Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 09/22/94

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 limilinL-thec- ritcti a to this
application, c,GAs-: izcT-STTY the special cirdumstances of the animal
clinic 5TFTT,a/n. m*uL-allowing prcccdcntidl reference in the
Setr*reCOMK r*one added that technical ly we <be-1·d bee-errecet-* deny thi-5/ application, but the special ci'rcumstances tend to
favorleapplicanrt.+6.c-«Z-k-1-<-* J. '<,
4-6,2c»-ra-l- < 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 f:ctl nA Y New Business:
r*}- 1.UY·-
V
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.
0@786 5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,
safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working
in the area? These areas would not bejaffected. Actually, the
fence is a very attractive design, and j.(t would help keep the
dogs contained. 1 - 1,
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
1. .
Addendum to Minutes
Findings of Fact for Burgin Sign Variance Request
Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hearing September 22, 1994
Request: Dr. Burgin requested relief from the Granville Village sign
requirements which allow only one 35 sq. ft, ground sign and one 8 sq. ft.wall
sign per wall. Within the past year Dr. Burgin bought a veterinary practice
located at 100 Westgate Drive. When she bought the practice two ground signs
were in place, one 24 sq. ft, sign addressing Westgate Drive and one 72 sq. ft.
sign located behind the building 30' from Route 16. Dr. Burgin repainted the
signs, changing the graphics and colors, not realizing that, according to code,
this alteration made here signs new. Since the signs were considered to be new
by the Zoning Administrator, Dr. Burgin sought a variance to retain the two
existing signs in their present location.
Issue: The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals understood that the intent of
the Zoning Code section that applied to this case was intended to create
opportunities to bring non-conforming signs into conformance with current sign
standards. The Board was also very concerned with setting a precedent with
respect to sign standards in this rapidly developing area of the Village.
However, after careful consideration of the facts of this case, the BZBA arrived
at the conclusion that the particular circumstances of this case were unique and
met the Board' s criteria for approval.
a) Are there special circumstances or conditions which are peculiar to
the land or structure which are not applicable to other land or structures
in the zoning district?
In this case the zoning district is limited to the northeast corner of the
intersection of Cherry Valley Road and Route 16 which is zoned Community
Service District. This area was developed before the existing zoning
ordinances came into effect. The 72 sq. ft sign has existed in its
existing location for a number of years and is not being enlarged or moved
in any manner. The building located on this property also presents
special limitations. Dr. Burgin would have practical difficulties in
erecting or painting a wall sign facing Route 16 because several fenced
kennels have been previously constructed on the south side of the
building, leaving no visible wall space. Painted wall signs are the
manner in which most other properties in this district have accomplished
signage needs on the south side of their properties.
b) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district.
Almost all other properties in the Community Service District have signage facing Route 16. Most of the signs are larger than Dr. Burgin' s and are
painted on the rear walls of each structure. A literal interpretation of
the zoning ordinance would put Dr. Burgin' s property at a disadvantage
compared to neighboring properties by taking away her ability to advertise in a similar manner.
1
c) Do the special circumstances and conditions result from actions of the
applicant.
Dr. Burgin bought the property and its signs in their existing condition.
Existing conditions, specifically the location of the kennels, prohibit
the erection of a conforming wall sign on the south side of the structure
facing Route 16. Dr. Burgin has not moved or enlarged the sign. She did
contribute to her dilemma by re-painting the signs without knowledge of
the zoning implications.
d) Would granting the variance confer on the applicant any undue
privilege denied by this ordinance to other lands and structures in the
same zoning district.
Other businesses in this zoning district have previously erected signs
which are "grandfathered". Most of these other existing signs are
actually larger and more visible than Dr. Burgin' s thereby serving their
function adequately. Undeveloped properties in other adjacent zoning
districts will have the opportunity to be developed in a more uniform
manner under the new zoning and signage requirements. Prospective
developers and property owners will be able to construct structures that
respond to the property' s signage needs and to the current zoning code
signage requirements and they will not have to deal with issues of preexisting
signs.
e) 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 in question is well established and the existing
72 sq. ft. sign has existed for a number of years. Approving the variance
will not adversely affect the general welfare by introducing more signage
or visual clutter. To the contrary, the recent painting of the sign has
enhanced its a6pearance.
In the future other pre-existing signs in this zoning district will
deteriorate and it is likely that other business may wish to upgrade signs
from time to time. An overly strict interpretation of the zoning code in
these cases might negatively affect the appearance and general welfare of
the zoning district. The Board did not want to set a precedent which
would encourage business owners to allow existing signs to deteriorate
rather than improving them. While bringing non-conforming signs into
conformance is generally preferable, the granting of variances similar to
the one granted to Dr. Burgin may be appropriate. While variance requests
will always have to be considered on the particular facts of each case,
the general consensus of the Board was that if there are practical
difficulties in bringing the sign into conformance or if improvements be made in can a pleasing manner without increasing the number, size or garishness of signs, a variance might be appropriate.

