Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 09/22/93

September 22, 1993
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,
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
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. 03(b)3().Mr. Sten*explained that he had no idea of such a restriction and was notlinformed 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 meetingBo-b- Seith, Larry and Carolyn Huey, Susan Lamson,
and Adelyn Marshalvlo-i-ced 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 £urther details
on plantings, which will attach themselves to the fence in due
Mr. Winters moved that we grant this request; Mr. Krone
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 preprinted 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Apollonio

BZBA 10/28/93

October 28, 1993
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. St6yn'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 ful f ill all
requirements of the zoning code. The primary responsibility,
howevet. is on the person who is having the work done.
Citizen Comments: None
New Business:
Licking County Historical Society, Robbins-Hunter Museum, 221 East
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.
Adjournment: 7: 50 p. m.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, November 30, 7 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Apollonio Allen

BZBA 11/30/93

November 30, 1993
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
Minutes: Minutes of October 8 were unanimously approved as
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 tilhluamt ination 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
visitor) 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
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Apollonio Allen

BZBA 05/27/93

May 27, 1993
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Ann M. Kennedy, Gilbert Krone
Absent: Chuck Meteer, Ron Winters
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector
1 ·:f:R1.1*2.,, 2' ,
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'Keefes are dropping their request for a garage but still 2
wish to gain extra floor space in the kitchen by constructing.'a :41.
walko-ut bay window to the front of their home, which'sits 32',Ilfromy-. 4,>4,
right-of-way. Setback requirement is 35',so they will need a'-·1 variance on front setback. This update is attached to the previous ' -,
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 N·2%f<,3; · , reasons because of the configuration of the property and diffi- .:
culties the owner has in working with other areas of the property j ''·' to allow the use of the space. These are special circumstances . , 4 t : dpoecaunlyiathrintog twheitharea and because of the terrain, it is difficult to 5.f.<:t.:.' the front and west side ofbthe house. To inter- : b„
pret requirements to require 35' would be not ''allowing .justice' to jttf) :
the owner, and allowing 35 sq.ft. protruding into the setback 5 '·· does comply with more than just the spirit of the zoning ordinance; '»s.k,3'· .'·4: and we are justified in permitting it on that>basis.I' don't 'think=I.i,'1*9 d , we are conferring any unusual privileges. There is one property in911%31)7. . the neighborhood closer than 5' to the Burg Street property line . I » - '*. I don't believe that allowing the variance would substantially' affect government services to the area since it is within 28' of S «
the setback. Ms. Caravana seconded the motion, AN
Eric and Gayle Stewart, 133 South Cherry Street
D IT WAS . '.,'. , ' , ,
The Stewarts wish to expand the back porch to be flush. with i i,t.t>.2
the side of their home and to enclose stairs' to the basement. This,4.14<A,'':
new construction will be located less than the required side yard4/f'o L"I -
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
useable 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 i
circumstances will not result from actions of owner, nor will undue ·I.'S
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
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 remodelling 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 architec- tural 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/tructure 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 trhe health, safety and general welfare , 4'<1,
of the community, and a literal application of the ordinance would j..,j.:,AOj; ],
deprive applicants to have an air conditioning unit placed in an 'i,-3*ym]
inconspicuous place. No special circumstances:result, and no undue 3*GFG ,
privilege is granted to the applicant. Mr. Krone seconded, AND IT f'!)4),.<]. ,
Tim and Nancy Hughes, 630 NewarkG- ranville Road
The Hugheses wish to construct an addition to the west side of :.,
the house, located 10' from side lot linet;h/e required setback is , I: - -
14' in SRD- A. 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 ,t,'P' ':\
west and make a family room and provide more useable kitchen and i1>f.j'tt V
some office space. It will be one and one half stories high, 12 1N ' 9 . .'..1., ' '..
pitch. Mr. Hughes has been planning this addition for over 2 ' 56
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 presenta- 0 -*:.
tion. Special circumstances exist in the location of the house, I. .4 4-&1:C: ::
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 3..
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 "I,{f': {'
and owned it before the new zoning law was' established. There .:<.
would be no undue privilege extended to' the owner because of Y'.i.«it-i';intrusion into setback line by approximately 4',which-is not, 4 '' . a[*,i; ]:'
substantial interference. It would not affect health, safety, and ],,F
general welfare of residents. Ms. Kennedy seconded, AND IT WAS ', " '
Adjournment: 6: 05 p.m.
Next Meeting: June 24
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Apollonio

BZBA 06/24/93

June 24, 1993
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)
Mr. Krone moved that the Minutes for May 27 be
Ms. Caravana seconded, and MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY
Citizen Comments: None
New Business:
Andrew and Cheryl Crawford, 222 Summit
The Crawfords 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 Mofr. thMeetheoeurse sepcroencdlueddes 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. MOTION WAS
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, eg.,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
taheforermin. 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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Apollonio

BZBA 12/23/93

December 23, 1993
Present: Dan Bellman, Gilbert Krone, Chuck Meteer, Ron Winters
Absent: Ashlin Caravana S
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 enhanbe survivability in that location. Although
Boxes &Bows is not dependent on pahs-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
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
L.-L *
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
Adjournment: 7: 25 p. m.
Next Meeting: Thursday, January 27, 7 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 08/26/93

August 26, 1993
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
Chair; Mr.
Mr. Winters nominated Ashlin Caravana to serve as Vice
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
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 exlained 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
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
Next Meeting: September 23
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Apollonio

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.