Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 12/18/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

December 18, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Greg Sharkey

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Gib Blackstone, Drew McFarland, Jerry Martin, Sandy

Nelson, Paul Dimetrosky

Minutes: November 20:

Page 1, 10th line up, change to: "Determining ownership is

not a BZBA matter, so we may either assume that they have

sufficient control or we may decide that there is not enough

information to make such a determination."

Page 2,

Page 3,

4th line up, change "whis" to this.

first line, "Mr Reyazi."

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED;

SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

MR STEWART

Tom Fuller, Village Brewing Co.,and Jerry Martin, Brew' s, 128 E.

Broadway

The applicants wish to construct a 4 ft. outdoor emergencyexit

steel stairway from second floor along west wall into the

10-ft. alley. The discussion was tabled at the last meeting and

needs to be taken off the table.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO TAKE THE MOTION OFF THE TABLE; MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Martin, of Brew' s, thought there should be a difference

between residential zoning and Village Business District zoning

regarding the 10' setback. Downtown buildings cannot be 20'

apart. Mr. Herman thought this suggestion could be forwarded to

Village Council.

Mr. Martin went on to say that GPC approved the design of the stairway as first presented. The Building Code says there

are provisions to build a pull-down stairway as long as nothing else can be done. For safety reasons, the Fire Department and

the Department of Liquor Control would rather not see a moveable

stairway, although they have no control over such a decision.

The County Engineer, County Assessor, and County Auditor say,

according to maps, the alley is commonly owned but not owned by either neighbor as far as taxes are concerned. No one pays taxes

for the alley now.

L

6%

Mr. Blackstone asked whether applicants had any drawings for

pull -down stairway, but was told that they .den« know whether

theytn- rlet-o do that. Mr. Blackstone added that he is not in

favor of a pull-down staircase and other business people feel the

same way. The group again discussed the possibility of joining

the two buildings at the second floor level via a joint ramp but

this probably will not be necessary. There is no prohibition

against it.

Mr. Reyazi stated that a pull-down stairway is still a

structure and would require a variance. Mr. Martin added that a

pull-down stairway is also much more expensive. It would require

a letter from BZBA to the Building Code people. Attorney McFarland

thought a pull-down stairway would be a very attractive

nuisance.

Mr. Essman is concerned about ownership of the alley and

cannot approve a structure on someone else' s property, but Ms.

Caravana feels there is enough evidence to consider application;

by granting the variance, we are not saying Mr. Fuller owns or

does not own the alley. If Mr. Blackstone can prove he owns the

alley at a later date, that would be something for the courts to

decide.

Mr. Herman had hoped that a solution agreeable to all

parties would have occurred but that does not seem to have

occurred.

Mr. Reyazi stated that almost all uses for a second story

would require a fire escape.

Mr. Blackstone said there is a grades,o' storm water puddles

in the back. They are supposed to straighten out the lane to

prevent puddling and freezing.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria for variances (1147. 03) for

this application:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The special circumstances would be that the building

was not built at a time when there were requirements for egress at both levels and there is a need for a solution now. This

building is at the end of a row of buildings on a very tight alley.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. There are other fire escapes in

the village district. Approval would not deny Mr. Blackstone' s putting up a fire escape in the future. Applicant would be

44

2

deprived of use of the second floor without a variance.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the property as is. We want to encourage utilization of

space in the village.

D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on

the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this

Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. Mr. Herman did not think anyone else would not have

the ability to build a fire escape.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. Having heard safety concerns about the

stairway, what we can best do is safeguard against problems

through restrictions to any approval.

It is expected that Mr. Martin will construct the stairs in

such a way as not to preclude Mr. Blackstone' s use of the stairs

in the future.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED

WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THE STAIRWAY IS TO BE

USED ONLY AS AN EMERGENCY EXIT AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSES IN

ORDER TO KEEP THE AREA SAFE AND CLEAR. (2) THIS STRUCTURE

WILL NOT ALLOW OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS TO OCCUR AND MUST BE BUILT

TO CONSIDER THE LEAST NUMBER OF OBSTRUCTIONS TO ADJOINING

PROPERTY. THE AREA UNDER THE STAIRWAY MUST NOT BE USED FOR

STORAGE OR GARBAGE. 3) STORM WATER RUNOFF MUST NOT MAKE

WATER POOL INTO ICE AND STANDING WATER. (4) OUR APPROVAL

WILL IN NO WAY CONFER UPON APPLICANT ANY IMPLIED RIGHTS OR

OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.

MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY

WITH ONE ABSTENTION (MR. ESSMAN).

Ms. Caravana will write the Finding of Fact.

Adjournment: 8: 00 p. m.

Next Meetings: January 22, 1998

BZBA Minutes 11/20/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

November 20, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Greg Sharkey

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors:

McFarland, Brooms

Gib &Allene Blackstone, Jerry Martin

Minutes: October 23:

PRESENTED; MS.

APPROVED.

John Mantonya, Drew

Sandy Nelson, Paul Dimetrosky, Lawler

MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

CARAVANA SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

November 6: Page 2, under Setback, change to "less willing

to have an enclosed structure..."

Ms. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Public Hearing:

Tom Fuller, Village Brewing Co.,128 E. Broadway

The applicants wish to construct a 4 ft. outdoor emergency- exit steel stairway from second floor along west wall into the

10-ft. alley. Gerry Martin explained that they need a variance

from side yard setback requirements. The staircase must be

covered, according to the Building Code, and the roofing material

was changed at the request of GPC. The Building Code Department

requires a second exit from a second-floor establishment.

There was some question as to who actually owns the alley,

and Drew McFarland found in a title search that in 1822 the alley

was established for the mutual convenience of both properties, creating a permanent easement. The Auditor does not know who

actually owns the alley. There seems general agreement that the

alley may not be blocked off, and there is a lot of pedestrian 969 traffic through the alley. Mr. Reyazi said that the issue of Fowunlleerrshhipas csomufpfilicciaetenst cthoinngtrsolbecause it is uncertain whether Mr. Ar stairway. Bugh ownership over the property to cops&p-uet*-hE-- is not a BZBA matter, so<wS must assume

they can move ahead. Mr. Hurst had said if this decision is l/V- 7

appealed to VC, th4 will have to make the decision.

Mr. Herman asked whether the applicants have exhausted all possibilities for building the staircase without having to ask for a variance. Mr. Martin stated that exiting through the

rear might not require a variance, but the exit would be right

over the kitchen, the spot where most fires occur. Attorney Paul

Dimetrosky said there is an internal stairway, but it is wood and exits into Brew' s. He explained that an emergency exit must

t.*i:n..r:er*k„r,72»7I8b:t) C.'} ' 7 .' ' 1*.2 .·4'•. .#:<

egress»i'nto a p" ublic»ROW a«nd'that-the»parkinglo- t'"in: «back"i-fs !. F-:4...:'.1-..::,.-=.

private property and would not be acceptable because an owner

might build into that space.

John Montonya, lawyer for Mr. Blackstone, stated that they

have opposing feelings about ownership although the alley is for

mutual convenience. He would differ with the idea that this

should be considered open courtyard. An alley should not be

obstructed. It' s not the purpose of a variance to put an encroaching

structure in an alley, and they are opposed to such a

variance. Mr. Blackstone added that when they bought their property,

they were told by Mr. Sargent that the alley went with the

building. Jim Bone and Mr. Blackstone agreed the upstairs room

would be Mr. Blackstone' s, but is not accessible except through

the James Store. They agreed to let the James Store use the room

upstairs and Blackstone' s would use the alley. Mr. Blackstone

put in the planters and the lattices. Some deliveries are made

through the alley.

Ms. Caravana wondered whether the staircase would limit

Blackstone' s use of the alley, and it wouldn' t seem to at this

time, but maybe in the future they would also need a stairway.

She asked about a pull-down stairway, or a stairway exiting to

the rear.

Mr. Herman thought BZBA could write a letter to the Building

Code Department in support of applicant' s fire escape exiting

into the parking lot. A lot of people trying to use the fire

escape at the same time might cause safety problems in the alley.

