Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 12/23/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

December 23, 1993

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Gilbert Krone, Chuck Meteer, Ron Winters

Absent: Ashlin Caravana

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Judy Duncan, Boxes & Bows

Minutes: Minutes of November 30 were approved. as distributed.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Judy Duncan, 474 South Main

Ms. Duncan is applying for a variance to replace her sign at

Boxes &Bows with a new 14 sq. ft. wooden sign not extending more

than 4' from the face of the building, 10' from the ground,

professionally made, and externally lit. She plans to remove the

current Pepsi sign; the total area of the current two existing

signs is ca 14 sq. ft. Ms. Duncan explained that she is moving

her business into the space previously rented by the Moore Pizza

and would like to make that side of the building more attractive.

Since her business is around the corner from the main center of

business, she needs a sign to show location. As was the case

with Mr. Gordon' s video shop, other businesses in the area have

larger signs, and an attractive sign larger than the maximum 8

sq. ft. would enhance survivability in that location. Although

Boxes &Bows is not dependent on pass-by traffic, people need to

be able to find her shop. She has not yet decided whether to

place an insert in the big informational sign in front of the IGA

complex.

Mr. Krone applied her needs to the current ordinance document:

1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land

or structure which are not applicable to other businesses in the

area? Because her business is around the corner from the normal

store traffic, special circumstances suggest that a sign so

described would be appropriate. (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? Since other businesses there have storefronts facing the

main road, this request is not in excess of what they already

enjoy. 3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of

the applicant? No, she did not create the situation; the space

she desired to rent was entirely suitable for her business,

albeit less visible. (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 appropriate signage.

5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health, safety

and general welfare of other persons residing or working in the

area? The sign will be maintained in such a way as not to create

a hazard; it will be at least 10' from the roadway and will be an

improvement over the existing Pepsi sign.

Mr. Winters informed Ms. Duncan that BZBA has the right to

ask her to conform with other lighting in the area, and she is

agreeable to this stipulation. Based on these criteria, Mr.

Krone moved to approve the request for variance of a 14 sq. ft.

maximum sign. Mr. Winters seconded, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Adjournment: 7:25 p. m.

Next Meeting: Thursday, January 27, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 11/30/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

Present:

Absent:

November 30, 1993

Minutes

Dan Bellman, Gilbert Krone, Chuck Meteer, Ron Winters, Ashlin Caravana

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Chip Gordon (Granville Video),Larry Palur (2256 River

Road)

Minutes: Minutes of October 8 were unanimously approved as

distributed.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Chip Gordon, Granville Video, 478 S. Main Street

Mr. Gordon wishes to put up a 14 {actually 13. 3} sq. ft. sign

to enhance visibility over and above the maximum 8 sq. ft size.

Granville Planning Commission has recommended approving the

increased size because the setback is so deep. Mr. Gordon

explained that he desires to respect the wishes of the community,

and the sign, saying "Granville Video" with a logo, will be placed

on the wall and lit from behind. Other businesses in the area have

larger signs, he said, and an attractive sign larger than 8 sq. ft

would enhance survivability in that location. The sign will be

white· letters on a blue background with the graphic in gold. There

will also be an insert in the big informational sign in front of

the IGA complex.

Mr. Krone felt that in a commercial district Mr. Gordon is entitled to have a large sign to advertise his business, particularly since other signs in the neighborhood are larger, sign but the at the entrance should be taken into consideration also.

Mr. Meteer explained the criteria under which variances are approved, and one is that undue hardship is not placed upon the owner, but the entire sign ordinance needs to be taken under consideration, not just the grandfathered signs already in place.

Mr. Winter asked whether the Planning Commission considered in their deliberations, and Mr. Tailford indicated they did not. Mr. Gordon had not thought of front 1 illumination but will take it under consideration. Mr. Palur said that back lighting is not in keeping with the town and the big open storefront offers added visibility. Mr. Winter suggested that Mr. Tailford mention this lighting concern to Mr. Pape, Chair of the Granville Planning Commission, with the understanding that BZBA feels strongly about preferring front illumination.