BZBA 10/27/94

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 27, 1994
Minutes
Present: DanB- em*a*n, 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
wleattlel.r 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 area7
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 area7 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
applicant7 The business has been there for a number of years.
That the zoning code resticts 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 area7
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 11/14/94

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 05/27/94

Ok
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 Meetig„: Thuisday, June 23, 7.30 11.iii.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 06/23/94

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
Tl-IEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY API'ROVED.
Adjouri,ine,il: 10:30 1)in..
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
Board ofZoning B&uilding Appeals
Please sigii iii belo,v
498-3-1·-q
ATTENDANCE
NAME ADDRESS
U-M-_t<BLZ 4)36% 0 2 -4 0)·tk i.c.3,02

BZBA 07/28/94

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:
Citizens'
none
Comments: none
Minutes: Discussion took place on the accuracy of the June 23
minutes in two places:
I. Page 2, No. I. A. R -atheeth- anb-eingm-aintained as a residese-q,
t45-b_uirhling imutdiately nor,th 6f- -EFiFW- arEllouse will-be kepat-s- a -
Virse·a@baz-zient;h-ere jione, lhange the words "as a residence" to
which is a residence. IJ
II. Page 3, No. II. Add "East Side Owner, "
line 2.
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 Mr.
suggestions for consideration on Mr.
BZBA.
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.
Page 3, 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 Sectionof ...
the code."Criteria to be applied will be on a separate sheet.
Adjournment: 8: 24 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,