He asked whether other fire prevention means were in place and

the answer was there are sprinklers. The applicants will check

to see whether a weighted staircase would be approved. Mr.

Fuller added that fire trucks cannot access the alley but hoses

could send a water screen through there. They require 4'-5'.

It' s hard to grant a setback variance when it is not known

what it' s being set back from. Ms. Caravana would have trouble

applying the criteria to the application in this case, but she

questions the health, safety, general welfare provision. She

feels that using a fire escape is a classic use of an alley.

Mr. McFarland thinks his clients have the right to use the building in the best way they can; safety requirements were not

written into the building codes when this was built. This proposal

is in keeping with the use of the alley: mutual convenience

noefeedasc. h house. We are trying to adapt 1820' s useage to today' s

Ms. Caravana would like more time to mull over the applica- tion and tonight' s discussion. Mr. Herman stated that we could

ttaobnlieghTthrisecweiivteh tfhuerthreecromstmuednyd:ation that two options discussed 1) drop-down or weighted staircase

and (2) exiting into the parking lot. He also suggested

that applicants and the Blackstones go to GPC Monday night and

v ,e««m,,,s:expaeain, their. .positions . ·M··· rR:-e-za-will: provide <a, · summary' for „4%46.g.. .1.I )" r-.'i....

GPC.

Mr. Demetrosky preferred a solid secure staircase and suggested

an L-shaped bridge between the two buildings to act as a

mutual fire escape if Mr. Blackstone ever needed one. He said

they could not reverse the direction of the stairs because of

utilies underneath.

The Public Hearing will be continued to the December 18

meeting.

Old Business: 1st Presbyterian Church, 110 W. Broadway

With the addition of the word do to Page 3, Section 1, to

the Finding of Fact provided by Mr. Sharkey,

MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT THE WRITTEN REPORT AS FORMAL

FINDING OF FACT; MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 18 p. m.

Next Meetings: December 18

BZBA Minutes 11/6/1997

BOARD, OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

November 6, 1997 -Special Meeting

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Bob Essman, Betty Allen

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

The purpose of tonight' s meeting is to consider information

that BZBA gained at an on-site review of the Presbyterian Church

and add it to information gathered previously. It is not a public

hearing, but there is some new information to consider. Mr. Reyazi

said the main point was to determine how far the building encroaches

into the ROW. It will actually be 2' back inside the

property line, but the portico will extend 4' beyond property line

into the ROW of North Main. Mr. Reyazi met with the fire department,

who said they cannot make the turn at the CE building from

Broadway on Locust toward North Main. They would prefer an 18' line

along the CE building. When there are cars parked there, a lot of

the maneuverbility is lost. Perhaps compact-car only parking could

be posted there. There needs to be a modification, and the church

will handle this. That may be more of a GPC issue.

Parking. Mr. Sharkey asked Mr. Acklin Jhat percentage of the

congregation are Granville residents? Mr. Acklin thought 90 per cent. He asked how long is the east portico? Mr. Miller thought

it was 36'.

Mr. Acklin said the chimney already encroaches into ROW. All

the other churches encroach already, by inches.

Mr. Sharkey said parking could become a problem in the future.

While the problem exists on paper, in actuality it is not a big

problem. With parking available in close proximity, there is sufficient

parking, and on weekdays there is no problem. A lot of the

parking will take place during non-peak hours. If we wanted to put

on a condition, we might say a rent or lease in the new addition

sometime in the future is not to be granted on a long-term basis.

Mr. Herman said the purpose of village square space is to be

limited to church use. But other things might be appropriate.

Mr. Stewart said conditions could be added for fire trucks.

Mr. Acklin could work that out.

Lot Coverage. Mr. Herman believes the percentage restriction

was to not create massive structures. In this case it is deceptive;

3 per cent is not very much. GPC sees this as an acceptable soluti6n. Looking at massing of other churches, they are closer to sidewalk.

Ms. Caravana asked what type of trees would be planted if the

evergreen must be cut down and asked to mitigate extending into the

e* :u„.R«,·,O ,W- M*«is„·.S-.'h:a»rkey said-a, nyti-me-lot coverage·ds·d„iseussed;·i>t·-:i.S-'n.·ot:'

inappropriate to discuss greenspace and shrubbery. As a condition

to the variance, at a minimum any tree or shrub that must be removed

must be replaced with similar sized trees or shrubs. Also if

the church is eventually able to build, to soften the effect of the

large addition, the church should turn the width from curb line to

building into greenspace.

Setback. Ms. Caravana said setback is closer than the other

churches, 4' closer. This is also mitigated because the portico is

open rather than a closed structure. But she wished they could

push it back farther. The Methodist curb is 21' 5" and the Presbyterian

is 27' so a notation should be made that the portico is ang4<

open structure and we would be less willing to have aR-ope#structure

encroaching. Mr. Sharkey feels the church personnel have done

their homework and he is not uncomfortable. This should be a condition.

Portico no closer than 21 '5" and should remain open .

Ms. Caravana looked at rationale for approving variances. For

Criteria E, Health, Safety, General Welfare, most variances probably

don' t affect it. Parking is questionable, but the actual

problem is less in actuality than on paper. Parking could be

created by knocking down buildings, which nobody wants. Regarding

coverage, it could be reduced only with difficulty. The applicants

have done what they could to mitigate the problems expressed by Mr.

Seith, whose house is in the village square, which is unusual.

Even though it blocks light, this would still happen with an

addition that wouldn' t require a variance. Any building should

include upgrading of stormwater runoff. Some utilities need to be

relocated. There should be no increased demand on public demand on

drainage. The burden is on the church to take care of utilities.

We should vote variance by variance and add conditions.

Parking. MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR

PARKING CONTINGENT ON THESE TWO CONDITIONS: 1) NO PORTION OF THE

NEW FACILITY WILL BE LEASED OR RENTED TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION

ON A CONTINUING OR LONG-TERM BASIS FOR ANY USE OTHER THAN

NONPROPFIT CHURCH-RELATED ACTIVITIES. (2) FOR APPROVAL, THE SPACES

IN THE FIRE LANE TO NORTH AND WEST OF THE CE BUILDING ARE NOT FOR

PARKING OF VEHICLES EXCEPT COMPACT CARS. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lot Coverage. MR. HERMAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF INCREASING LOT

COVERAGE TO 78 PERCENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BEING MET: (1)

ATTEMPT TO RETAIN ALL SHRUBS AND TREES TO SCREEN THE BUILDING, AND

ANY REMOVED MUST BE REPLACED BY TREES AND SHRUBS OF SIMILAR DIAMETER.

(2) TO SOFTEN THE EFFECT, THE CHURCH MUST TURN THE WIDTH OF THE CURRENT ALLEYWAY FROM MAIN TO EXTERIOR WALL OF NEW ADDITION FOR

PORTICO INTO GREEN SPACE, APPROXIMATELY 19' 8" LENGTHWISE NORTH TO SOUTH ALONG MAIN AND 21' 2" UP TO PORTICO. SIDEWALK IS OK TO ACCESS BUILDING. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Setback. MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE SETBACK ON EAST SIDE OF

BUILDING BE APPROVED WITH THESE CONDITIONS: 1) PORTICO CAN EXTEND

."p= .,U=·P·T,,»O,BWIF+N:QM.,ORE·:THAN ·3..1'·,0,!'I,N .T.(D·R,·OW2.,() R »AMP,v: EADENG TO»I,T.R,EMAIN.4,1'; 7,:*-'t .'' .1 .,

OPEN STRUCTURE. MR. SHARKEY ADDS EXTERIOR WALL MUST BE NO CLOSER

THAN 27' TO CURB LINE AS SUBMITTED IN THE MILLER ARCHITECTURAL

PLANS AND THE, DRAWING SUBMITTED . ( 3) PORTICO BE NO CLOSER THAN

21' 2" TO CURB LINE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON MAIN. 4) PORTICO IS

TO REMAIN OPEN. MEASUREMENT IS FROM OUTER SIDE OF CURB AS IT

CURRENTLY EXISTS ON MAIN STREET. MR. STEWART SECONDED. IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

The criteria have been discussed verbally, and we used them as

a guide. Criteria A is not really applicable. Mr. Sharkey is to

write up Finding of Fact. Members agreed that it would be sufficient

to write up findings rather than running through the criteria

one by one for each variance.

