Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 12/4/1995

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner

December 4, 1995

Meeting on Thursday,December 28, 1995.

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

BZBA Closing Comments:

Dan Bellman's seat becomes vacant on December 1st,when he assumes his new position

on Village Council. If anyone knows someone who has expressed interest in serving on the

BZBA, please notify them of the vacancy. Many are quick to criticize your decisions, but it is

hard to find people to fill these vacancies.

BZBA Minutes 11/15/1995

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner

November 15, 1995

Meeting on Thursday,November 30, 1995.

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

BZBA Closing Comments:

Marathon has filed an appeal with the Licking County Court of Appeals. I will keep you

informed of the status of this case.

Minutes from the October 26th meeting are enclosed to allow you to make your

correction now. Please save these corrections for the next meeting.

Dan Bellman's seat becomes vacant on December, when he assumes his new position

on Village Council. If anyone knows someone who has expressed interest in serving on the

BZBA please notify them of the vacancy. Many are quick to criticize your decisions,but it is

hard to find people to fill these vacancies.

BZBA Minutes 10/26/1995

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

October 26, 1995

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Lon Herman, Gilbert Krone, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Ashlin Faravana

Also Present:

Visitors: Ellen Cooper (326 N. Pearl), James & Esther Coffee (330 North Pearl)

Minutes: August 24. 1995: Change Mr. Stansbury to Mr. Krone in

the Minutes section. Mr. Stewart moved to approve minutes as

amended; Mr. Herman seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Ellen Cooper and Martha Cooper, 328 North Pearl

There are two Cooper families, two brothers and their families,

who jointly own the house. Ellen Cooper is the spokes

person for the family regarding building permits, and her

brother-in-law, John, is the builder. John was going to move in,

but traffic on 661 was too noisy. Following last summer' s heat

wave, they installed an air conditioner, feeling it necessary in

order to sell the house. He is from Alexandria and is unfamiliar

with Granville’s ordinances and proceeded to install the A. C.

without permission from the village for the insufficient setback.

Ellen Cooper presented tonight an additional floor plan that

shows the basement area for the renovation project and a request

for a variance for the A. C. Mr. Bellman recused himself because

he lives next door to the Coopers.}There is a hedgerow on both

the south and the north sides of the property, which hides A.C.

units.

A letter from Luikart Heating indicates that the A. C. was placed on the north side because

they felt the offset on the side

was the only possible location where refrigerant lines could be

physically run and properly connected for proper installation.

There is not sufficient clearance on the south side of the house.

Mr. Coffee questioned some of the dimensions on the application but admitted it' s often difficult to determine exactly where the lot lines are. Although he had no problem with appearance, he thought it should adhere to the ordinance. He said the garage received a variance a long time ago. There is a spirea hedge on the lot line, more like 7 1/2' from the line rather than 8- 10" on the application. He thought the A. C. unit could be on the deck in the rear, and he has had no problem with noise since the unit was installed, but he was concerned that unless it received proper maintenance, it could grow noisy. Mrs. Coffee added that the Bellman air conditioner has been there a long time and is quiet.

Mr. Tailford stated he can issue permits for air conditioners

placed on the rear as long as approving letters from neighbors

are on file. In this case, lacking approval from the

Coffees, a variance is required.

Mr. Krone reported that in the past the BZBA has granted

variances for A. C. units close to the lot line but we required a

screening fence; therefore, precedence exists.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE,

FOLLOWING THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR SUCH AN APPLICATION. Ms.

Cooper had provided such a careful rationale for the unit that

her explanation is provided as an attachment to these minutes.)

The property neighbor agreed that the noise level would not

interfere with his use of his property. To maintain an A. C. unit

properly is not a big problem, and Ms. Cooper promised to inform

the new owner of the necessity of proper maintenance. MR.

STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY

Mr. Bellman abstained).

Adjournment: 7:35 p. m.