Considerable discussion arose on placing conditions on

conditional use variances and felt the group should be able to do

so, insofar as an application for variance is already veering from

the ordinance norm. Mr. Gordon then promised he would light the

sign from the front.

Mr. Winters moved to approve the application for the variance

with formal notification to GPC that illumination will be changed

to the front of the sign. Mr. Krone seconded, AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Tailford will contact Mr. Pape about

this stipulation, and this finding will be recorded in the Minutes

for future reference.

Mr. Krone referred members to the five criteria for approving

variances, four of which offered no problems for Mr. Gordon, but

the special circumstances surrounding Health, Safety, and General

Welfare initiated a discussion on whether 'general welfare' could

preclude BZBA from approving an application if the members find

certain aspects of an application distasteful. Only the size is

under consideration here, and the GPC deliberates on the

aesthetics, but the BZBA wants to feel free to make stipulations

when appropriate.

Adjournment: 8: 00 p. m.

Next Meeting: Thursday, December 23, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 10/28/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

October 28, 1993

Minutes

Present: Gilbert Krone, Chuck Meteer, Ron Winters

Absent: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Tinker Pine (607 Stublyn),Chris Avery (343 Cedar),

Barbara Vockel (72,5 Burg)

Minutes: Minutes of September 22 require some correction: Page 1,

correct spelling of Mr. Steyn' s name, line 5.

Mr. Bellman improved upon language on Page 2, Para. 2: Change

his" to Mr. Steyn's" and change the "He" to "The Owner" . .

Board approved the request under very special circumstances, which

were as follows: Mr. Steyn had agreed to provide extensive landscaping

on the side of the fence facing his neighbors, thereby

largely. disquisinq the fact that the fence was not compliant with

1187. 03( b) (3). Also, the fence was in the rear of Mr. Steyn' s

property and primarily visible only to his immediate neighbors.

The obligation is on the contractor and owner to fulfill all

requirements of the zoning code. The primary responsibility,

however. is on the person who is having the work done.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Licking County Historical Society, Robbins-Hunter Museum, 221 East Broadway.

Dr. Avery, representing the Museum, wishes to place a garden

storage shed 4' from the east property line. He explained that for

aesthetic purposes it would look better closer to the property

line, and they want to keep it out of sight as much as possible.

To place it farther back on the property precludes access to the

compost pile, and if it were back at the rear it would be visible

from the street. Board members deemed it inappropriate unsolicited letter from to read an

directly relevant a community member since it was not to this application.

Mr. Krone moved to grant the variance because although the

circumstances are not unusual, the other criteria are met. Others

in the neighborhood have used their side yards close to the lot

line, and rights granted to one should be granted to others in

similar circumstances. This shed is a necessary facility; it would

not change the neighborhood or cause adverse hardship to anyone.

Mr. Winters seconded the motion, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements:

Adjournment: 7: 50 p. m.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, November 30, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 9/22/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

September 22, 1993 Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Ron Winters

Absent: Chuck Meteer

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Mr. Winters moved that Dan Bellman be accepted as an official

member of this board with the understanding that the Mayor will

execute the swearing-in at his convenience. Mr. Krone seconded,

and MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Visitors: Andrew & Nan Steyn (111 West College), Carolyn and Larry

Huey (129 W. College), Bob Seith (116 Locust Place),Susan Lamson

123 W. College), Adelyn Marshall (119 W. College)

Minutes: Mr. Winter moved that the Minutes for August 24 be

approved as written; Mr Krone seconded, and MINUTES WERE

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Andrew Steyn, 111 West College Street

Mr. Steyn received a permit for a 6' wood fence to be erected

on the south and east sides of his yard. The Planning Commission

approved the application, and the fence was installed with the

finished side facing the interior of the property, in violation of 1187. Mr. Sten explained that he

had no idea of such a restriction and was not informed of this by the Zoning Inspector.

There were no complaints received by the village from neighbors or

the church or day care. Bill Acklin, from the church, indicated

that with landscaping the fence will be quite acceptable. Mr.

