neighbors, who had no objections. One reason we see so
many after-the-fact applications or divergences is that
our Village Planner is conscientious about enforcement of
the zoning code.
Mr. Salvage thinks the fence is fine but it is unfortunate
it went through the process the way it did, but Ms. Evans
gets credit for trying to go through the Village Manager.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-142. MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian & Leslie Newkirk, 226 East Broadway – Identification
Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 2’x 6” hanging
identification sign at the back entrance of the front
porch for a separate tenant. It will be off white with
green lettering to match the Newkirk sign in front. The
chain will be the same only lighter in weight.
Mr. Newkirk apologized for applying for an after-the-fact
permit, but he has done so many things, he didn’t realize
he was remiss in this area. The tenant was anxious to
have a sign put up quickly.
Mr. Burriss noted there is consistency between the two
signs. When Ms. Lucier stated that only name and address
signs are permitted and this sign below the originally
approved projecting sign has an advertisement hanging from
it, Mr. Dorman said he and Mr. Salvage discussed this and
decided it was suitable. A projecting sign can have
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-143 AS
SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
Scott Hickey, 212 S. Main Street – Signs
The application is for several signs: (1) new 9.65 sq.ft.
sidewalk plastic sandwich board sign in the ROW with
attachable panels; (2) In the front of the Elms, a
proposed wall sign to be located under Cricket Hall’s
sign; (3) another Bakery wall sign to be attached to
stairs at the landing; (4) a valance sign on the canopy
over the door. Variances will be needed for the oversized
sandwich board and total number of wall signs.
Mr. Parris noted that for Sign (1), there are so
many sandwich boards in town, couldn’t this one be
adjusted to fit within the code. The 4 detachable
messages with a little handle bring it over 8 sq.ft., and
members discussed ways to bring this under compliance.
Mr. Burriss was concerned about visibility by cars leaving
the Elms parking lot. He suggested eliminating the
word ‘THE’ to allow space for the detachable signs, and
Mr. Salvage suggested approving the sign conditionally and
allowing the Village Planner to approve final design.
Regarding the total number of signs for one
business, (2) and (3) are incidental entrance signs and
could be combined as one sign and are crucial to direct
customers to the Bakery.
Mr. Burriss wanted Sign (3) moved farther away
from the garbage can.
MR. PARRIS MOVED FOR THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
FOR APPLICATION #02-144 TO ALLOW 3 VERSUS 1 WALL SIGN AT
THE ESTABLISHMENT. IT IS OUR FINDING THAT TWO OF THE
SIGNS MAY FALL INTO THE INCIDENTAL SIGNS CATEGORY, BUT WE
ARE APPROVING A VARIANCE JUST TO BE SAFE AND LEGAL. MS.
LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE TO THE
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 district. The building is unique in that
it is of multi levels
B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions
of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The building
was multi-level when he opened his Bakery.
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. That cannot happen.
E. 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. No, it would not.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-144 FOR: (1)
THE CANOPY SIGN AS IT EXISTS; (2) THE TWO DIRECTIONAL
SIGNS AS PROPOSED WITH ONE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF
THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE STAIRWELL AND THE OTHER AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE STAIRWELL DIRECTING THE CUSTOMERS TO THEIR
ENTRANCE; AND (3) FOR A SIDEWALK SIGN AND WE ASK THA THE
APPLICANT WORK WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER TO WORK OUT FINAL
PLACEMENT OF THE REMOVABLE PANELS. AS OTHER SIDEWALK
SIGNS IN TOWN HAVE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE AREAS, IT IS FINE
THAT THE REMOVABLE PANELS HAVE VARYING MESSAGES; THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE REGULATIONS FOR SIDEWALK SIGNS.
MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, 118 S. Main Street –
Temporary Change of Use
The church wishes to use a portion of the
downstairs to temporarily accommodate a consortium of
antique and craft dealers (Nest Feathers) from November 16
to December 28. They would use the front door on the
south end of the South Main facade. After that time it
would revert back to its current institutional use.
Village Council approved the temporary change of use last
Wednesday, and final approval will be granted by GPC.
Ms. Lucier asked whether it would have any signs,
and Mr. Parris thought they might need a sandwich board.
Temporary signs under 6 sq.ft. are allowed. Temporary
contractor signs should also be approved by GPC. Mr.
Parris’s objection is that they did not get their sign
application in at this time.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-145. MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ned Roberts, 348 E. Maple Street – Renovations
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to
rebuild an existing two-story rear addition and move the
existing shed. He does not have a demolition permit yet.
Mr. Roberts explained that the new gable roof
replacing the shed roof will tie in to the existing roof.
New siding will be added to the structure. The shed was
built without permit and is partially in the ROW of South
Granger Street. Mr. Roberts has agreed to move the
storage shed to meet the 10’ setback requirement. He
wants to open up the front of the house and put in a
foundation and rebuild the walls. He will use the dirt
from the excavation to level the new shed area.
He explained window and door details with corner
detail and wrap trim on windows for GPC members. The
siding will be cream-colored vinyl siding. The shingles
will be three-panel shingles to match the porch.
Mr. Burriss asked whether the shed could be
painted to match the siding, and Mr. Roberts said
eventually he wants to get rid of the shed and build a
garage, but in the meantime he could paint it to match.
