Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 12/14/1994

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner

December 14, 1994

Meeting on Wednesday,December 22, 1994.

The November meeting has been canceled due to a lack of applications.

BZBA Closing Comments

Bob Evans Farms,Inc. has withdrawn their conditional use application,due to recent

actions by the Planning Commission to rezone the entire Cherry Valley area south of SR16 to

Planned Commercial District ( PCD).PCD zoning does not require a conditional use permit for

restaurants or motels.

Hope everyone has a happy Holiday Season.

BZBA Minutes 11/14/1994

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.

BZBA Minutes 10/27/1994

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

October 27, 1994

Minutes

Present: 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 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 area

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 area 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

applicant The business has been there for a number of years.

That the zoning code restricts 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 area

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.

BZBA Minutes 9/22/1994

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 to this application, the special circumstances of the animal

clinic allowing reference in the one added that technically we deny this application, but the special circumstances tend to favor applicants.

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 New Business:

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.

Would granting the variance adversely affect health,

safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working

in the area? These areas would not be affected. Actually, the

fence is a very attractive design, and j.(t would help keep the

dogs contained.

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.

BZBA Minutes 8/25/1994

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

August 25, 1994

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Gilbert

Krone, Chuck Meteer

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Brian Lindamood (Sentinel).Mary Bline (P. 0. Box 127),

Richard Van Winkle (8 Arcade Place, Newark),Lori Green (445

Burg),Carmen, Luis, Patricia MacLean (221 S. Pearl),Cheryl

Waller (3225 Lancaster Road),Ken Nigg (225 S. Pearl),Paul -and

Susan Burgin (100 Westgate Drive),Orville Orr (321 E. Broadway),

Anne Russell (205 S. Prospect),Ralph Hall (114 Westgate)

Minutes: July 28, 1994. Under Minutes, delete "Rather than ...

therefore. . ."Mr. Meteer moved to approve minutes, Mr. Krone

seconded, AND MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED.

Old Business: John and Mary Bline, Greystone Country House, 128 South Main

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 painted 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.

Dr. Burgin apologized for ignorance of the code in repainting

the signs. She feels that (1) a sign on a busy highway needs

to be large and (2) a sign on Westgate is necessary for people to

find her clinic, and only one sign is visible at a time. She

feels that the special circumstances do not result from her

action because the signs were already up when she bought the

business and granting the variance will not affect any health,

safety, or general welfare. Mr. Tailford said that two signs

would be all right but one needs to be on the building.

Mr. Roger Hall spoke in favor of her petition, saying he

just painted his own sign, but that was merely painting an old

sign, not changing anything.

Ms. Caravana indicated that this is a fast-growing area and

we need to be careful of what signs are needed. She felt that

the signs could be brought into conformance since they are

necessary to attract customers, locate the clinic, and enhance

the village. Dr. Burgin felt that the two signs were needed.

Mr. Burgin added that the signs are attractive and fit the area and if we were to set a precedent, it would be a good example.

4

5

Mr. Bellman thought the sign is attractive enough, but the

size needs to be addressed as well as precedents for future

growth in that area. Since the sign is already painted, perhaps

she could leave it there for a limited amount of time. Mr.

Burgin asked whether the big sign could be left as is and the

Westgate sign be changed since other businesses in the area have

large signs. Ms. Caravana suggested a sign on the back of the

building, but the kennels are there. Therefore, there are

special circumstances allowing another ground sign. Maybe it

could be put on or closer to the kennels, but Mr. Burgin said the

RV company next door would hurt the visibility. Mr. Krone said

that advertising is important and is a right that a sign needs to

be legible. The size of the sign on Westgate is legal under

current code, according to Mr. Tailford, but adjacent businesses

with different zonings have separate requirements. Some of the

existing signs were up when the area was annexed. Ms. Caravana

would prefer to consider different options than the ones on the

application.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. THERE WAS NO

SECOND.