Steyn investigated landscaping plans and submitted one to the

Zoning Inspector; he received permission from the minister to dig

in his dirt to do the planting. He is appealing to BZBA to allow

the fence to stand as is, with landscaping which he will maintain.

Members discussed the merits of having a fence outside-out and

learned that it is a courtesy to other people. Neighbors present

at the meeting Bob Seith, Larry and Carolyn Huey, Susan Lamson,

and Adelyn Marshal voiced their approval of the fence as it is,

particularly with landscaping. Ms. Lamson suggested the possibility

of an informative booklet to new residents.

Mr. Krone stated that the fence is 6' within the lot line, so

landscaping will be on his own property. He gave further details

on plantings, which will attach themselves to the fence in due

course.

Mr. Winters moved that we grant this request; Mr. Krone

seconded, and IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Winters followed up on Ms. Lamson's suggestion that new

residents be informed of the need to understand the ordinances if

they are making changes. Mr. Tailford replied that it is difficult

to cover all the bases, and omitting a paragraph could lead to

more problems. It is also difficult to get names of new people in

town, but when he does receive a formal application, he sends a

letter informing them of the unique character of Granville and of

the zoning permit process, and if they are in the historic district,

further restrictions apply. The applicant is ultimately

responsible, but the office is willing to help with information.

Mr. Bellman added that the contractor is responsible also, but

Mr. Tailford stated that contractors come and go and some are from

out of town, although the local ones should be acquainted with the

ordinances. A lot of people get the permit first and then hire the

contractor. A possibility is to license builders. A checklist

could say, "Have you referenced pertinent sections of the code?"

To summarize, members felt two things were important in order

to inform applicants and to save Mr. Tailford time: 1) hand them

a pre-printed check-off sheet with relevant sections targeted and

2) try to find a legal advisory service to help people who have

difficulty getting to the courthouse during office hours.

Adjournment: 7: 50 p.m.

Next Meeting: Thursday, October 23, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 8/26/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

August 26, 1993

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Chuck Meteer, Gilbert Krone, Ron Winters

New member Dan Bellman was present but has not officially been

sworn in yet.

Absent: none

Election: Chair; Mr. Winters nominated Ashlin Caravana to serve as Vice

Krone seconded, AND THE NEW VICE CHAIR WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Todd Feil (229 S. Cherry)

Minutes: Ms. Caravana moved that the Minutes for June 24 be

approved as written; Mr Krone seconded, and MINUTES WERE

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Todd and Robin Feil, 229 South Cherry

The Feils wish to construct a porch with shed roof and rail on

the side of their home, to be located 5' from the property line

subsequently adjusted to 8'.The adjoining lot is owned by the

Feils but is a separate lot, requiring a variance from required

10'.Mr. Feil explained that the edge of the porch will be within

8' of the side property line. He explained that gaining a variance

rather than joining the lots is a less expensive action. It will be

an attractive and useful addition and will add to the value of the

house. It would be impractical to decrease the size of the porch.

Board members were concerned about creating a problem if the

Feils sell the lots and a new neighbor would find the porch too

close, and joining the lots would seem to make more sense and

eliminate the need for a variance. Short of that option, however,

members felt that there should be some deed restriction placed on

the property. More discussion ensued on the location of the

garage, on property lines on the tax map, and the fact that there

were actually four lots, not twor involved. It was suggested that

a covenant to the deed restriction state that the lots must be sold

as a unit and no other buildings could be built on the three lots

other than the one containing the house.

Ms. Caravana moved that the variance be conditionally approved

for 2' because of the special circumstances and conditions that

exist with the lot next door. The condition is that the variance

not be issued by Mr. Tailford until such time as the applicant

submits evidence that a restrictive covenant in perpetuity be

placed on Lot 225 that no other primary residence be built thereon.

If this is done, no special circumstances exist and no undue

privilege occurs, and the variance would not affect health, safety

or general welfare of the neighborhood. Mr. Winters seconded the

motion, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 7: 45 p.m. After Adjournment, the members discussed

the Board's procedure in hearing applications. A joint meeting is

proposed, and Mr. Tailford will notify members of the date for the

meeting.

