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.

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.