Next Meeting: November 30, 1995

STATEMENT CONCERNING CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL,

A zoning certificate was obtained in 1993 or 1994 for the addition of a

front porch to the home at 326 ]North Pearl Street. Substantial interior renovations have

been made on this home since the current owners purchased it in 1993. This request for

variance pertains to the placement of a 2'x 2'outside box for a central air conditioning

system approximately 8' 10"from the north property line. Due to the location and

construction of the house, this is the only feasible location for this outside unit. Under

Chapter 1147 (c) of the Zoning Code,the following criteria are addressed:

a)Existence of special circumstances peculiar to the land or structure

involved. An addition to the home made many years ago already is within the 10 feet

current side yard setback requirement of section 1159.03 (c)of the Zoning Code. This

addition family room is 8' 10" from the north property line. The garage, also erected

many years ago, is even much closer to tile north property line. See drawing attached.

The 2'x 2' outside unit for the central air conditioning system will be located inside or even

with the north boundary of the house addition in the offset as shown on the attached

drawing. With the existence of the house addition, Luikart Heating cooling placed this

outside unit in the location indicated with the belief that the location was within the side

yard setback allowance. This belief was shared by John Cooper who arranged for the

installation. The basement of the dwelling is small and does not extend under the house

addition. As stated in the copy of the letter from Luikart attached,the outside unit was

placed in the only location possible where refrigerant lines could physically run to the

central system in the basement. There is no other available location

A literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive

applicants of rights commonly enjoyed. It is common and necessary for central air

conditioning systems to have the outside box unit These exist on many neighboring

homes. As stated in the attached letter from Luikart, the only location possible to place the unit was in front of the offset on the north side of the house. Without the outside unit

the home cannot have central air conditioning.

c) The special circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The home and the addition were constructed many years ago not by these applicants.

d) Grant of the variance will not confer undue privilege on applicants. Applicants seek to air condition the home at 326 North Pearl Street in the same manner as other residents with the outside box unit situated in the only location possible under the circumstances.

e) Grant of the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed variance.

Applicants do not believe there will be any adverse effects. This is a new air conditioning

system and operates quietly and efficiently.

There will be no adverse impact of traffic on North Pearl Street if the

variance is approved.

BZBA Minutes 9/18/1995

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr., Village Planner

September 18, 1995

Meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995.

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

BZBA Closing Comments:

Marathon's appeal is scheduled to be heard at the Wednesday, September 20th meeting of

Council at 7:3O p.m.

Minutes from the August 24th meeting are enclosed to allow you to make your correction

now. Please save these corrections for the next meeting.

Enclosed is a registration form for a Land Use Planning Workshop on November 6, 1995.

If you are interested in this workshop please contact me as soon as possible.

BZBA Minutes 8/24/1995

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

August 24, 1995

Minutes

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Lon Herman

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: James and Lisa Salerno, 431 Burg Street

Minutes: July 13. 1995: All figures on traffic were based upon

trip generation February, 1995, updated to the fifth edition.

Grammatical and typographical errors will be corrected by Carrie

Miller and minutes redistributed. Mr. Krone moved to approve

minutes as amended; Mr. Stewart seconded, AND MINUTES WERE

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Bellman asked what constituted the record, and members

agreed that the minutes are the record. Transcriptions recorded

by applicants are not available to us. We would have to buy the

recorded notes if it becomes necessary. Mr. Krone strongly recommended

that if Marathon does come in with specific grounds for

appeal, including, references in the transcript, we should request

that the relevant transcript be given to us. If there is enough

time, BZBA will prepare a written response for Village Council.

Mr. Tailford assured the group he would have it available.

lull_2119-95 : Mr. Stansbury moved to approve the minutes

as amended by members before minutes were reproduced. Mr.

lpS/tewa'rt seconded, and MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business: James and Lisa Salerno, 431 Burg Street

The Salernos wish to contruct a two-car garage with flat roof and deck with rail at the side of their house, 4'8" from the side lot line, requiring a variance of 7-2".There is an existing

foundation for an old one-car garage located within the

setback area; the new garage would extend 2' larger. Because of

the topography of the back yard, this is the only location where

a two-car garage can be added to the property. They are planning

the driveway so that the big tree may be preserved, and Mr. Salerno indicated that a new retaining wall will not be necessary. The siding and color will match the house.

Mr. Salerno had provided such thorough and complete ration- ale for seeking the variance that BZBA members agreed to let the rationale for consideration of the application. See attached notes, No. 2, Sections A through E.}

The house next door is very close, and actually the presence of a

garage would provide added privacy to both homes. No objections

to the application have been received.