Our decisions on these three variances are not to be construed

as opposition or support to VC to let the church use the church in

any other manner. Our decisions are only on these three variances

and are not to be construed as support of anything else.

CITIZENS COMMENTS: Dorothy Garrett had some comments about building

codes and historic structures, but was unintelligible on tape.

BZBA Minutes 10/23/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

October 23, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,

Eric Stewart

Members Absent:

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Bob Seith, Joyce Munro, Carl

Frazier, Bill Acklin; Steve Miller, John Burris

Minutes:

PRESENTED;

APPROVED.

July 24: MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS

MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

Citizens Comments: None

Public Hearing:

1st Presbyterian Church, 110 West Broadway

Bill Acklin introduced the plans for expansion of the

church, to be constructed between the existing church and the

Christian Education Building. Tonight they are seeking variances

for parking, lot coverage, and setbacks.

GPC has already approved Phase I, although, Mr. Reyazi

stated, GPC was concerned about historic preservation of the

original church and the massing of the new building. John Reagan

was hired as architectural consultant and he offered advice,

which was used to modify the plans, i. e.,maintaining the four

corners of the church and lessening the square footage and

massing of the plans, and careful blending of new and old structures.

GPC reviewed the height issue and said that relative to

existing buildings, they decided the height would be reasonable.

Regarding Setbacks, the Village Manager is investigating

whether any utilities would be affected by building in the ROW,

and it is within powers of Village Council to grant permission.

Mr. Acklin showed the architectural drawings and explained

that the chimney already encroaches into the ROW by 1 foot on the CE Building. They are asking that the portico stick out into the ROW by a few feet.

The alley is a Public Square, owned by the Village and established to meet the public need. Village Council needs to take action on building in the alley.

Other churches are very close to the streets. and other churches have done renovations.

The height of the structure is necessary to contain the

The parking area is short about 25 spaces. Mr. Acklin said

they do not have a big problem on Sunday mornings, and all

churches have insufficient on-site parking. There appears to be

no solution to this issue.

Mr. Acklin described the planned uses for the addition,

which will house areas for all users of the growing church. The

child-care business will not take place in the new addition. Mr.

Herman asked whether efforts were made to avoid the necessity of

variances, and Mr. Acklin said there is nothing that can be done

about the parking, and the basement is not useable space. One

alternative would be to purchase additional homes and tear them

down, which is unacceptable. Mr. Burris added that 4 parking

spaces would be destroyed but 3 would be added. The elevator is

a prime concern, and if they put it in the old building, it would

remove one stained-glass window and reduce seating and would not

serve the CE building. Mr. Stewart asked about bridging the

alley and Mr. Acklin said it was considered but that would not

provide enough space, would not look very good, and would not

house an elevator.

Lot Coverage is 80%and the addition will increase by 3. 5%,

and other churches have extensive lot coverage. Mr. Hardin has

lot coverage for the Methodist church. Ms. Caravana would like

to see footprints for the other churches from the outside to the

sidewalks.

Bob Seith, neighbor to the west, has enormous problems with

the plans and with using the alley to accomplish goals. The

building will cut off light and access to his house. One problem

is that they do not own the property. There might be problems

with fire-engine access on Sunday mornings. He spoke to the

specific variance requests: parking is pretty tight on Sunday

mornings. Tkere are engineering problems with lot coverage;

during downpours the storm sewers overflow and the more asphalt

there is, the more runoff you get. Mr. Miller added that the

Service Director will study this issue carefully. Setback is in

question on Main Street only, although the Locust Street side is

very tight, and the addition will fill the available space.

BZBA members discussed how the plans could meet with Mr.

Seith' s objections (Criteria E, Health, Safety, and General

Welfare of neighbors),and Mr. Acklin reminded them that sunlight

is not an issue legally. But members are trying to recognize issues on both sides.

Ms. Caravana thought that the plans would not add to the parking problems downtown. She felt that the new building facade

would be more attractive to Mr. Seith' s view.

Members were concerned about other churches encroaching into

-organ -pipesv': Tt'bsa-s-to<w'«as p' ossible »ands""til<t->g"et-sa'nwarrantee",=-·»v·'"·=

able roof.

··',<,·R-eW·y- and"w,anted,>more ·i·nformation*.A ·,N·-ovember -4-o-'n-site ·

vation was agreed upon preparatory to a November 6 vote.

Ms CARAVANA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE 6TH OF

NOVEMBER. IT WAS SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session: Review of "Rules and Regulations"

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AS

AMENDED; MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 00 p.m.

Next Meetings: November 4, 4 p.m.,on-site at Church. November

6, vote on Church application. (Betty will be absent.)

November 20, regular meeting.

BZBA Minutes 9/23/1997

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Thursday, September 23, 1997

Meeting on Thursday, September 25, 1997

Due to lack of applications the BZBA will not meet on Thursday, September 25. Your next

regularly scheduled meeting is on Thursday,October 23, 1997.

Enclosed is a copy of the BZBA Rules and Regulations. Please review the document prior to

next meeting and get back to me with any comments you may have.

BZBA Minutes 7/24/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

July 24, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Bob Essman

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Ladd Michael, Stephen Blake,

Greg and Ginny Sharkey

Minutes: June 26:

read provide.

change."MR.

Page 1, halfway down page, correct typo to

Page 3, 7th line up, add in use after "any

SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Public Hearing:

Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm Street

The Blakes wish to install an air conditioning unit on the

west side of the house, approximately 6' from west property line.

Placing it here would be in good proximity to the furnace, and

the applicant feels the unit will be screened from his neighbor

by the neighbor' s garage. He prefers to place the unit under the

window on the west side.

Ladd Michael, neighbor to the west, requested that the unit

be placed behind the garage so that it is centered or a couple of

feet behind the garage, as close to the house as possible. He

feels the garage itself would not provide a sufficient noise

barrier. Mr. Blake said that could be done but they would have

to construct the unit to go through the crawl space rather than

the cellar.

Ms. Caravana said they would have to work around the fire

escape. She added that landscaping would help screen the pipes,

which Mr. Blake said would have to twist and turn if the location

were moved. They would rather keep it as proposed, but Mr.

Michael wanted the unit moved.

Upon being asked more about the unit, Mr. Blake did not know

the capacity but the size was 30"x38"x26"high. Mr. Reyazi

thought it was probably a regular size unit, probably 2 ton air

conditioner: An air conditioner is a structure and needs a variance

in the side yard instead of the back yard.

Mr. Sharkey stated that one criterion is that a structure does not affect health, safety, and general welfare of neighbors,

and given Mr. Michael' s preferences, it might not pass. Could

the unit be moved a couple of feet back? Mr. Stewart wished

there were more information available about how much of a burden

would 'be· 'imposed b-y moving, i't 'a"couplse'-of"f·eet,·back," a 'nd Mr-: ,-

Blake said it could be done but it would be more costly to go

through the walls at that location.

BZBA members were unwilling to approve the application

against Wishes of the neighbor, and Mr. Blake asked exactly where

the unit should be placed. Consensus of those involved agreed

that 3' back from front of garage doors would be best but if fire

escape is in the way, 2' would be all right. Air conditioner

pipes can run outside the house.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE BLAKE APPLICATION FOR A

VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE UNIT BE MOVED BACK FROM

ITS PROPOSED PRESENT LOCATION AND PUT NO CLOSER THAN 2' FROM

THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NEIGHBOR' S GARAGE NEXT DOOR. MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE

ABSTENTION (MS. CARAVANA).