Ms. Lucier noted that with all the projects he has
brought to GPC for other applicants, it’s nice for him to
have one of his own.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-146 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPROVAL IS FOR THE
DEMOLITION AND ADDITION AS THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED IT;
2) THAT THE ADDITION INCLUDING THE MAIN HOUSE WILL BE
SIDED WITH A VINYL CREAM COLOR SIDING; 3) THAT THERE WILL
BE CORNERBOARD, WINDOW AND DOOR SURROUND DETAILS; 4) THAT
THE ENTIRE ROOF WILL BE SHINGLED TO MATCH THE FRONT PORCH;
5) THAT THE SHED WILL BE MOVED TO THE AGREED UPON LOCATION
AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY 2003
TO DO THE RELOCATION OF THE SHED; AND 6) THAT THE
APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PAINT THE SHED IN A COMPLIMENTARY
COLOR TO THE HOUSE OR TO STAIN IT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Helmut & Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street –
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to
apply for a modification to delete the previously approved
side garage and extend existing driveway in gravel
straight back to the carriage house and install a one-car
garage door on it. The woodpile and chicken wire fence
will be eliminated. The overhead garage door would start
at the window and there would be a small turnaround. They
would like to put in a low picket fence around the
turnaround and plant flowers around. Also the applicant
wants to enclose the existing sunroom on the rear of the
Mr. Parris asked whether the proposed garage door
could blend in with the historic carriage house, and when
Mr. Burriss asked whether the entrance could be on the
side, the answer was No. He was very concerned about
adding a new door to a historic carriage house. It needs
to be done sensitively. Ned Roberts is not sure whether
applicants would paint the weathered carriage house, but
he thought the door could be sectioned and arched. Mr.
Burriss wants to see more detail on windows and wants them
to put on batten strips on the garage door so it would not
show. He would like to see a window in the garage door.
He wondered about the appropriateness of a new fence
abutting the rustic garage
Mr. Salvage thought we should set aside the
proposed garage and deal with the rest of the
They also wish to convert the sunroom and make a
four-season living space there. The footprint and roof
will not change but it will be enclosed by windows.
Ned Roberts, builder, explained that the porch has
footers and insulation and they want this area for living
space. The siding will match the house. Mr. Roberts
explained the details of the double-hung windows with
mullions. The front door is single French door. They
will use the existing antique door. All windows are 6
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICATION #01-
028 TO THE HOUSE ARE MINOR MODIFICATIONS. MS. LUCIER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #01-028M2 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE
DONE ON THE CARRIAGE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED FENCE
BE SUBMITTED TO THE PC IN A SEPARATE APPLICATION AS THEY
WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; 2) THAT FOR THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUNROOM, ALL WINDOWS WILL
HAVE A 6 OVER 6 GRILL PATTERN AND THE DOORS WILL BE 15-
LIGHT DOORS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT
ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE; AND 3) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL
BE ADDING AN ANTIQUE FRENCH DOUBLE-DOOR TO THE WEST
ELEVATION. THAT DOOR IS NOT SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION.
Finding of Fact:
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, C, D, AND E
UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER
6. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
Closing Comments: Mr. Dorman said when people build
things they do not have a permit for or modify what they
were given permission for, we do have authority to cite
them and call them into Mayor’s Court, where it would be
determined if a fine was appropriate. They of course
would have to come before GPC as well. He will change the
application form to make clear such consequences for
varying a permit. He would like to put something in the
paper to explain what they will be doing. There already
is a disclaimer statement, and he will add to it and put
it in the approval letter.
Joe Hickman said we try to be fair. Seth goes out and
spends time working for these things. It’s challenging
for us because contractors show up and can only work at a
certain time. He wants to hear how GPC feels about this
matter. We do need to advertise that enforcement will
MR. Salvage said that change is necessary sometimes.
After the fact items can be handled administratively as
long as they do not violate the code. There are some
times when people want to make changes after construction
starts, as long as it does not violate code. But we have
to be careful about setting precedents.
Mr. Parris said it’s not something to require basic
approval. Normally the addition of a window is not a
great change unless it is a historic building.
Mr. Dorman generally just drives by instead of
measuring things as long as they look OK.
If there are monetary consequences for violating
code, it should put a stop to it. Mr. Salvage said the
application must say, “I understand that I will be cited
and directed to Mayor’s Court for modifications.” Ms.
Lucier thought this issue would have the same effect as a
Mr. Burriss had three comments: (1) Does
something need to go to Mayor’s Court with comment from us
about it’s being widely out of acceptance? It could come
from the Planner, but there should be some indication of
the degree of violation. Mr. Salvage thought Mr. Dorman
could present it at Mayor’s Court.
(2) When you buy property in German Village, you
are given a set of guidelines saying you need approval and
this is what you should do. Could a set be given by
realtors to buyers? Mr. Salvage said ordinarily they do
get a statement like that where there are recorded
restrictions. Can such restrictions on record for the
historic district be given to all buyers? Mr. Dorman said
he was working with Village Council for businesses to tell
them who to go to for what, and we could do that here.
(3) We need to do a little bit of PR work. “This
is done to preserve the wonderful village we have.” It’s
a privilege to live here. He does not think some people
are aware of inconsistency. In their eyes it may be
improvement, but we have to be careful to preserve what is
so special. When we deal with issues in noncompliance,
the goal is preserving what we have. We must deal with
this positively, not punitively. Mr. Salvage wants to put
this into the zoning code with possibly a 90-day grace
Mr. Hickman wants to run this by the Law Director
and also Village Council. Mr. Main will take it to V.C.
Mr. Main thought a lot of people do not understand
the code and are quick to criticize what we do.
Adjournment: 9:35 p.m.
Next Meetings: November 25 and December 9
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION