Granville Community Calendar

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.

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.