BZBA 01/27/94

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

BZBA 02/24/94

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2

BZBA 12/14/94

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 08/25/94

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 25, 1994
Minutes and Findings of Fact
Application: John and Mary Bline,Greystone Country House, 128 South Main Street
Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana,Lon Herman, Gilbert Krone,Chuck Meteer
Also Present: Doug Tailford,Village Planner
Visitors:
Minutes:
Brian Lindamood S( entinelM),ary Bline P(.0. Box 127)R,ichard Van Winkle 8(
Arcade Place,NewarkL),ori Green 4(45 BurgC)a,.rmen,Luis,Patricia MacLean
221 S. Pearl)C,heryl Waller 3(225 Lancaster Road)K,en Nigg 2(25 S. Pearl),
Paul and Susan Burgin (100 Westgate Drive), Orville Orr (321 E. Broadway),
Anne Russell 2(05 S. ProspectR),alph Hall (114 Westgate)
The Application
Currently,John and Mary Bline t(h"e Blines"h)ave two uses for the property located at
128 S. Main Street. First,the Blines use 700 sq. ft. ofthe existing house as a retail shop known
as "Greystone Country House"and use the remaining portion of the house as their personal
residence.
The Blines plan to add a two-story building to the rear of the property measuring 48 ft. by
20 ft. This will add an additional 960 sq. ft. per floor, or a total of 1920 sq. ft. of space for the
new building on the property. This new structure is in addition to the existing house.
If the Blines' application is approved, they plan to use two structures as follows: First,
they plan to use all the floor space in the new building to the rear of the property ( i.e.,1920 sq.
ft.)as the new location ofthe retail shop known as Greystone Country House. Second,they plan
to use 420 sq. ft. of the existing house on South Main Street as converted office space for Bline
Painting. Finally,they plan to use the remainder of the house as their personal residence.
B. Issue
The issue before, the Board is whether a zoning variance should be granted to permit a lower number ofparking spaces for the Blines' businesses than currently is required by the Code.
Under Section 1183.03 ofthe Code,the Blines are required to provide one parking space for
every 150 sq.ft.ofretail space. Based on this,Douglas Tailford,the Village Planner,calculated
that 12.8 spaces would be required for the retail establishment ( i.e.,1920 sq. ft. X 1/150 sq. ft.
12.8 spaces).Mr. Tailford also calculated that one extra space would be required for the office
A
Bline Variance Request
August 25, 1994
Page 2
for Bline Painting to be located in the existing house. Thus,Mr. Tailford concluded that the
current Code requires 13.8 spaces for the businesses to be located at 128 S. Main Street.
The Blines currently have only five (5)parking spaces for their business. As part of their
intended expansion,they planned to add no new spaces. Therefore,they are requesting a zoning
variance to allow only 5 spaces for their newly planned residential and dual business
establishment,versus the 13. 8 required spaces.
Testimony at the Hearing
At the hearing,the Blines were represented both by Mary Bline and Richard Van Winkle.
Their testimony is as follows:
Mrs. Bline testified that the five parking spaces behind her building are rarely filled and,
even if she doubled the shop space,there would never be more than two cars there. She stated
that most of her customers walk to Greystone and visit other shops also and can park on South
Main Street. She also testified that her neighbors, Mr. Williams and Mr. McKivergin have
offered space in their lots but she failed to present any firm proposal for additional lots from her
neighbors. She stated that,with the expansion of the new building,there is no space left on the
property to expand the current parking spaces. She reminded the Board that Sensibilities has
been given permission without sufficient parking space by the Village.
Mrs. Bline continued by stating that other businesses in the area have insufficient parking
also and suffer no hardship. She pointed out that Park National Bank,her neighbor,needs fewer
parking spaces under the Code than does she,which she believes is odd because they have more
customers, in her opinion.
Mr. Van Winkle, speaking on behalf ofthe Blines, indicated that they are trying to bring
the application in harmony with what the Village intends to do with a shop like Greystone t-h-at
is,to ensure that land use changes are compatible with the neighborhood and oriented to the
pedestrian,rather than contradicting this with parking requirements. Mr. Van Winkle stated that
the Code states that setbacks may be eased in their overall purposes i.(e.p,edestrian traffic)of the Village district,which Ms. Bline is doing.
Mr. Van Winkle continued by stating that the variance requirement for special
circumstances is not relevant to this application because we are dealing with a change of lot
usage. Ms. Bline wants to use her land in a special way with the exception that she does not have sufficient space for parking. She wants to increase residential space by reducing the shop area in the house and providing more space for the shop to spread out. Mr. Van Winkle thought that the
C
Bline Variance Request