Announcements:

Next Meeting: September 23

BZBA Minutes 6/24/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

June 24, 1993

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Chuck Meteer, Gilbert Krone

Ann Kennedy has submitted her resignation, and a substitute will

be sought. The group signed a letter of regret at her

resignation and thanks for her years of service.]

Absent: Ron Winters

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Andrew Crawford (222 Summit)

Minutes:

APPROVED.

Mr. Krone moved that the Minutes for May 27.

Ms. Caravana seconded, and MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Andrew and Cheryl Crawford, 222 Summit

The Crawford’s wish to place a 27' deck on the back of their home, which will be located 1' 8" off the side lot line, where the house currently sits. This would be a variance request of 10' 2" from the 12' requirements. Mr. Crawford explained that because of standard 24" lumber, he will reduce his length to 24". There is no other spot on the lot where he could put the deck without variance needed. a He would not find it feasible or safe to place the deck on the top of the garage; even that would require a variance. Several neighbors have decks or porches, some intruding into setback space, and there have been no recorded objections to the proposed deck.

Granting this variance would not have any effect on services delivered to the area. The property was purchased by the Crawfords prior to adoption of the new zoning plan, and they had no knowledge of the future requirement. The spirit and intent of the requirement would be met by granting the variance. Ms. Caravana moved that we approve the variance because the position configuration of a deck anywhere else. and noted the criteria necessary for approval:

(1) special circumstances exist to justify a variance; 2) failure to approve would deprive the Crawfords of commonly enjoyed rights to their property; (3) the special circumstances herein do not originate from owner' s action; (4) granting would not confer any undue privilege; and (5) approval would not affect health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood.

Work Session on Criteria for Making Decisions

BZBA is a fact-finding group, collecting evidence and making

findings. An appeal process is available within ten days of the

time when Mr. Tailford notifies applicants and they pay their

fees. Members were referred to a recent Rocky Fork decision,

which presented several questions to this group. The Law

Director will be consulted, on such items as the swearing in of

applicants and witnesses, possibly as a group. It must be made

very clear what we expect of applicants and residents, and it is

important that they tell us exactly why they are applying for

variances, perhaps even writing a letter detailing how the

criteria are met and why they believe a variance is necessary or

why rejection of application constitutes a hardship or arguing

that proposed change can go nowhere else. BZBA actions must

examine criteria, find specific facts to support what we want the

motion to decide, and keep such rationale on record. All the

record has to show is that there is a greater weight of evidence

to support our finding of fact. If anyone opposes the

application, they should be very clear with their arguments and

statement of fact, e.g. how it would devalue their own property.

Mr. Tailford suggested that he hand out a packet of instruction

to new applicants or opponents. Ours is an adjudication

hearing, not a public hearing. Mr. Tailford routinely sends out

the letter, and members worked to tighten up the language

Announcements: Congratulations, Doug, on being full-time!

Adjournment: 8: 20 p.m.

Next Meeting: July 22

BZBA Minutes 5/27/1993

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 27, 1993

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Ann M. Kennedy, Gilbert Krone

Absent: Chuck Meteer, Ron Winters

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Tim Hughes (630 Newark Road), Charles O'Keefe (4 Samson

Place), Karen and Douglas Frasca (123 W. Broadway)

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Charles and Jacqueline O'Keefe, 4 Samson Place

The O'Keefe’s are dropping their request for a garage but still wish to gain extra floor space in the kitchen by constructing the walkout bay window to the front of their home, which'sits 32' from the right-of-way. Setback requirement is 35', so they will need a variance on front setback. This update is attached to the previous request.

Mr. O'Keefe explained his revised proposal. There. was some...

question about which was the front of the house and which the back,

which would have meaning when addressing the setback requirements.

The back door entrance would not need a variance. There exists one

such protrusion down the road.