MR. KRONE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED

WITHOUT MODIFICATION BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED IN

THE APPLICATION. (Also, the village is in need of

parking spaces, so the more cars we can get off the

road, the better.) MR. BELLMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 7: 45 p. m.

Next Meeting: September 28, 1995

Variance Application: James A. & Lisa N. Salerno, 431 Burg St.,Granville

1. The property located in Licking County, Ohio, situated in the

Village of Granville and bounded and described as follows:

Lying and being in Range No. 13, Township No. 2 and Section

No. 3 and being a part of a five acre tract formerly owned

by Daniel Shepardson and more particularly described as

follows:

Beginning at the northeast corner of a parcel of land

called Lot No. 1, formerly conveyed by Daniel Shepardson

to W.W. Daniel and Elsie I Daniel, said corner being

on the west line of Burg Street; thence from said

northeast corner South 64 Degrees West 115 feet; thence

North 37 Degrees West 67.4 feet; thence North 64 Degrees

East 115 feet to the west line of Burg Street; thence

South 37 Degrees East 67. 4 feet along the west line of

Burg Street to the place of beginning, the above described

parcel being a part of Lot No. 2 of Town Acres estimated

to contain 30 square rods of land.

2. The following is a response to each of the criteria for

approval used in reviewing this variance application:

A) The special condition that exists which is peculiar

to our land is that the lay of the land on our property

prevents the placement of a garage anywhere except to

the east side of the house. This is due to the house

being on a hillside lot that drops sharply behind the

house after a retaining wall (please see elevation

drawings for specific measurements).

B) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive us of having the protection

of a garage for our automobiles when many others in the

community currently have garages built either on their

property line or within the set-back distance, perhaps

also due to property peculiarities. A partial list of

such properties in our same zoning area enjoying the

benefits of having a garage include:

404-426-440-448-452-456 and 504 W. Broadway

121 N. Plum St.

439 W. College St.

413 (carport) and 419 Burg St.

C) The building of a garage at the specified location

is not due to speical conditions or circumstances

resulting from any action on our part. Rather, it is

due to the natural topography of our lot. 1

Variance Application

Salerno/431 Burg St.

Page Two

D) The granting of this variance would not confer any

undue privilege that would be denied by this Ordinance

to other lands or structures in the same zoning district

which also had special conditions peculiar to their land

which would warrant the granting of a variance.

E) The granting of a variance in this situation would

not adversely affect the health, safety and general

welfare of the persons residing or working within the

vicinity of the proposed variance. The garage would

be built to the rear of the house on the adjoining

property, allowing a firefighters to have access to their

home. Having a flat and dry spot to park our automobiles

would actually contribute to safety as we currently park

on an incline which, when icy, could possibly allow our

automobile(s) to slide and cause an accident.

3. Attached please find the requested eight copies of the

plot plan with the requested notations.

4. On the reverse side of the application please find the

names and addresses of property owners within 200 feet

of the indicated property.

5. Additional information has thus far not been requested;

but shall be forthcoming if it should be needed for

approval.

6. The application fee has been enclosed.

BZBA Minutes 7/20/1995

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

July 20, 1995

Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Gilbert Krone, Eric Stewart

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Kim Zeune (Zeune Construction & Development),Cindy Schumaker (Petroleum Ltd.), Ed Vance, Eloise DeZwarte, Sam Mackenzie-Crone, Arnold Shaheen (365 S. Main,

Pataskala), Andrew C. Turner (113 Shannon Lane), L. P. Case (102

Shannon Lane), Dorothy Garrett, Richard Salvage (73 Berline Ct.),

Cindy Scheiber), Rose Wingert (179 Victoria Drive), Carolyn and Larry Huey.

Old Business:

Minutes were not on the agenda.

Mr. Zeune and Ms. Schumaker, Marathon, Cherry Valley. Road

Tonight' s meeting is a remand hearing of their conditional

use permit request. A final decision was postponed from last

week' s meeting in order to give members more time to ponder the

criteria of the application. This meeting is not open for comments

from the public.