August 25, 1994
Page 3
general availability of parking constituted "special circumstances"not resulting from actions of
the applicant.
Mr. McKivergin',the Bline's next door neighbor,explained that he is a consultant
overseeing paving of malls and parking flow and he did not foresee any adverse health,safety,or
general welfare effects on granting the variance. Mr. Van Winkle added that he did not think
other persons would be affected,and no neighbors have entered complaints.
In response to this testimony, Ashlin Caravana ( Board Chairman)reminded Ms. Bline
that parking regulations run with the property, not with the applicant,and that accordingly the
long-term effects had to be considered. Ms. Caravana stated that we are dealing with more than
just Greystone w--e have to look into the future in anything that could be allowed under the
Code.
Mr. Van Winkle added that the current property,which is zoned commercial,has a
conditional use as a residence,given to it by the past use of the property as a parsonage some
years ago.
Ms. Caravana ( Chairman)and Dan Bellman (Board Member)both raised the impact of
doubling the size ofthe retail business on the current need for parking spaces. Ms. Caravana
stated that doubling the size of the business may double the need for parking spaces. Later,Mr.
Bellman asked Ms. Bline whether she could expect that an increase in the retail business,from
700 sq. ft. to 1920 sq. ft.,would increase the number of customers visiting the retail
establishment. Mr. Bellman questioned whether she would be disappointed if she expanded her
business from 700 sq. ft. to 1920 sq. ft.,but did not see any resulting increase in her business.
Ms. Bline admitted that there likely would be an increase in business, but she argued that
doubling the size of her business would not necessarily double her business.
Chuck Meteer ( Board Member)stated that ifthe application meets the criteria,the
variance should be granted. Mr. Meteer stated that those resolutions are to keep the character of
the Village,not high commercial buildings,which generate more traffic.
Gilbert Krone ( Board Member)asked whether it would be possible to add onto the back
of the house,rather than creating a separate structure. Ms. Bline said that she had rejected that
idea as too expensive. Also,Ms. Bline testified that this would require her to move out of the
property as a residence. Mr. Tailford (Village Planner)added that such a change to the main
Mr. McKivergin was not listed on the sign-in sheet for the Board meeting.
Nevertheless,Mr. McKivergin was present and did testify at the meeting.
Bline Variance Request
August 25, 1994
Page 4
structure of the building w--hich currently has a nonc-onforming,residential use in a
commercial district w--ould end the Bline's historical variance,thereby requiring a new variance
to use the building partly as a residence.
In response to Mr. Krone's questioning,Ms. Bline thought that a carriage house would fit
better into the character of the Village than an addition. She also thought that the front of the
house would appear to be more "residential looking."
Mr. Bellman ( Board Member)stated that it was his experience as a Village resident that,
during peak periods,the Village had barely enough parking and,sometimes,insufficient
available parking. Therefore, allowing such a business expansion without the attendant increase
in parking spaces would convert a barely acceptable situation into a real problem.
Lon Herman ( Board Member)stated that,even though other businesses have insufficient
parking,increasing commercial space on South Main will increase the problem of parking iii
general. Once a variance is granted in this area,everyone will anticipate one.
Mr. Krone (Board Member)stated that,not only is parking an issue if Ms. Bline expands
her residential and commercial square footage,but the future needs to be considered. While the
Master Plan prefers pedestrian orientation,before a driver can become a pedestrian,a parking
space must be found.
During questioning, Ms. Bline added that even though she would be eliminate some
green space, the garden space left will be planted"with natural flowers and pleasant surroundings.
She stated that another owner would have taken the same space and blacktopped it. Lori Green,
an employee of Greystone,testified that if the shop attracts other patrons, that can only help
Granville as a whole.
During the meeting,a question was raised as to the number of spaces that the Code
actually required for the planned addition. Mr. Bellman ( Board Member)questioned whether,
the Code required 13.8 spaces for the commercial businesses and another 2 spaces for the
residential dwelling, because the property was being used both for commercial and residential
purposes. In response, Mr. Tailford (Village Planner)stated that it was his opinion that two additional spaces for the dwelling would not be required.
Mr. Tailford V(illage Planner)indicated that,in calculating the parking needed,one needs to consider the employees,as well as customers. He testified that Ms. Bline needs one space,her husband needs one for his office,and Lori Green,the employee,needs one. That leaves only two available spaces for retail customers or those visiting the businesses