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria for variances for this

application:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The special circumstances would be that the air conditioning

unit cannot be placed at the back because of the location

of the furnace and there is not room for a 10' setback.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. There are many other lots with

narrow side 16ts and many of them have air conditioner units on

the side because of the situation of the house on the property.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the property as is and is anxious to improve the house.

D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on

the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this

Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. Other structures have been granted similar variances

in the same zoning district.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. The proposal with the conditions imposed to

help block the sound will be acceptable to the health, safety,

and general welfare of persons in the neighborhood.

Greg and Ginny Sharkey, 117 South Plum Street

The Sharkeys wish to build a 8' x8' deck onto a porch on the back of their house. Mrs. Sharkey indicated that it would

extend directly to the west with steps on the property line. It would be 3' 8" from the rear lot line, which adjoins Sugarloaf

Park. The nearest park trail is 253'-0' from the proposed deck.

Lot coverage would increase to 54%.A letter was received from

the only neighbors, the Borishanskys, expressing that they have

no problem with the deck. The Village Manager has no problem

with the deck' s proximity to the park.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.

MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH

MR. SHARKEY ABSTAINING. '

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The special circumstances are that the house sits so

far back on the lot and is already in the setback, thus precluding

an addition within the code. They are only adding 2'- 3'

plus steps. It' s a small deck and 253'-0' from the closest path

of the park. A backyard extends beyond the rear property line.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Other properties abutting Sugarloaf

and elsewhere in the Village have structures or decks that

go into the setback.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The house was built 85

years before the applicants purchased it.

D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on

the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this

Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. Granting the variance would not confer any privileges.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. The neighbors have no objections and there

would be no adverse effects. The steps would be a good distance

away from the park paths.

Work Session:

Review of "Rules and Regulations"

Mr. Reyazi requested members to review the draft and bring

suggestions to the next meeting.

Committee Discussion: Members discussed the Village Council decision

to overturn BZBA' s decision and allow Fackler' s to operate a drive-through but with limited hours for selling beer. Mr.

Herman feels the Council is not being accountable to members of the community and would like to see their factual evidence for arriving at their decision.

4

1

Finding of Fact:

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL

DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR THE BLAKE APPLICATION APPROVED

TONIGHT; MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL

DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR THE SHARKEY APPLICATION APPROVED

TONIGHT; MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY

MAJORITY WITH ONE ABSTENTION (MR. SHARKEY).

Adjournment: 8: 30 p. m.

Next Meeting: August 28, 7 p. m. Mr. Stewart will be absent)

BZBA Minutes 6/26/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

June 26, 1997

Minutes

Present: Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Bob Seith, Dan Rogers, Betty

Morrison, Noni Nutter, L. Nadwodney, Constance Barsky, Steve

Katz, Ben Rader, Judy and Dennid Guenther and two builders,

Cheryl Jalbert

Minutes: May 22: MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;

MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street

Mr. Rogers wishes to construct a 25' x22' detached garage

located 1' from north property line and 1'fr/om east property

line, 20' high. The wood siding will match the house. There are

three trees on the property, and he plans to leave them there.

Mr. Rogers stated that to build it within setback minimum would

deprive him of most of his back yard. The one-foot setback will

p#Be·ir@w enough room for maintenance. There are other similar

garages nearby, and this plan is very much like Neil Andrew' s new

garage on Cherry and W. Elm. Under the proposed plan he can

drive straight into the garage; there is no access from the

alley. Mr. Rogers believes there was a garage at one time but

does not know how big it was or how long ago it was removed.

There is a shed on the property which will have to be moved, but

this application does not include such a move.

Mr. Reyazi pointed out that he received a letter from Sharon

L. Sellitto, who owns adjoining property on the west side. She

would object to a variance allowing the shed closer to her property

than the law allows, but the shed is not on the application

for tonight. Mr. Rogers will speak with her. He will have to

move the shed to a temporary location while he builds the garage.

No other neighbors have recorded objections.

Mr. Stewart asked whether there was a problem with height,

which is supposed to be within 10%of the average height of the

adjacent buildings. Mr. Reyazi thought the ordinance was vague.

but this plan is consistent with what is close by.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR MR. ROGERS'

VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR THE NEW GARAGE. MR. ESSMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2 ,

Mr. Sharkey applied the criteria for variances for this

application:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The special circumstances would be that Mr. Rogers

desires to maintain his back yard and in so doing wants to keep

the garage a certain distance from the house and that is the

special condition peculiar to this property.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. We have heard that there are other

garages that sit within a few feet of the property line in that

area, and applicant' s structure would be consistent with the

others.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The house has been

there for many years, and Mr. Rogers is simply placing the garage

a sufficient distance to protect the back yard.

D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on

the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this

Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We have heard testimony that there are other placed similarly garages close to lot lines in the neighborhood.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. In terms of the new garage structure, we have heard no objection from neighbors, and there is no other reason we can think of that would affect the health, safety and general welfare of people in the area.

Betty Morrison, 129 Westgate Drive

Ms. Morrison wishes to use her late husband' s shop for Noni Ntoutrteert'asil.gift shop, which constitutes a change of use from shop Mr. Reyazi stated that this would require 10 parking

ssptiapcuelsa, tecompared to the 9 available now. Also, the ordinances that any off-street parking area for more than 5 vehi- citlesisshall be of dustless asphalt or cement, whereas at present gravel. The advantage of gravel is that it permits better drainage than a paved surface would. Ms. Nutter stated that if bituihldaidngbe. en paved, recent flood water would have entered the Most of the parking areas in this district are gravel. Mr. Reyazi stated that this area is not an established retail district and the applicant wishes to "test the water, "without incurring a great deal of cost. To this end the Board may choose to grant the variance for a specified period of time. If this vinariuasnec. e is granted, Mr. Reyazi will be able to approve a change

rMR.

STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF

PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM 10 TO 9 VEHICLES AND TO APPROVE

VARIANCE THAT THE PARKING LOT REMAIN GRAVEL. MR. ESSMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Existing parking lots can only accommodate 9 cars.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Other properties have gravel

parking lots and they are not subject to the same restrictions

for parking spaces.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The property was pre- existing when applicant instituted this change of use. D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance other lands to or structures in the same zoning district. Board

members do not think overcrowding is going to be a problem.

Granting would be preferable as far as health, safety, and general welfare of the area.

Mr. and Mrs. Guenther, 120 West Broadway

1) The Guenthers wish a change of nonconforming use from a flower shop to a gift basket shop. The property has been used

for commercial purposes, for about thirty years. Mr. Reyazi has received two letters from neighbors in sup- port of the basket shop. Ms: Jalbert spoke with Ms. Guenther and has enough confidence that the business will eliminate parking problems that existed in the past. Mr. Seith expressed the hope that the business will be an asset to the neighborhood.

Mr. Stewart asked about the fudge-making operation, and Ms. Guenther said they make fudge now over Town and Gown in an electric machine, and they would like to add this operation to their property at 120 West Broadway. Ms. Jalbert is concerned lest this turn into a candy factory and set an unwanted prece dent. Mr. Sharkey reminded her that any changewould have to -be "US

looked at by the BZBA. Mr. Reyazi said BZBA could stipulate the A

maximum area to be used by the candy machine.

Ms. Guenther said that most of her business is by phone and parking requirements are minimal. She and Ms. Jalbert thought it would be a good idea for the village to paint parking spaces on West Broadway where the parking becomes horizontal to the curb.

Secondly, they wish a variance to allow them to put enough

money into the repair knd renovation to make upgrade the building

and make it presentabla. The ordinance allows for 60%of a

building' s valuation, and this far exceeds that estimate. Ms.

Guenther handed out a #heet of estimated expenses, cautioning

that any repair job tends to lead to other repairs. Mr. Reyaza

thinks it advisable toestablish a parameter about total dollars to be spent. Mr. Stewart thought the proposed expenses would be

no more than required by a residence in the same condition. Ms.

Guenther explained in more detail the plans for upgrading the

building. The second floor is for office space.