Mr. Bellman expressed his personal conclusions first. His

problems centered on traffic and the 1992 traffic study compared

to the 1995 study, "Trip Generation." Dr. Scarpitti and others

have expressed difficulties with traffic now, which would only be

exacerbated with another business in the area. Mr. Bellman feels

the new study (1) is not necessarily accurate in terms of num- bers. He pointed out areas of inconsistency and very wide range

in the report as far as cars per day and cars per rush hours.

2) The report is tailored generally, rather than being specifically

to Cherry Valley and Rt. 16. There is a too small sample

size. 3) Studies have not been taken to see whether deviation

exists to present a burden to Granville; this is an educated

guess, rather than scientific data.

4) We need to consider traffic in the future at this busy corner. (5) A convenience store with gas pumps is a different land use from sidered in the TES study. 6) In addition to a gas station, convenience store, and car wash, they are planning a drive- through fast-food window, a cluster of activity designed. to pull in business by car.

7) In addition to the traffic problems, Mr. Bellman had concerns about putting the Marathon concept so close to a resident area. The applicants are likeable people and have done a good job of presentation, but the location is wrong.

Surely there is another corner of Galway or Granville more appropriate for

their store. 8) The access is wrong; it s hard to make left hand

turns in and out of Wendy' s now. A much larger stacking

area is needed. Common sense says that the idea of traffic

turning in any direction so close to the busy intersection is

unacceptable. (9) The possibility of accidents increases with

more traffic. If the application is approved, it needs to have

restricted access from Galway only. 10) It would place a

strain on existing village streets. 11) Noise, particularly

from the car wash, would be a problem. Testimony places noise at 5

decibels, but I have not seen any specifications about how far

away the noise can be heard, and this is very close to a

residential area. Any approval should include noise specifications,

and violations should shut the car wash down. (12) Litter

and general nuisance will be problems.

Mr. Krone referred to the Wilcox traffic study with regard

to Wendy-s, and he considers the 1992 report more reliable. The

recommendation was to move Westgate farther up, but that 'means

moving a public street, which would force existing businesses to

accommodate Marathon. He suggested that BZBA recommend moving

Wendy- s access farther up the road, which would alleviate the

stacking problem, according to the Wilcox Report. BZBA should be

able to help the applicants by giving advice. Mr. Murphy, who

owns the drive, also has an interest in what happens to it, and

BZBA could place a condition on Wendy' s and Murphy s approval on moving the service road. He felt that BZBA has a legal obligation

to show Marathon how traffic can be controlled in a reasonable

way. The Wendy's traffic study said there would be no

stacking at Wendy-s, but that is shown to have been inaccurate.

Ms. Caravana reminded him that neither Wendy' s nor Mr. Murphy is

on the agenda here and that Granville Planning Commission would

be considering these items, should they arise She felt the BZBA

has to be very careful about what conditions are placed on Marathon.

Mr. Herman felt that these things could be addressed in a work session. Mr. Bellman explained that on Page 6 TES recommends

that the existing Wendy' s drive be limited to right-hand

turns and that Galway South should be constructed possible in order as soon as to provide a safe access to Wendy s and other businesses. TES recommended also that there should be no entrance

into Wendy-s from Cherry Valley heading north. It s

possible there might be another traffic light there at some time in the future.

Mr. Herman wanted to thank the applicants and others for giving us time to collect our thoughts. He expressed his concerns

with the application:

1) In the traffic study the engineer states that traffic flow will improve because of improvements made by the developers, but this is dubious.

2) Mr. Herman felt that the statement that the village had time to develop

access guidelines to make road improvements and did not act is

not viable. Alternative access was rejected by the applicant

because of excess cost and loss of business. (3) Volume of

traffic will be increased; a land use of convenience store and

gas pumps will increase traffic dramatically. 4) Traffic study

is based on averages, not local data, and does not represent peak

activity. I' m sure the applicants desire not -average' traffic

but -a lot of- traffic activity and will do all they can to

increase traffic, creating burdens for the village. Gas

stations generate more traffic volume than this study suggests.

5) Wintertime salt on roads increases car wash traffic and

stacking. 6) A review of the applicant' s study is more

favorable to the applicant and focuses on the developer’s plans.

7) The applicant has not proven that undue burden will not occur

under Criteria C. 8) As neighbors and businesses have

testified, the application does not meet Criteria D. Dr.