BZBA 08/25/94

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
s. Bline explained that she would like to build a 960 sq.
ft. two story cedar carriage house to move Greystone to the rear
facing th alleyway. They want to retain the front as a
residence d use 420 sq. ft. for an office for Bline Painting.
They would b required to have 13. 8 parking spaces and currently
have five. T e five spaces are rarely filled, and even if she
doubled the sho space, there would never be more than two cars
there. Most of r customers walk to Greystone and visit other
shops also and can ark on South Main Street. Neighbors Mr.
Williams and Mr. McK' vergin have offered space in their lots.
She reminded the group that Sensibilities has been given
permission without suff ient parking space by the Village. Mr.
Tailford indicated that e en though the parking code is not
perfect, it is enforceable.
Ms. Caravana reminded he that parking regulations run with
the property, not with the appl cant and stated that the longterm
effects had to be considere We are dealing with more than
just Greystone; we have to look in o the future and anything that
could be allowed under the code. Mr,VanWinkle said that there
is a conditional use on the residencegiven to the parsonage by
the Park National Bank some years agoM. r.\ Tailford explained
that if the current use is expanded upst&ir,s, they could get a
variance to expand. For expansion downst2' ls,rs, a variance is not
needed for commercial use.
determMirn.eKwrohneethesrtated that the criteria need tobe considered to applicant is entitled to the variance.
4
1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the land or
structure which are not applicable to other houses in the area?
Ms. Bline said that the lot is never filled and there is no space
to expand. She mentioned that the Master Plan recommends appealing
40 pedestrian traffic. Mr. Bellman stated that adding to the
busins does add special circumstances peculiar to the lot.
S) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the
zoning &dinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same area? Ms. Bline again mentioned the
waiving of» arking requirements for Sensibilities. Other businesses
in t4e area have insufficient parking also and suffer no
hardship. She pointed out that banks (neighbor) need fewer
spaces than Sfo,ps, which is odd because they have more customers.
Mr. Meteer saihi there is no statement in the code as far as real
estate offices ( ext door) are concerned. They are the same as
banks, etc.
Mr. VanWinkle indicated they are trying to bring the application
in harmony wfth what the village intends to do with a shop
like Greystone to ense\ that land use changes are compatible with the neighborhood and oriented to the pedestrian, rather than
contradicting this withpa\rking requirements. Ms. Caravana
stated that doubling the\ size of the business may double the need
for parking places. Mr. Afteer stated that if the application meets the criteria, the vaniance should be granted. Mr. Van
Winkle stated that the codep\tates that setbacks may be eased
under the overall purposes ofthe village district, i. e.,pedestrian
traffic, which Ms. Blinetis doing. Ms. Caravana replied
that all businesses do that. r].* Meteer stated that those
resolutions are to keep the chabacter of the village, not high
commercial buildings, which gene0ate more traffic.
3> Do the special circumstances result from actions of the
applicant? Mr. VanWinkle stated tha¢you are dealing with change
of lot useage, so this is not applicable. Ms. Bline wants to use
her land in a special way with the exfption that she does not have sufficient space for parking. Shet wants to increase residential
space by reducing the shop areain the house and give
more space to the shop to spread out.
Mr. Krone asked whether it would be pgssible to add on to
the back of the house, and Ms. Bline said e had rejected that
as too expensive and would require her to mofe out, and Mr.
Tailford added that it would be changing a structure that has a
nonconforming user-e-sidential in a commercia districts-o-if
she wants to add on, the whole building needs to conform. The
problem is the legality of it. Ms. Bline thought a carriage
house would fit better into the character of thd\village and make
the front of the house more residential looking. This would still need the same required parking area. Mr. VanWinkle thought
that the general availability of parking constitutkd "special
circumstances" not resulting from actions of applicat.
2
4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any
undue privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area?
Other businesses have insufficient parking, but Mr. Herman stated
that increasing commercial space on South Main will increase the
probled of parking in general. Once a variance is granted in
this area, everyone will anticipate one.
5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,
safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working
in the are'k? Mr. Krone stated that not only is parking an issue
if Ms. Blinb increases residential and commercial space, but the
future needos\b*e considered. While the Master Plan prefers pedestrian orientation, before a driver can become a pedestfian,
a parking spac must be found. Ms. Caravana added that when you
increase densityyou decrease green space and light for your
neighbors. Thisas historically been a residential street.
Mr. Bellman thought the time had come to consider tabling
the application and etting the applicant think about these
issues some more and 11ow the members to proceed with the
agenda, but others wa ted to move onward.
Mr_ McKivergin fro next door explained that he is a consultant
overseeing pavin of malls and parking flow and he did
not foresee any adverse h 1th, safety, or general welfare
effects on granting the va iance. Mr. VanWinkle did not think
other persons would be affe ted, and no neighbors have entered
complaints.
Mr. Bellman asked Ms. Bline whether doubling the size would
double the business and she thought probably it would not. She
added that even though she would\e eliminating some green space, the garden space left is planted wdth natural flowers and
pleasant surroundings. Another owAer would take the same space
and blacktop it. Lori Green statedth\ at if the shop attracts
other patrons, that can only. help Grdnville as a whole.
Mr. Tailford indicated that in cabculating parking needed,
you have to consider employees as well a customers; Ms. Bline
needs one space, her husband needs one fo his office, and Lori Green, the employee, needs one, so that omly leaves two available
for customers.
MR. METEER MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANGE, MR. HERMAN
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED BY A VOTE OF 4 (Bellman,
Caravana, Herman, Krone) to 1 (Meteer). Rationale: Ms. Caravana felt that there may be some special
circumstances with this business, but she did nt*think there are special circumstances particular to the land ands \tructure not applicable to the other structures in the area. Another business
in this space might need more parking area. Mr. Meteer disagreed
and departed. Mr. Krone added that even thogh there is
3
parking on South Main, that does not relate to this business. In
looking at the future, we are looking at the possibility of other
businesses bening in that area. Ms. Caravana felt approving
this would se*a dangerous precedent for others to demand parking
variances. SRe would not be opposed to using the entire building
for the shop bJ not in favor of adding a new building.
Mr. Bellman aid there are times when it is difficult to
find parking space in the alleyway, and to allow a variance
would add to the pr blem. Mr. Herman said that we would have no
control over a diffe ent shop coming in there in the future, and
it is our responsibil- ty to consider the future.
Mr. Krone had a con ern with the commercial office on the
first floor along with the residence and a new commercial
building in the rear, so the primary purpose is residential and
the secondary purpose is comm rcial. When the time comes to sell
the property, we would not be ahle to demand the 13 required
spaces. General Welfare relatesto the entire village, and
insufficient parking is felt by ev&yo*ne. Mr. Krone felt there
were other ways to get around the pblem.
Susan Burgin, Cherry Valley Animal Clinic, 100 Westgate Drive
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
7
1