Regarding the space behind the building, Mr. Guenther said

he will dry up the mud puddle there. The building in the back

will be a workroom for the basket shop.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE

NONCONFORMING USE.

He applied the criteria to the request:

a) The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not

increase the burden on public facilities streets, and services, such as utilities, schools, and refuse disposal imposed by the existing nonconforming use. We have heard testimony about the

proposed change from flower to gift basket shop, and it does not appear that there would be an increase in services. This would be

a low-volume business utilizing a lot of phone ordering.

b) The proposed use will not be detrimental nor disturbing

to existing neighboring uses in the district and will not entail

atheusesuwrrhoiuchndcinognstitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons in use district. We have heard from several

neighbors who seem comfortable with the plans and are confident that the Guenthers will have an establishment with an impact similar to that of the former tenant. We have heard nothing to indicate a detriment in any way.

MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2) Mr. Herman suggested a 10 per cent cushion to allow applicants to continue if expenses hit the maximum estimate of 65, 000, and other members agreed.

MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO EXCEED MAXIMUM REPAIR AMOUNT AND TO ALLOW. MAXIMUM EXPENSES OF $73. 000. MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Essman applied the criteria to the application:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

4

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The special circumstances are that we are dealing with

a nonconforming use in a residential district.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. The adjacent property neighbor to

the east is also a nonconforming use.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The circumstances are

not a result of the applicant' s actions; in fact, they wish to

improve the property.

D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Property

next door is also nonconforming.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. The neighbors have no objections and actually

prefer to see the building improved.

Finding of Fact:

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS FORMAL

DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR CASES APPROVED TONIGHT; MR.

STEWART SECONDED, AND IGT· WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Review of BZBA "Rules and Regulations" draft

Mr. Reyazi presented a draft of rules and of these items stated that a lot would require a change in Village Charter. A new

draft will be prepared, omitting such items. The document was discussed at length, particularly the following items:

VIII. F. Third sentence should be changed to "While citizens' comment is appreciated and encouraged, the chair shall have ealuimthinoarittey to limit length of speaking."Then it was agreed to the last sentehce in VIII F.

BoarUdn.d"er VIII G, add "All questions shall be directed to the

VIII. J should say, T"he Chairperson announces the result of the vote and directs the official recording of the decision. The Finding of Fact will provide clarity."

Mr. Sharkey thought it was a good idea to have the Vice Chair prepare the formal Finding of Fact.

Adjournment: 8: 50 p. m.

Next Meeting: July 24, 7 p. m. Mr. Essman will be absent; Betty

Allen will be absent)

August 28 (Mr. Stewart will be absent)·

BZBA Minutes 5/22/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 22, 1997

Minutes

Present: , Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,

Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana, Eric Stewart

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner, Jim Sweeney,

Assistant Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Dan Shaw, B. J. Weaver, Louise

Courson, Linda Barash, Tod Frolking, Jeff Fleckner

Minutes: April 24: Page 4, Line 7 under Guenther, add and/or

after "cup of tea."Page 5, line 4 from bottom, add area after

residential."Page 8, Line 3 under Fackler, change "He" to Mr.

Sharkey. Page 9, line 5 from bottom, change "relative" to

relevant. MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS

AMENDED.

Citizens Comments:

Mr. Reyazi announced that the Public Hearing on 445 Palmer

Lane (Cellular Phone Antenna) scheduled for tonight has been postponed. JEFF FLECKNER of Granville Square Apartments wondered

whether there is a map of where cellular tower might Reyazi said there is go, and Mr. no map yet.

New Business:

Daniel E. Shaw, 209 Kildare Street

Mr. Shaw seeks a setback variance from rear property line in order to build a deck with rose arbor and grape arbor. The deck would be 36' from rear lot line and 20' from side lot lines. Mr.

Reyazi noted that when new houses in Village Green were built, minimum rear setbacks were 40' under PUD development ordinances. After they are built, Zoning Ordinances set the standards. If

deck had been added when house was built, it probably would have met setback requirements in place at the time. Mr. Shaw feels

it will be attractive and an asset to the neighborhood. There

have been no objections from neighbors.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED AS PRESENT- ED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria for variances for this appl-ication:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are ndoist tarpicptl.icable to other lands or structures in the same zoning The applicant is asking for the same standards as oisthers in the subdivision have. Special circumstances are that he building a deck after the house was built and must apply

4

3

2

built.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Literal interpretation would deprive

applicant of the same rights as others in the neighborhood.

There are other decks nearby of similar construction.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The house was built

under a different set of ordinances.

D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This

building would not confer undue privilege; applicant is simply

asking for what others in the area have.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. People in the area are comfortable with their

decks, and applicant' s deck would be similar.

Phelps and Karen Jones, 113 Donegal Drive

Ms. Jones wishes to build a 14' x16' deck similar to others

in the neighborhood, which is less than the 50' required setback.

In a situation identical to the Shaw application just described, Mr. Jones wanted to wait and build the deck himself instead of

adding it when the house was built. With a 50' setback, his deck

could only be 6' deep, and he is asking for a 7. 59' variance. MR. SHARKEY MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Essman applied the criteria:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved not applicable and which are district. to other lands or structures in the same zoning Applicant did not build deck when house was built, whereas others in the area were able to avoid a variance

procedure by adding decks when houses were built, under different setback requirements.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Literal interpretation would de- prive applicant of the right to have a deck, as others in the neighborhood have.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The deck was not part doef cak.pplicant' s original construction, but now he is ready for a

different standards from those who added decks when houses were

D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This

building would not confer undue privilege. BZBA would merely

grant the privilege that others have already.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. No objections have been noted from neighbors;

in fact, the deck will enhance the neighborhood.

Old Business:

Mr. and Mrs. Guenther, 120 West Broadway

The Finding of Fact needs to be adopted as formal decision

One minor correction was noted, and Mr. of the board last month.

Reyazi will type up the Finding.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT WE ADOPT FINDING OF FACT. MR. HERMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

The Finding of Fact needs to be adopted as the formal decision of the Board last month.

MR. SHARKEY MOVED THAT WE ADOPT FINDING OF FACT. MR. HERMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements:

Mr. Reyazi distributed draft design standards Frank Elmer, pertaining proposed by for only to commercial districts, and asked any comments from the Board.

Mr. Reyazi handed out standards for traffic studies, which he would like to move toward adopting soon. This is a rough

draft from ODOT, and he invites your comments.

Jim Sweeney, part time Village Planner, was introduced.

ProceMdur.re.Reyazi is still asking for comments on Rules for Perhaps the Vice Chair can be responsible for DFiinredicntgosr. of Fact. Rules will be rewritten and shown to the Law

Adjournment: 7: 35 p. m.

Next Meeting: June 26, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 4/24/1997

BOARD' OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

April 24, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,

Eric Stewart

Members Absent:

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Jeff and Sherill Jalbert,

Carl Wilkenfeld, George Fackler, Phil Wince, Bob Seith, Jim

Cooper, Walter Krause, Dorothy M. Garrett, Judy and Dennis

Guenther, Betty Mills, Vi Forsythe, David Kishler, Jeanese

Shonts, Betsy O' Neill, Ned Roberts, Sara Lee, Karen and Doug

Frasca, Tom Scono, Constance Barsky, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Ben Rader

Minutes: March 27, 1997: Page 2, Line 3 under Charles, add Mr.

Charles said that before "Mr. Drake.P.a.g"e 2, last line under

Guenther, w" hich he believesresponds to the issuesP.a.g.e"4,

Line 7, "Newark-Granville Road, according to the data

improvements were found to be necessary by the traffic engineer. reviewing the evidence presented to them."Halfway down page,

convenience mart and would still generate average traffic of a retail specialty shop and a convenience mart..P.a"ge 6,

third full paragraph, M" r. Herman asked how much time is consumed waiting for an order at the drive-through."Page 7, Line 6,

ccoonrrseisctteMntr. Sharkey 's spelling. Paragraph 2, Line 3,the"y are with standards." Paragraph 3, Line 5, "2)(Also,

projections did not take into consideration the difference in

dsqeuvaerelopfomoteanget."of the beerw/ ine drive through to the proposed Line 5 from bottom, a"verage difference between that intersection Newark-Granville intersection."Page 8, Line

8, change 3. 5 to 35. At end of that paragraph, change "cars" to seconds. Paragraph 2, Line 7, change "me" to Mr. Wince. In the

Mr. Wince paragraph, add has before "been cited."MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED.