Mr. Krone moved that we approve the variance for several reasons because of the configuration of the property and difficulties the owner has in working with other areas of the property to allow the use of the space. These are special circumstances and because of the terrain, it is difficult to the front and west side of the house. To interpret requirements to require 35' would be not 'allowing justice' to the owner, and allowing 35 sq.ft. protruding into the setback 5' does comply with more than just the spirit of the zoning ordinance; and we are justified in permitting it on that don't, we are conferring any unusual privileges. There is one property. the neighborhood closer than 5' to the Burg Street property line. I don't believe that allowing the variance would substantially' affect government services to the area since it is within 28' of the setback. Ms. Caravana seconded the motion, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Eric and Gayle Stewart, 133 South Cherry Street

The Stewarts wish to expand the back porch to be flush. with

the side of their home and to enclose stairs' to the basement. This

new construction will be located less than the required side yard

setback of 10' in VRD. Mr. Stewart explained the proposed ,

construction. The north side sits 5 1/2' from the property line,

and they want to tear part of the porch off and replace with a

usable room and make the external wall consistent with existing

wall. His house and his neighbor's house would be ca. 16' apart

and have mutually agreed upon the property line. A deck will be

built on the addition.

Ms. Caravana moved that we approve variance based on special

circumstances that exist which are that the main building already

exists and extends west to the point where the addition' will be; it

will not create a condition which does not already exist. Special

circumstances will not result from actions of owner, nor will undue

privileges result. From our review it does not appear that granting

a variance would affect the general welfare of neighbors, and

literal interpretation of the code would deprive applicant of his

rights. Mr. Krone seconded the motion, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Douglas and Karen Frasca, 123 West Broadway

The Frascas want to move air conditioners to the side of the

Mrs. Frasca explained that they are remodeling the

which entails having to block off the back door to the

That door will be closed off, which means moving the

entrance to the southeast side of the house, and they would like to

add a deck to the entrance {she showed members proposed drawings}.

One current air conditioner is on the roof, and they want to move it to the side of the house and camouflage with landscaping. Mrs. Frasca attached two letters from neighbors, who have no problem with the proposal. Ms. Caravana stated that air conditioners on the side are visible from the street and should be screened by permanent means, either a wooden box or, as Mr. Krone stated, mature shrubbery. Ms. Frasca stated there will eventually be a fence, a project needing Granville Planning Commission approval, and Ms. Kennedy reminded the group that they are not an architectural review agency and that bushes will help soften the noise of an air conditioner.

Ms. Caravana moved to approve the variance based on the - ,' peculiar lands/structure involved and the fact that the nearest ' neighbor (the church) is a good distance away and the main criteria, noise, would not affect the neighbors. The proposal would not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare ,

of the community, and a literal application of the ordinance would

deprive applicants to have an air conditioning unit placed in an

inconspicuous place. No special circumstances:result, and no undue,

privilege is granted to the applicant. Mr. Krone seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Tim and Nancy Hughes, 630 Newark-Granville Road

The Hughes’s wish to construct an addition to the west side of

the house, located 10' from side lot line required setback is

14'. The next closest neighbors are over 100' to the west

and approve of the construction. Mr. Hughes explained that due to

the location of the house on the lot, located in the far southwest

corner, a variance is requested. They want to build out 12' to the

west and make a family room and provide more usable kitchen and

some office space. It will be one and one half stories high,

pitch. Mr. Hughes has been planning this addition for over 2

years and is planning to grade the hill down and plant myrtle

there. He does have an accurate location of property line. He

finds it impossible to move the kitchen anywhere else.

Mr. Krone moved to approve variance based upon the presentation. Special circumstances exist in the location of the house, close to the property line, whereas the rest of the property is on the other side. The setback really is not so important since the nearest property owner is 100' away. Also, the criteria regarding literal interpretation would not apply, for the same reasons. The owner bought the property after the house was moved to the- location and owned it before the new zoning law was' established. There would be no undue privilege extended to' the owner because of intrusion into setback line by approximately 4', which-is not substantial interference. It would not affect health, safety, and general welfare of residents. Ms. Kennedy seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED .

Adjournment: 6:05 p.m.

Next Meeting: June 24

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.