1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the

land or structure which are not applicable to other houses in the

area? Dr. Burgie stated that most of the other businesses in the

area already have big signs and can just repaint theirs (or leave

them dirty),whereas she would have to scale down her signs.

Because of the kennels, she cannot easily put up a wall sign.

BZBA is trying to help her out of her predicament and still

adhere to the code. The sign was already there beforehand.

Other options have not been discussed tonight, such as a V-type

sign, lowering the sign, or repainting a smaller sign.

Mr. Tailford suggested tabling the application so that

applicant can consider these suggestions and so that BZAB can

discuss this more. APPLICATION WAS TABLED FOR FURTHER

DISCUSSION.

Carmen MacLean, 221 South Pearl

Ms. MacLean wishes to construct a new porch on the back of

her house that will need variances from sideyard setback require- ments. The porch will be less than 10- from both setback lines.

Members had no problem and no neighbors objected. All the criteria

were met because many houses in the neighborhood violate

setback lines and do not affect each other.

1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land structure which or are not applicable to other houses in the area? The lot size and existing buildings on lot already exceed zoning requirements. In the past similar applications have been granted.

1

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?The same rationale applies

here as in (1) and would deprive applicant of the right to enjoy

her own property.

3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the

applicant? Applicant bought the property as presently sited.

4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any

undue privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area?

On the contrary, this would bring applicant to a situation Qthers

already enjoy.

5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,

safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working

in the area? The alley is a buffer, and proposal would be an

architectural improvement.

Mr. Bellman moved to approve, Mr. Krone seconded, AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Audrey and Orville Orr, Buxton Inn, 313 East Broadway

The Orrs wish to place a new vertical walk-in cooler within

the required setback, directly on the SW lot line, which will

match siding and have a trellis. They need such a large cooler

to keep things clean and stored properly, and this is the only

available space. Although it is big and very close to the line,

the Orrs are the next door neighbors and are not concerned about

property value in this case. The Inn owned the whole block

originally, and Mr. Orr said his goal is to buy it back once

again. Any new owner would have to buy everything. He is taking

the risk that a new owner would react negatively to the cooler.

Mr. Krone moved to approve the application, Mr. Herman

seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land or

structure which are not applicable to other houses in the area?

The circumstances result from a structure being erected within a

complex of applicant-owned properties. There is no other

practical place to put a cooler.

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? Though the Inn is in a

unique position in the area, the entire block is owned by the applicant.

3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the applicant? The special circumstances result from lack of better place for the a cooler and insofar as the owner would like to improve storage for his restaurant.

6

4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any

undue privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area?

This condition does not apply here.

5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,

safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working

in the area? A restauranteur must keep the property in a safe

and healthy condition.

Adjournment: 10: 10 p. m.

Next Meeting: September 22, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 7/28/1994

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

July 28, 1994

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Chuck Meteer

Absent: Lon Herman

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: None

Comments: None

Minutes: Discussion took place on the accuracy of the June 23 minutes in two places:

change the words "as a residence" to “which is a residence.” Add "East Side Owner, "

Under II. A. 1. delete "and/or tree line" after "east side" in

In order that the East Side Owner be satisfied with a visual

barrier in place when the fence deteriorates, if it is his

preference that landscaping be planted, it should be started now.

The paragraph ending the third sentence in the explanatory

paragraph section was changed to read: Additionally, if the East

Side Owner prefers Option 2, Mr. Fackler agrees to begin the

landscaping described in Section 2 immediately so that the

landscaping would be fully grown by the time the fence deteriorates."

The fence or landscaping will be Mr. Fackler' s expense.]

In order to .further protect the visual barrier, Mr. Krone

recommended an 8' fence, but others felt this would skirt the

regular variance procedures and sanction a future variance.]

Mr.

Bellman

MODIFIED.