Scarpitti has difficulty even now responding to emergencies, and

Mrs. Roberts has spoken out against Marathon as a neighbor.

Mr. Stewart- s concern is also with the entrance and exit at

Wendy's. Both Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Samuelson have said that additional

lanes would alleviate but not solve the problem, which

would remain at a less than acceptable level. It would also

create an undue burden on facilities.

Ms. Caravana felt that (1) under criteria D this is a changing

area, but long-term residents as well as some newcomers in

Erinwood were not aware that a gas station could be in their

neighborhood. Such a business would be particularly noxious

because of noise, litter, pollution, and lighting early in the

morning and late at night, making it a highly visible site. 2)

Most permitted land uses would have more restricted hours of

operation. Longer hours create a greater nuisance for neighbors.

3) There are conflicting recommendations made by the engineers

with respect to the entrance drive. In addition to making Cherry

Valley Road five lanes and moving Westgate north, TES still

recommended prohibiting left-hand turns at the Wendy- s intersection

and prohibiting any more accesses south of Galway. The

application before the BZBA flies in the face of these earlier

recommendations.

4) There are other accesses available to the applicant; access from Galway is unacceptable to the applicant largely because it is less convenient. Convenience, location, and traffic are the very reasons the applicant likes the location. If they cannot run their business with a service perhaps the nature of the access, business creates the problem. Maybe the applicant can review the access road with Wendy-s and return with a more acceptable design.

Mr. Krone stated his concerns: (1) since TES did the study, they should at least show why they varied from the requirements of the study as far as left-hand turns and doubling up on use of the drive. They were not as forthright in comments which said left turns can continue to be made into Marathon.

2) Mr. Wilcox in the impact study relied on the "use 846" number in the 1980-90

Trip Generation study that supposedly was reasonably certain, but

now we know that there are variations in the figures. (3) There

were also variables that were not addressed in using the "use 846

number, i. e.,the size of the convenience market and what items

were sold in the Trip Generation 1980-90 study. Mr. Wilcox has

an obligation to be as certain as he can in talking about

specifications and percentages. It would have helped Mr. Krone

to have seen raw data analyses on this specific site, which Mr.

Wilcox could have gotten from Mr. Zeune and then produced

reliable figures. 4) There was an attempt by Mr. Wilcox and TES

to make some changes in the figures used at the last meeting.

which creates a lack of credibility in the original study. 5)

The original application did not include a drive-through; the

applicant said the drive-through would not increase traffic

because people are there anyway. Assuming there was some

reasonable way they could come to that conclusion, they should

have come up with some rationale. Their real goal is to increase

traffic in order to increase business. The drive-through

shows a lack of _____ on the part of the engineer.

6) There' s already a problem with Wendy' s driveway; Marathon

would exacerbate the situation. The applicant has the right to

use the property, but we have the obligation to make analysis· to

show how the property can be used in a way that does not create a

problem. We need specific data.

A suggestion by Ms. Caravana was to limit the hours of operation.

Mr. Bellman stated that whatever business goes into that

location should be a non-traffic-intense one. Perhaps another

design for traffic flow with access onto Galway could be more

acceptable. A more effective visual barrier is needed to address

the highly lit site. Ms. Caravana thought these were Planning

Commission issues, but with a brightly lit site, late hours,

etc.,many problems remain with respect to impact on residences.

Mr. Herman thought another work session could be planned.

Ms. Caravana thought that the BZBA had addressed all of

their concerns and given suggestions to the applicant and that

specific criteria could be applied and a vote taken. Mr. Bellman

thought a Finding of Fact should be prepared for the record.

Mr. Bellman moved to disapprove the application and to

provide a Finding of Fact for the record. Mr. Herman seconded

the motion, AND THE MOTION TO DISAPPROVE WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 00 P. m.