Citizens Comments:

CARL WILKENFELD commended BZBA in their way of c6nducting the Fackler discussion at the last meeting and added: 1) When things like this are to take place, it might be good to have a lawyer here to answer questions. 2) He would like the record to show that when Wendy' s applied, they "proved" there would not be uargterad ffic problem on that corner, and that is not the case. He BZBA to use caution in their deliberations. 3) It seems incomprehensible that the C.VR./t. 16 corner was not included in this study; that' s where most traffic will come from. Not to have an impact study makes the argument on the other side'i'ncom- plete. (4) There does not seem to be a desire for drive-throughs tihnergee_n aenrda_lpeoprptleh i_s one in particular by -the people who live out in _the_vi@lage.

I .

Ms.

A)

CONSTANCE BARSKY has had discussions with Mr. Fackler and

asked whether there is still possibility for negotiation with

BZBA. Her understanding of "conditional use" is that conditions

may be applied in order to assure standards are being met in the

manner BZBA specifies, and if violations arise, the conditional

use may be withdrawn. She thinks more discussions with Mr.

Fackler regarding the drive-through would be appropriate, and she

asked whether a definition of "fast food" could be applied here.

Mr. Herman responded that BZBA can impose conditions, but

regarding withdrawing a conditional use, we have gone beyond the

scope of that. Ms. Caravana added that if the nature of the '

business changes, they need to reapply to the Board. Conditions

have to be reasonable to be enforceable.

GEORGE FACKLER thanked Ms. Barsky for her comments, adding

that they have always tried to be reasonable and flexible in

their plans and hopes we can work this out.

DOROTHY GARRETT' s concern has been the expansion of Village Business District since the Master Plan. She was told that any individual property would have to come before the Board for change. She realizes 120 any West Broadway has been used as conditional

use for a long time, but the flower shop and Thrift Shop had limited parking requirements. If a tea shop goes in, there

is the possibility that the limited menu will increase and add odors and traffic.

VI FORSYTHE asked whether another commercial business could

go in there when the tea room closes, and Mr. Herman replied that the Guenther application is specific; another business would have to petition to open there.

New Business:

David and Lynne Kishler, 327 West Elm

The Kishlers seek a setback variance from west property line and to relocate air conditioner to west side of house within the 10' setback. Mr. Kishler stated that they want to add a two- story addition with shutters to rear of house, matching width and height and siding and roof. They will remove the porch. This

plan would be less than 10' from property line. Neighbors have offered no objections to the plans. The addition would extend the hinoupselac1e4a'lr.eTahdeyy. could do screening, but there is a picket fence

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

Caravana applied the criteria:

That_special_circumstances_o_r conditions exist w_hich

2

I

3

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The addition follows the line of the existing

structure and does not extend or increase it or encroach into

side yard setback. Special circumstances are that the house was

built close to the lot line and the applicants need more living

space.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Literal interpretation would deprive

applicant of the right to expand homes as others in the

neighborhood have.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The house was built a

long time ago before ordinances were applicable.

D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This

building would not confer undue privilege. BZBA has routinely

approved such variances.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general the welfare of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. BZBA members can see no way in which this

criteria would be affected.

Sara Lee, 124 South Cherry

Ms. Lee wishes to build a one-car attached garage and modify rear porch to connect to the garage. This is under the

setback requirements for north and east side. She needs more parking space; there is no parking on Cherry Street.

WALTER KRAUSE from next door has no objections; in fact, he thinks it would make a great addition to that corner. Ms. Lee stated the other neighbors have no objections, but one neighbor has requested that the hedge along north property line be properly maintained. Mr. Sharkey asked whether the garage could be sited 6' closer in order to be within the setback, but NED ROBERTS said they wanted to place the overhang so it would blend into the house and not interfere with the gable. Ms. Lee added that there would be a window right in front of the garage if it were 6' back. 'Mr. Roberts said it would be a gable roof, and they will use a roofing material similar to the slate there now.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar_to the land_or structure (s) _ involved and_which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. Ms. Caravana primarily would approve this based on

special circumstances: The design of the house and necessity to

not block light, and access requirements force Ms. Lee to place

the garage back toward the rear of property. The small yard

restricts where garage can be placed.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Literal interpretation would deprive

applicant of the right to expand as others in the

neighborhood have done. This Board has approved even smaller setbacks.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant purchased

the house which was already built on the small lot.

D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This

building would not confer undue privilege. BZBA has routinely

approved such variances.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare the of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. BZBA members can see no way in which this

criteria would be affected.

Public Hearing:

Dennis and Judy Guenther, 120 West Broadway

The Guenther' s application for a tea room is continued from the last meeting in order for more details to be provided. Ms.

Gunther stated that at the next meeting she will be applying for a waiver on maximum allowable funds for repair work. She appre- ciates the concerns and comments of citizens and provided a re- quested definition of a tea room as a laid-back place to drink a

dt,[-02 cup of tea01to dine on soup, sandwiches, and salads, with no grill. She responded to questions from last meeting:

1. Deliveries would be early in the morning. They antici- pate they can control delivery times, i.e.,after 10 a.m. when most neighbors are away at work.

2. Sign is not neon. They would refresh the present sign adding the name of the business.

Saturd3ay..-Hours would be 11 a.m. to 3: 30 p.m.,Monday through

having4. fewTheery decreased the number of seats from 45 to 28 by tables.

buildi5n.g.Big 0 Will pick up trash daily fromfthe rear of the

6.

building.They have moved the kitchen to the rear cinderblock

4

7. Originally they wanted to put the gift/basket shop here

but have cancelled those plans and moved kitchen to that proposed

location.

8. They will be working with the architect to vent exhaust

fans towards the rear between the cinderblock building and the

Jalbert garage and muffle the sound.

9. They will compromise and share expenses for repairs to

fence dividing Bob Seith' s property and their property.

10. Regarding parking, applicant included street parking

along nearby streets and church. There probably is enough site parking on- to accommodate two cars. She feels that after

monitoring nearby parking, there would be ample space for the tea room. There probably would be more than one person per car on the average.

11. They would not want to do anything to adversely affect

property values in the area. Previous tenants have not adversely

affected property values, and Ms. Guenther said the bank loaning

them money had enough confidence to lend money, and she feels values can only appreciate.

Mr. Reyazi had two concerns: (1) because of the continuation,

he did not provide public notice last week and was waiting until he had more financial information. 2) He has received

supportive letters from Presbyterian Church and GBPA and an on- the-fence letter from Betsy O'Neill. Mr. Reyazi stated that this consideration is strictly for use of the property, although other

concerns may be addressed after public notice is given.

In answer to a question by Mr. Stewart, Ms. Gunther said the

garage connects the building with a breezeway, and she will not put a patio in there and will have no outdoor dining. It' s only

an area for trash. She added that since they are not grilling, there will be no odors and noise. Another tearoom told her their

ofauntsiidse.for cooling the kitchen so a fan will not throw fumes Mr. Guenther explained how the vent works and added the noise is a low-level decibel.

Mr. Essman asked about the mudhole, and Ms. Guenther said they will be giving resources to this. The drainage is coming from Pinkerton' s area. Mr. Essman asked about parking back there. Would cars prevent truck deliveries? Ms. Guenther said deliveries would have to be made before ·business opens, and they do not expect heavy truck traffic. She will be doing a lot of shopping herself.