Krone moved that the minutes be approved as modified; Mr.

seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS

Announcements:

Lon Herman had supplied suggestions for consideration on Mr. Tailford with a list of

Krone' s memo of July 5 to the

Page 2, No. 6.,Is mandatory stenographic transcript of every meeting really necessary? Mr. Krone felt it was because of the chance of appeals. Minutes are a good summary of the crucial discussions and motions, Mr. Tailford added, and while a request has been made for the village to provide a more sophisticated tape recorder, it does not seem likely that one will be forthcoming in the near future. If a party wished to have a transcript, he or she could tape the proceedings personally. It was decided to let Mr. Hurst decide on the legal ramifications of No. 6. No. 9.,Mr. Herman asked how do we know which issues will be addressed, and Mr. Krone felt we could spell out things like a use variance vs. a building variance. Mr. Tailford agreed that he could add to the Agendas "variance from Section of the code."Criteria to be applied will be on a separate sheet.

Adjournment: 8: 24 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 6/23/1994

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

THEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY APRROVED.

BZBA Minutes 5/27/1994

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 Meeting, Thursday, June 23, 7.30

BZBA Minutes 4/28/1994

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

April 28, 1994

Mitiutes

I'rese,11: Dati Bell, iiati,«Aslili,1 Catavai Ia, G. ilbeil Krotie, Ron Wititers

Abselit: Chuck Meteer

Also l'resel:„ Doug -lailfoid,Vill;g,e I'li,i itic:i

Visilors: Ray Montgo,Tiery (2450 Newark-Grai,ville Road),Fritz Rizor (2326 Newark-Granville Road),W.S.

Klopfer (2402 Newark-Granville Road), James Sperling (231 S. Main)

Minutes: Mr. Kroi,e moved to adolit nii,Iutes as piepated,Mr.Bellnian seconded,and the nii nutes of February

24, 1994, WF.RE UNANIMOUSLY Al'1'1OVIED.

Citize,1 C,li)tt,ietits: Noiie

New Btisiness:

laie„s l:i,d 1-y,Ida 51e) rlitig, 231 South Mai,1

I he Sperlitigs wis11 to build a cddar deck will,beticlies.0,1 tile i,ortli side of tlie house,wliich is 3' less

Chal, the required backyaid setback of 10' frot„back lot line. They received a sitnilar variance for tlie porch

011 Ilie soutli sidein 1992. Mr. Sperlitig said tliattliey wish to inaititairithe horizontal lines of the house aiid

redress arcliitectural mar,ilig dotie by tlie previous owner. They wish to gain i,iore attractive options wliicli

a deck would provide. 1-le wislies to provide a safe play area for l,is daughter,and there is a dangerous root

collar to be ret,toved. I·le waiits to put a Fie.nch door oi,lo tlte back. It's difficult,he said, to plead hardship;

however,1e does i,ot watit to leave I,ii,isel f ol,er,to legal liability,atid also he feels he sliould not be deprived

of a variatice to i,ni,rove i|s, prolierly atid, as a result,elilialice tlie status of tlie i,eigliborlood. Williout a

vatiatice, ilic owi,cr cat,1101 leceive Ilic d(: sited ber,eficial use of tlic pioperly.

Mr.Winters 11,oved to.al,prove tlic applicatioti,applyilig SI,erlings' needs to tlie orditiance docuel„i,t:

l) Are Iliere si,ecial circunistatices peculiar to ilie land or structure which are riot applicable to

tlier u|s„es,1,1 Ilie areal l|w.1e„vious owe„r added clianges tiot suitable to Ilie Sperlings'tieeds. lhe house

was built befote zor,ing restrictioi,s wetil inlo effect.

2) Would a literal interpretation of ll,e I)rovisio,19 of tlie zonii,g ordinance deprive applicalit of

riglits commo,ily ei,joyed by ollier I,roperties iii the same areal Ollier 1101,165 in the area have decks iii

violation of setback regulatioris, and he sliould be able to enjoy wliat olliers etijoy.