Next Meeting: August 24, 1995

BZBA Minutes 5/25/1995

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 25, 1995

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

Krone, Eric Stewart

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Brian Lindamood (Sentinel),Kim Zeune (Zeune

Construction &Development),Cindy Schumaker (Petroleum Ltd.),

Pat Scarpitti, W. L. Lavender, Mary Kay Roberts, Ed &Kay Vance,

Dave Woerner, Dave &Joanne Woodyard, Eloise DeZwarte, Mary

Fellabaum, Jim Jump, Jim Muir, Kevin Bennett, Dave Tumbas, Jurgen

Pape, Frank Edie, Sam Mackenzie- Crone, Ode Keiderling, Janice

Thornborough, Arnold Eisenberg

Minutes: October 27, 1994. Dan Bellman was absent from the

meeting; otherwise, Mr. Krone moved to approve minutes as

presented. Mr. Stewart seconded, and MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizen Comments: None

New Business:

Mr. Zeune and Ms. Schumaker, Marathon, Cherry Valley Road

Mr. Zeune and Ms. Schumaker were present to request a

conditional use permit and variance for their proposed gas

station/ convenience store with drive-in and upscale deli/car wash

next door to Wendy’s. Following Granville Planning Commission

advice, they have redesigned the business so that a setback

variance will not be needed. Ms A Schumaker said that this is a

unique design, for the usual style of Marathon station is not

appropriate for Granville and that they have simplified the

traffic pattern and added green space. GPC also had requested

moving the store to delete the mass of asphalt, but Mr. Zeune

said the traffic flow would not work any other way.

Mr. Zeune explained that the traffic study concluded that

very little traffic would be added because using Galway Drive a well-maintained exit would not add as section. substantially to the inter- In fact, the traffic flow will be improved over what is at Wendy' s now. He explained the difference between primary trips and passerby trips in the Clyde E. Williams traffic study, and much discussion ensued about the amount of traffic generated, especially during the noon hour. Mr. Tailford answered questions about proposed turn lanes and driveways and talked about the extensive Bird and Bull traffic study. Mr. Bellman felt we have

caomprpoobulnedm at the intersection now and that a gas station would the difficulty. The applicants answered questions from the members and the citizens.

The applicants have not yet applied to the state for an

alcohol permit but they may consider it later.

The store would be open 6 a. m. to midnight.

Diesel would be available at the last pump, at the request

of the GPC. The station would not be accessible to large trucks,

although the fuel delivery truck would come every other day.

Dr. Scarpitti, who has a medical practice across Cherry

Valley Road, was concerned about the difficulty of getting to

Westgate Drive and making left turns, which is already a problem

and a dangerous situation. Both sides of the road must be considered.

He wanted to see a traffic pattern explained. His

elderly patients don' t need this extra headache; also, he needs

to be able to get to the hospital quickly for emergencies rather

than extensive waiting for traffic and lights. He was also

concerned about who would pay for improvements in the area. Mr.

Zeune explained that they have planned for stacking up of cars

across the street and this should not be a problem for Westgate

Drive. Local people will not be making left-hand turns out of

Wendy' s and Marathon.

Mr. Vance questioned the traffic study' s accuracy, feeling

the study was too limited. He figured that one car per minute

would be coming to the pumps alone, not to mention other customers.

He cited other pollution sources, overcrowding, and impact

on village facilities and services. It is important for BZBA to

consider all the criteria carefully in making their decision. In

addition to merely not being detrimental, a proposed use must

also be compatible. He did not feel people could be told not to

make a left turn on Cherry Valley Road. Mr. Tailford said that

this study was only on Marathon's possible impact on the area and

what they needed to provide. The earlier study was a long-term plan. A piecemeal study is the only way to do it unless the

village pays for the entire area up front before other businesses

apply and pay for their share.

Mr. Bellman stated that the area is zoned for business and

BZBA can determine what kind of a business would be acceptable.

A professional office would have substantially less traffic.

Mr. Muir, a realtor/ appraiser, feels the site is too small

for a gas station and a gas station should be on a corner lot. He felt the planning lock is too dense and that there would be grid- at the carwash. Ms. Schumaker was willing to make changes banlodckth. at she knew of some other gas stations in the middle of the Ms. Thornborough wondered whether a Marathon station was nineetedresdecwtiitohn.a possible SuperAmerica on the other side of the Mr. Tumbas asked about impact on NewarkG- ranville Road of added traffic at the intersection. Ms. Woodyard stated that it s very difficult to exit Wendy' s now and another high- traffic business would make it chaotic. Ms. Roberts, a longtime resident of the neighborhood, complained of the added traffic now and was apprehensive of additional traffic. Mr. Pape stated that people do not want a gas station there.