BZBA 04/28/94

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 iii Village Chambers
Mr.Winters to be absent)
Respectfully subii,ilted,
Betty Allei,
3

BZBA 09/18/95

To:
From:
Date:
Re:
MEMO
Granville Board ofZoning 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 Closinfr Comments
Marathon's appeal is scheduled to be heard at the Wednesday, September 20th meeting of
Council at 7: 3Op.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.
Ifyou are interested in this workshop please contact me as soon as possible.

BZBA 10/26/95

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 26, 1995
Minutes
Present: Dan Bellman, Lon Herman, Gilbert Krone, Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin faravana
Aleo Present: Dong Tsl,i lf#d,*Vi ilg:*f it,#*·.*
Visitors; Sentinel>,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
i
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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
2
STATEMENT CONCERNING CRHERIA 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)ofthe 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 f(amily 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 C&ooling placed this
outside unit in the location indicated with the belief that the location was within the side
yard setback allowance. This beliefwas 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 reftigerant lines could physically run to the
central system in the basement. There is no other available locationb)
A literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive
applicants of rights commonly enjoved. 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 condilioning.
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 adverselv affect the health.safetv.and general welfare ofthe persons residing or working in the vicinitv ofthe proposed variance.
Applicants do not believe there will be any adverse effects. I'llis 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 11/15/95

TO:
From:
Date:
Re:
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 ist,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 05/25/95

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May xs ,199«/
Minutes -5
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/carwash
next door to Wendy- s. Following Granville Planning Commission
advice, they have redesigned the bugin.ess 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-
2
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 carwash 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 restauranat-n-y traffic-oriented
businessis--acceptable. The car wash is ,an--G@ee,*eepy use and
acceptable under the ordinance. 42 6.r044, ;4·, /
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:
Next Meeting:
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.
0-Up»J« 1 1oit 9: 10 p. m.
June 22, 1995
4
1

BZBA 03/06/95

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 07/20/95

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: Sentinel),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
Minutes: July 13, 1995:
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 the one con- 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
dcoenncteiarnls about putting the Marathon concept so close to a resi- area. The applicants are likeable people and have done a
0
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 lefthand
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 carwash, 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 carwash 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
2
1
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 carwash 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 loca- tion. 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
3
U
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 increa e
traffic in order to increase business. H_i-*rrg*the drive-through
shows a lack of exnert te·sU·morry 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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
1
211+1t-''7*1S(K*2-l'U, c-ilt,51. 6) c?0.92 17859%Il.·33.
I Ch 0,r-+
LOLUPE- t,6L1l«
4 h/{Se«/.
6-1 VaACEC)
[
ty°VarC,« 3' 1 pV -1£ /«, 1 r dicce1/(
30.4-: c(j£. On
Afb?0-5/
5/g4-t \'-1X/ W)6· YZ,1126-4-L,©
t° 4./
1
Ct l)6 ,i t J - c.)1 2 0/ (jt ·.
Sle6<Ji.l /
t
1OL
k
417 R r)
t 5)606, v
ZON VEED5 ,W.17-
Vl C
18-7£ /-
FlliC/X-C] -'<uci
e-0+6-4
022p,1. ICI)
33 1% CK. 0 (, e r 9
161*,'@v ,
1/ 11
Vg.
de
iXdk(
JaiLL
1
U
i
t
l
t

BZBA 02/09/95

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

BZBA 12/28/95

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 Closine 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.

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.