3) Do tlie special circm,istatices result from actions of tlie applicantl 1 he owners did not build ll}e

homf:t,lwy merely watit to i„do, itiartilig dolie by previous owner.

4) Woi,ld graiti,Ig Ilie va,iatice co,ifer to api,lica,it aliy u,idue privilege de,iied by tlils orditiatice

to oll,ers ill Ille areal 0[Ilers ill tile atea elljoy Ille same privileges tile Sperlillgs wallt.

5)Woi,ld gra,ilii,g Ilie varia,ice adversely affect healtli,safety atid general welfare of ollier persotis

resiclig„or workig„ l„tlie area? No. 0, 1 11,2 otlier lia,d,it would rettiove a poterilially dange,ous root cellat;

iii additio,1,it would discourage peor,le froill usitig tlie lot as a pote,itially dangerous walk-tlirough.

Mr. Krone secolided tlie tiolio,1,ANDMOIION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

1

George Fackler, 2362 Nowak-Giat,ville Road

Mr. Fackler is iequestilig a variatice flo,ii the required setback iii order to add 10 11,e existi, ig

wateliouse. A setback of 60' is recli,ited when abulling a resideritial property; he would need a variatice of

39: 1-leiglit of (lie addition will be 16'. Ilie application lias Grariville Platinitig Cot,imissioi approval

cotitingetit 011 BZIJA approval of variatice.

Mr. Rizor explaitied tliat Fackler's wislies to exterid tlie storage wa,eliouse 20' to tlze nottli to be

co,isistei,t willi ollier builditigs 01, tlie propeity aid 10 1a„ke tlie cot,ipaity niote productive, safe,and tieal.

Wlien tlie property was built,such a proposed builditig was williin tlie code. 11,ey wislito offera cleal,image

to ll,e public by putting moie equipi,ietit indoors. ll,e residence is part of tl,e Fackler property.

Ms. Caravana askecl about screei,itig,atid Mr.Ilizor said tliey will be putting iritrees. At present,tlieie

aie liees alid buslies for sale belweel, tlie house aiid busi,iess. Ilie giavel lot will Iiot be exlet,ded. Ilic

i,livate road to Ilie reside,ice 0,1 111(:east is used occasioiially by Fackler's,but Iliey do not exit oi,to Newark-

Grativille Road. 11e doci,s ot, Ilic!a(c]litioi, will be.placed sili,ilally to tliose already existig„,but 20'away.

Iliere will be i,idoor ligliti,ig orily. I lie slied will be removed.

Mr. Montgomery spoke on behalf of Mr. Butler,nearest neighbor,who was unable to attend tliis

111eeting. 1-le thought that a variance was gralited several years ago for a building which turned out to be

bigger 11a„tlie size approved, atid ,ow Mr. rackler is asking for aiiollier variance. 1-le feels it would be an

eyesore atid is definitely againsl it. Mr. Klopfer agreed, feeling anxiety about ilie appearance of tlie barn ai,d

erivitons, fearitig reductioo„f 1)o,l,city values ii,tlie iieigl,borl,ood. I·le said ll,is was not a good gateway i„to

Grai,villeas it was a,idilii„glit get wc)s,e willitlie i)o,posed varia,ice. e [s)pite Mr. Fackler'sprol,iises of good

housekeepi,ig, 11,is lias riot l,al,i,e,ied.

Mr. Krone suggested researcl,itig tlie files to deternii,Ie just what transpired duri,ig tlie previous

vaiiation applicatioti,atid Mr. lailford teplied tliat he would do tl,is. Mr. Bellinar asked wl,etlier Mr.Fal<ler

would be willing to go to tlie adjoitiitig tieibors to discuss tlie situatiot), stating tliat if the parties were able

to woik out ati agreeable al,pearatice perl,aps tlieir differences could be satisfied . Mr.Montgomery said ll,is

was do,ie tlie last time aiid was Tiot followed up. 1-lowever, tl,is time it could be on file and Mr. 1-ailfoid,

ul,0,1 ieceivitig a i,egative report, will ilispect tlie propeity ald order a clean-up if necessary, under his

Coliin,eicial Maintenance Code iii process.