JEFF JALBERT protested the conditional use in a residential ashroepa: (1) The thrift shop was a community service, and the flower had little traffic. (2) He feels that businesses should remain in the main business block, 3() and if we are going to make a larger change, we ought to reconsider all zoning. 4) p Putting a tearoom in a residentiaFlt/eals the neighborhood A feeling. (5) A real estate agent told him -that property values would decrease in a residential neighborhood no longer residen- tial._A _t_.earoom isn_ot_the problem, its location is the problem_ _i_ _

5

6) He is still concerned about noise and odors, as well as

parking. What happens when the church has a wedding or a funeral

and needs all its parking spaces? 7) A year or so ago BZBA

turned down an application for bed and breakfast across the

street because of insufficient parking and neighborhood concerns.

A tearoom would have a lot more impact than aB& B. 8) He is

thinking about retiring and working at home, so Ms. Guenther' s

statement about neighbors being at work during the day is not

applicable. (9) He remains skeptical about draining the mudhole, which is a spring and out of man' s control. 10) There is

nothing about restaurants as permitted uses in nonconforming

areas in the ordinances.

KAREN FRASCA said she has submitted a lengthy letter in

opposition to this proposal and remains opposed to it. She added

that at the first meeting Ms. Guenther was advised to revise application, her but on the other side, the neighbors were never advised to bring back more strong opposition. She said, " Mr.

Herman' s comment that the Guenthers should find a way to win us over represents a way to tell neighbors to back off."A lot of

people are tired of developments eroding residential areas of this community.

BOB SEITH is concerned about (1) precedentsth-e-y are dangerous and become entrenched. The nonconforming use of that property says there will be no escalation of impact, which means not only number of people involved but type of activity. What' s being proposed is escalation of impact upon any previous use. good idea2s). There is need to differentiate between good people and The Guenthers are good people, but the ideas are not good for the neighborhood. No one objects to a tearoom. He

stated that food codes that the state requires do not recognize a lesser standard of rigor for a tearoom than a restaurant. You can' t regulate the menu of a food establishment by zoning. In a few years this could turn into a fast food place.

BETSY O'NEILL stated that parking is a big problem. To acsouwnteloln North Mulberry parking would have an impact on Monomoy as 6ther activities.

Ms. Caravana said that when this house was built, it was clearly designed to be a residence. Mr. Reyazi said that the village zoned that area residential, but he does not know whether the building was used for commercial uses before zoning came in.

they hVaIdFORSYTHE said that before the Thrift Shop could open, to get permission from all neighbors. CHERYL JALBERT added that Hazel Eaton was enthusiastic about the Thrift Shop afelthltouthgehyparking was a nuisance for neighbors, but the neighbors use. - could put up with it because of the communitym- inded

6

7

JIM COOPER (Jalberts' attorney) sat on the GPC in 1977-83.

Then the Thrift Shop was viewed as close to a permitted use in a civic area. The purpose of nonconforming use classification is

to be fair to an entity already operating when zoning goes into

enforcement. But here is a change in nonconforming use in a residential area. The code says you cannot do anything to increase

the burden or be detrimental to neighbors. Neighbors have

spoken well, and given those criteria, it is very difficult to

allow this. Looking at the repair and maintenance section, it

limits how many repairs can be made. The reason is to not increase

the building very much. It has to remain at that level to

remain nonconforming. It' s easy to get enthusiastic about an

idea and maybe Granville does need this tearoom, but he does not think it belongs there.

JEFF JALBERT said he would much prefer to see a nonprofit activity or an office in that location. Ms. Jalbert added that

the nature of the real estate office next door is low key and

offers opportunity to interact with neighbors in a neighborly way. A restaurant cannot do this.

Ms. Caravana suggested closing the floor for discussion by BZBA at this time. She said that the criteria have not been met

and applied the criteria from 1149:

a) The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not increase the burden on public facilities and services, streets, utilities, such as schools, and refuse disposal imposed by the existing nonconforming use. There may or may not be an increase but probably would with respect to parking.

d) The proposed use will not be detrimental nor disturbing to existing neighboring uses in the district and will not entail

atheusesuwrrhoiuchndcinognstitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons in use district. This clearly has not been met. It would be an increasing use and have a higher impact than what was there previously. This would be an intensification of use and detrimental to neighbors. It is less intense than the first application presented, but it still does not meet criteria.

Mr. Sharkey stated that he applauds the Guenthers and does not think anyone has doubt about maintenance of the property. In baasreedsidential district in 1149, criteria are very specific and on all the evidence and documentation there is little affinity of a change of nonconforming use making a flower shop into a tearoom. Even with the best case scenario we are still looking at 10-15 cars during lunchtime and increasing burden on streets, traffic, and parking. It is clear under the terms of the ordinance, criteria have not been met.

Mr. Stewart said that while a tearoom would be appropriate for Granville and the Guenthers have made a significant impres- siOB,_th __ts_is_a_n escalation in the use foL_this _

Mr. Herman' s concern was that the application could be a

detriment more than the current use. He believes applicant' has

made a good faith effort addressing concerns, and he believes

that as a practical matter that building has not been a residence

for a long time and people have chosen not to do that. He would

like to work this out in terms of impact, but he is not sure we

are at a point that we could, but we have heard strong comments

from neighbors and considered the criteria. He wondered whether

there was any hope from neighbors' perspective that applicant

could put in something they could live with. Mr. Jalbert suggested

putting the basket shop there and the tearoom where the

basket shop is. More conversation determined a compromise was

not possible.

Mr. Essman felt that Criteria A of the proposed application has not been met.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT WE APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART

SECONDED, AND IT WAS REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Old Business:

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

Mr. Herman stated that this is a continuation of the remand

request from V.C. Tonight we are primarily considering the Items 4,5, 6 from Findings has serious of Fact from V.C. from November 20, 1996. p-e questions about the impact on the drive-through at the deli-bakery, specifically at lunchtime, and we' re flying blind in trying to find an identical property to take data from. he feels the estimates are still underestimated.

Ms. Caravana agreed and added: (1) a lot of techniques are speculative and trip generation figures should be used with caution. Different businesses produce different impacts and comparison is not necessarily accurate. A beerw/ine drive- through has steady traffic all day, whereas Fackler' s would have

much more traffic at lunchtime. She does not believe reducing the number of hours of operation would have much effect. 2) Also, this site plan does not adequately address pedestrian traffic on C.V. It won' t be a pleasant walk at this building if one has to walk across three lanes of traffic. The

bank drive-through is there too. The applicant' s solution was to remove sidewalks, but that defeats safety concerns. 3) There are potentially negative impacts of having a large number of cars idling, waiting for service, while increasing pollution and noise, degradation of the environment, for most people will not think to call ahead with their order. Pedestri- laenms wariethwlaitlkteingr. through these fumes. There will also be a prob- The desire to serve handicapped people is commendableu, t *there are other_w_ays_to _addres_s _this, with_a

8

buzzer or a bell.

Mr. Essman stated that (1) in November he voted for the

conditional use minus the drive-through because of the promimity

of egress from drive-through to proposed sidewalk cafe. The

developer has offered to change location of that, so he can no

longer object on that basis. 2) Conflict with pedestrian

traffic. He is not sure there is an answer to that without

completely redesigning the project. The only possibility would

be if applicant would allow an entrance on the east side near

proposed sidewalk cafe by sidewalk from C.V. (3) Although

attempts were made, he does not feel that traffic studies were

accurate estimates. After sorting through all the data, he has

to conclude that the developer in significant the traffic study shows no impact on local traffic. Two separate firms hired by

the village reached the same conclusion, so he cannot object to the drive-through on that basis.

Mr. Stewart (1) is not sure what Mr. Tailford might have said about the need for figures on Rt. 16/C.V.,but the question

has been raised and to his disappointment there' s still no infor- mation on that intersection. If you have a road that busy, you will have business coming from there to the drive-through. 2)

Regarding the level of service, the worst-case scenario would have a 20-second delay, which in that area could be unacceptable. He is not getting a sense that a drive-through is in the best interest of the community in this location.