Granville and Newark have sufficient gas available as well as car wash places. Ms. Muir stated problems with added trucks, more debris. Mr. Edie from Clouse Lane added that there is no need for a place like this and and cited traffic woes when and if Fackler' s puts in a bar. Mr. Keiderling cited air and water pollution, light pollution, odors, gas and oil recovery, and possible environmental damage. Ms. Schumaker assured the group that she will use the latest modern technology to process waste materials and prevent pollution.

Dr. Woodyard provided some negative historical background

for Marathon' s "sordid" treatment of Don Bennett and lack

of keeping promises. Ms. Schumaker stated that she is a Marathon

jobber and the company does not control her. She can buy gas

from them and use their credit card but she is independent from

them.

Ms. Fellabaum stated that in order to keep downtown Granville

business viable, a convenience store is not desired at the

intersection.

Ms. Caravana brought the discussion to a conclusion and

requested the applicants to apply the proposal to the criteria

for a conditional use:

1) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning

district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning

Ordinance are met. The village attorney has determined that a

gas station or fast food restaurant-traffic-oriented

business is acceptable. The car wash is in use and

acceptable under the ordinance.

2) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans

for the area and is compatible with existing land use. Ms.

Schumaker said that her study indicates a need for such a use. All neighboring uses are commercial.

3) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, schools, and refuse disposal. Ms. Schumaker feels that it will

not place undue burden on village facilities. The car wash is

relatively quiet, she reported, and they will meet the village lighting guidelines. The dumpster will be well maintained, and

sewer and water facilities are available.

3

4) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing

to existing neighboring uses and will not entail a use, structure,

or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or

hazard to any persons or property. Although Ms. Schumaker felt

her application fulfilled this condition, others disagreed. Mr.

Stewart said that there are enough gas stations in the vicinity

already. Also, nuisance of traffic and noise are a major concern

with rapidly growing adjacent residential areas. Extra traffic

generates safety problems. Mr. Krone felt that all who spoke

here tonight had legitimate concerns but that he would like to

have seen both traffic studies and to have invited the author of

the studies to explain them to this group so that we can better

envision what the impact might be, rather than considering this

application piecemeal. It would seem that Marathon would be

creating a significant traffic burden and adding to the problems

of traffic flow there. Marathon needs to provide more traffic

analysis to justify their traffic plan. He felt that in fairness

to the applicant, more data is necessary, but a majority of BZBA

members chose to vote at this time.

Ms. Caravana thanked the audience for attending and speaking

and encouraged people to appear in the future.

Adjournment: 9: 10 p. m.

Next Meeting: June 22, 1995

MR. BELLMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION

AND MR. STEWART SECONDED. THE CHAIR INFORMED

THE APPLICANTS THAT THEY MAY WITHDRAW AT THIS

POINT BEFORE A VOTE, WHICH APPEARS NEGATIVE,

OR THEY COULD APPEAL IF THEY WISHED. THEY

CHOSE TO HEAR THE OUTCOME. THE VOTE WAS

UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST THE APPLICATION AS

PRESENTED.

BZBA Minutes 4/18/1995

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner

April 18, 1995

Meeting on Thursday, April 27, 1995,

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

BZBA Closing Comments:

I believe there will be a meeting in May, Marathon Oil has indicated intentions to

develop the lot just north of Wendy's. They are currently conducting a traffic study for the

proposed development.

If you can return your packet envelopes,I would greatly appreciate it.

BZBA Minutes 3/6/1995

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner

March 6, 1995

Meeting on Thursday, March 23, 1995.

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

BZBA Closing Comments:

If you can return your packet envelopes, I would greatly appreciate it. I am

running out of envelopes for the BZBA since we have had no meetings in a five months.

BZBA Minutes 2/9/1995

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr., Village Planner

February 9, 1995

Meeting on Thursday,February 23, 1995.

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

BZBA Closing Comments:

Ashlin Caravana was reappointed by Council to another 3 year term.

Mary Bline's appeal was reversed by the Village Council.

Enclosed are some ordinances that have recently been passed. Please put them in your copy of the code until the codified replacement pages arrive later this year.

Also,if you can return your packet envelopes, I would greatly appreciate it. I am running out of envelopes for the BZBA since we have had no meetings in a four months.

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.