Mr. Kroiie asked wl,ellier it would lielp if tlie privacy drive to tlie residence were liniited to residelitial

use a,id sciee,ii,ig latidscapitig added.

Ms. Caravaria would0 1„ be ii favor of tlie variance at ll,is tinie witli such strotig Iieigl,bothood

oppositioi,atid suggested tablii,g tile <p,i,licatiot, utilil Mr.Fackler would talk witl, tlie neighbors aid resolve

11e, ir diffeterices. Mr.Bellia„ti suggested that BZBAe ,m„bers cor,gregate at Fatkler's and view the situatio„

first-lia,id.

i Ie (luestion a,ose as to wl,ellier l:ackler's can add to a conditiotial use perinit . 1 lie use was

establislied before Ilie zo,Ii,Ig clia,iges cat,ie i,ito effect. Mr. Winters reminded tlie group tliat we are 1101

talkilig about uses, but capacities, u,ider 11. 17. Mr. Fackler Ias been gratited a conditional use to rut, a

busitiess. Mr. -lailford agreed tlet if a tiew busliess were to conie in,it would riot be SBD but Cotii,iiui,ity

Busifiess Service. Sot,ie houses iii lowt, (i.e.,Broadway Bloo,Tis)liave non-conforniing uses on top of tlie

resideritial zotili,g a„d catitiot change atiylliitig. Mr. railford would feel niote coinfortable discussi,ig tile issue

of exparidi,ig 11011-conforinilig or cotiditional use variances in SBD with Mr. I lurst.

U ,

2

MR. WIN I ERS MOVEI)10 IABLE 11·IE AI'l'LICATION. Ifapplicatio,i is rejected,Mr. Fackler catitiot

al,ply agai,1. Mr. Bellman watiled Sollie ccitainty about use of the lane to tlie residence. 1-le wanled soti,e

idea of ilie in,pact of tlie liouse ot,Fackler's-w-ill it be kept a residence permanentlyl Could it be Split Off

soe„d,ayl I lis concer,15 Iested upon tlie future effecl of varialices gra,ited today and about tlie worries of ll,e

neiglibors regarding appearance. 1-le would like tlie neiglibors present if BZBA Itieets at the site a,id voice

Ilieirconcerns,or tley could wiite letters to tlie Village Planner. Mr.KRONE SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. Mr.

lailford will researcli whellier Fackler's was a i,or,c-onforii,ing use when it was antiexed to tlie village, alid

whetlier it fits utider oiie of ll,e peritiitted uses ut,der SBD (with Mr. Hurst's advice). MOTION WAS

UNANIMOlJSI_Y APPROVE.l),

Adjouriie,t: 11:301). 11.

Next Meeting: Thursday,May 26, 7 p.i„.at Fackleis; at 7:30 Village Chambers

BZBA Minutes 2/24/1994

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

February 24, 1994

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Chuck

Meteer, Ron Winters

Absent:

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Daniel C. Bonar, 237 West Elm

Minutes: The minutes of January 27, 1994, WERE APPROVED AS

DISTRIBUTED.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Daniel C. and Martha Bonar, 237 West Elm

The Bonars wish to replace the garage with a new garage with

two-story addition for a bedroom and family room attached to the

house. The proposed replacement will be set back 3' from the

rear lot line and 16" from the side lot line, so a variance of 7'

is required for the rear and 8' 8" from the side lot line. The

lot coverage is 39. 95%,including house, garage, addition, and

breezeway, or 48. 9%with driveway. Mr. Bonar indicated he has

attempted for a long time to achieve the most efficient plans

possible, while adhering to the zoning regulations. It is not

feasible to move the garage and addition anywhere else on the

property, he said. Mr. Bonar bought a 1' strip from the neighbor

so that the garage would not overhang his property. The

neighbors were contacted; a positive affirmation was received

from the next door neighbor, and other neighbors have granted

permission.

Mr. Bellman was concerned at the building' s close proximity

to the property line.

Ms. Caravana applied their needs to the current ordinance

document: 1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the

land or structure which are not applicable to other houses in the

area? An old garage already exists, and they are moving it in a

little bit. The Bonars are trying to design a plan to preclude a

variance and still minimize size of structure to accomplish his

needs. The character of the neighborhood shows many houses close

together.

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 homes in the area

are close to the lot lines, denying him his request would be

depriving him of improving his garage and of what others already

enjoy.

3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the

applicant? No, they did not create the situation; when these

houses were built, it was standard policy to position them rather

close together, and there was no zoning code. The upgrading of

garage and appearance of the addition would enhance the

neighborhood.

4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any undue

privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area? No,

because others in the area enjoy the same privileges the Bonars

want.

5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,

safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working

in the area? It would be an attractive renovation, and to tear

down an old structure would strengthen the safety factor.

Mr. Bellman was still concerned about building so close to

the property line; Mr. Krone recommended looking at all the

criteria and make a decision on the basis of greater evidence.

Based on these criteria, Mr. Meteer moved to approve the

request for variance from the lot line. Mr. Krone seconded, AND

MOTION WAS APPROVED, 3 ayes and 1 no.

Adjournment: 7: 45 p. m.

Next Meeting: Thursday, March 24, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 1/27/1994

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

January 27. 1994

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Chuck

Heteer, Ron Winters

Absent:

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector

Visitors: Marna and Kimball Lombardi (128 Thresher St.)

Minutes: Mr.

seconded,

DISTRIBUTED.

Krone moved to approve minutes, Mr. Winter

and MINUTES OF DECEMBER 23 WERE APPROVED AS

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Marna and Kimball Lombardi, 128 Thresher Street

The Lombardis are requesting a variance for a 4' setback

from the north side of the house to lot line, which does not need

approval from Granville Planning Commission because it is not in

the Historical District. Mr. Lombardi stated that it is a

partially two-story 130-year-old house in need of renovations in

kitchen and family room, which would require extending this 22'

section of the house to 4' from lot line. The family room was

added to the back of the house several years ago, and this plan

would tie this space into the main house. He explained that

there is no other feasible way of renovating within the zoning

ordinanceco--sts would be prohibitive, and they would have

problems tieing the extension in with the rest of the house. The

neighbors were contacted, and one positive letter was received by

the Lombardis.

Mr. Meteer applied their needs to the current ordinance

document: 1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the

land or structure which are not applicable to other houses in the

area?They are trying to keep as much greenspace as possible, but

space is limited; houses are close together in the neighborhood.

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 homes in the area have long narrow lots, many are close to the lot .lines and this

request is not in excess of what others already enjoy.

1

3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the

applicant? No, they did not create the situation; when these

houses were built, it was standard policy to position them rather

close together. The appearance of the home they bought, both

inside and outside, would be enhanced by a new consistent house

line.

4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any

undue privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area?

No, because others in the area enjoy the same privileges the

Lombardis want.

5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,

safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working

in the area? BZBA members discussed the future appearance and

came to the conclusion that it would be an attractive renovation,

and no health or safety issues were relevant.

Based on these criteria, Mr. Bellman moved to approve the

request for variance of a 4' variance from the lot line. Mr.'

Winters seconded, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Election of new officers: Consensus of the group felt that the

most important qualification for officers was experience;

therefore, Mr. Krone nominated Ashlin Caravana as Chair and Mr.

Meteer. as Vice Chair. Mr. Winters seconded, AND THE NOMINATION

WAS APPROVED BY ACCLIMATION.

Adjournment: 7: 25 p. In.

Next Meeting: Thursday, February 24, 7 p. m.

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.