Mr. Herman referred back to Items 4-6: 4) Differences in

traffic studies. Applicant stated in his view the information provided October 16 was not substantially different. (5) The naupmpbliecrant' s traffic engineering standards were different in the of vehicles. He did not indicate that there was a substantial difference in terms of vehicles using the business. 6) After hearing testimony by the Village Planner, there remain nqouoensttiimones. regarding delay for cars waiting at drive-through at Also the trip generation has questions relative to reliability and usefulness. Because of that, there really was no reliability to alter the Finding of Fact. There were burdens

that could be created; under Criteria D it would be detrimental to existing uses.

Ms. Caravana stated that originally the conditional use was approved with modification to decrease negative impact of traf- tfhice, not just generation of traffic but also how it will affect site and pedestrians. A drive-through bank is less negative. tiAvles.o, BZBA still thinks the traffic figures are still specula- Mr. Herman asked whether there is any new rdS[E53 evi - mdeenncteionfollowing the hearing. Ms. Caravana said that V.C. did not site plans.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE CONDITION THAT REMOVAL OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH REMAIN AS A CONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF

9

FACKLER' S APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. MR. STEWART

SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A 4 TO 1 (ESSMAN) VOTE

Announcements:

Mr. Reyazi said that sometime the Law Director will talk

with us and answer our questions. -

Please read the proposed Rules and Regulations from Dublin,

and think about revised variance criteria. Ms. Caravana wanted

Gil Krone' s suggestions considered also. Mr. Reyazi thinks

revised rules and regulations will require V. C. approval.

Finding of Fact: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE KISHLER AND LEE

APPLICATIONS AS A DECISION OF THE BOARI. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

Adjournment: 9: 15 p.m.

Next Meeting: May 22 (Mr. Stewart will be absent)

BZBA Minutes 3/27/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

March 27, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,

Eric Stewart

Members Absent:

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Jeff and Sherill Jalbert, Joe

and Judy Charles, Guy Martin, Darryl Payne, Carl Wilkenfeld, Matt

McGowan, Maxine Montgomery, John Oney, Joe Ridgway, Steve Katz,

George Fackler, Tom Scono, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Phil

Wince, 3?15- N. Pearl, Dean Markle

Election of Officers:

MS. CARAVANA NOMINATED LON HERMAN AS CHAIRMAN; MR. STEWART

SECONDED, AND MR. HERMAN WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE

ABSTENTION.

MS. CARAVANA NOMINATED GREG SHARKEY AS VICE CHAIRMAN; MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED AND MR. SHARKEY WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY

WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

Minutes: February 27. 1997: Page 1, before Ms. Jalbert paragraph,

change to : A"n exhaust fan would be required . . .Ms .

Jalbert, who lives next door, stated that the building is 12"1-8"

from their property line."Line 8 from bottom, change "impost"

to impose. Page 2, last line under Jean Marshall paragraph,

change "spces" to spaces. Two lines down, "Don Contini stated

what while not addressing the use, a change in nonconforming use

should be forced to revert. . . ." MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO

APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED; MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MINUTES

WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED.

Citizens Comments:

After swearing himself in, CARL WILKENFELD stated that he

believes the village government is violating the Moratorium by

holding the Fackler hearing tonight and it is illegal to do so.

Copy of his memo attached to these minutes].Mr. Herman thanked

him and stated that he will make comments later about accountability

on this subject.

JEFF JALBERT asked about the legal directives on timing for

BZBA applications. He and his wife may be out of town when the

Gunther application is to be continued. Mr. Herman asked whether

Mr. Jalbert has spoken with Ms. Gunther and he said he was waiting

for her to contact him. Ms. Caravana stated that every

effort will be made to ensure a fair hearing and to let the

Jalberts know when it is scheduled. He could also produce a

letter or memo to BZBA if he is to be absent.

STEVE KATZ underscored Mr. Wilkenfeld' s comments regarding

the appropriateness of the Fackler hearing tonight because we

have a Moratorium in effect and the hearing violates the spirit

of the Moratorium. He urged the BZBA to table it.

ROGER KESSLER thought the hearing was very legal. The plan

would be an asset and he likes the convenience of the drivethrough.

Traffic studies prove there would be no problems.

MARGARET CLAYTON wants to go on record saying the Fackler

hearing is not in the spirit of the Moratorium at this time.

New Business:

Joe and Judy Charles, 726 Newark-Granville Road

The Charleses wish to build a one-story, vinyl-sided, twocar

garage 4' from the west property line to replace the caRQEL·rv'*c<.( 6,

Given the topograplhy, it is the best place to locate it.73 Mr. 94; 4

Drake, neighbor, has no problem with the proposal. The garage

would be farther away from the property line than the carport is

now.

Ms. Caravana asked whether the lot might be subdivided,

because it would be a tight squeeze, and Mr. Charles did not

think it very likely.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PLAN AS PROPOSED. MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria to the application:

A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The slope of the land precludes siting garage in

another location. There is an existing carport in the same

location, which encroaches even farther than the garage would.

Other garages in the neighborhood have similar circumstances.

B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Literal interpretation would deprive

applicant of the right to erect a garage as others in the

neighborhood have. Applicant believes approval of variance would

maintain the integrity of the property as well as the neighborhood'

s overall characteristic.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The lay of the land

did not arise as a result of the applicant' s actions. The

carport is already present.

1

2

D) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Building

this garage would not confer undue privilege. Other garages in

the neighborhood already encroach.

E) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. BZBA members can see no way in which this

criteria would be affected.

Old Business:

Dennis and Judy Guenther, 120 West Broadway

The Guenthers have requested a continuance of the public

hearing until April 24. Mr. Herman wants to ensure that all neighbors are notified in advance. He also would like them to

have a copy of the Guenther letter of March 27, which he believes

s respoent*o**the issues brought up previously. 05,

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

Mr. Herman stated that concerns have been expressed relative to the appropriateness of holding this appeal hearing now. The

Law Director' s opinions are advisory, so he checked with village officials for their input. Mayor Marshall has said to go ahead with the hearing and cited Res. 96-64 as basis. Ms. Caravana

read from a letter from Mr. Hurst, Law Director, to Mr. Hickman, Acting Village Manager, stating the appeal hearing is not in conflict with the Moratorium. Mr. Fackler has already received a conditional use permit. The Finding of Fact is not in conflict. After more discussion, members of BZBA determined that it is appropriate to hold the hearing tonight.

PHIL WINCE, representing George Fackler, stated that the haet atrhinegswitaes. to determine whether drive-throughs were appropriate They are seeking a fair and objective hearing on matters remanded by Village Council. He asked that anyone on the Board who does not feel a fair hearing can be ensured should step dteowctn.. Hearing no response, he called on Mr. John Oney, archi-

1) One of the objections JOHN ONEY heard regarded odors at the drive-through, so they moved the facility farther away. Mr. Wince checked distances at downtown cafes and found them to be about 22' from the curb. The Coffee Shop is closer. The Fackler proposal is much farther from the curb. 2) They agreed to landscape to provide more buffer area. 3) They will move the sidewalks somewhat to address concerns about safety. They are trying to design a more pedestrian-oriented plan, and they hope a

3

4

way can be found to link up with the bikepath. 4) The drive - «

through will be open only when the businesses are open.

JOSEPH A RIDGEWAY, Traffic Engineer, was sworn in and said U

he performed two traffic studies. The first one in July, 1996,

the second after the remand notice. In answer to a question }29-

Mr. Wince, Mr. Ridgeway found no significant impact atfthe inter-.

section of Cherry Valley and NewarkG- ranville Road. M ,r/. Samuel/1 tr

son reviewed it also and did not disagree with these findingsc /f C ,

No street improvements were found to be necessary./ 67,<4. L j , -r

The reason for the second study was to answer some BZBA

questions and to fulfill other information in the Finding of

Fact. The second study was designed for the drive-through and

this was not true at the time of the first study. It was an

effort to improve trip-generation figures. The traffic count

figures were taken from a beerw/ine drive-through on 21st Street

in Newark, and results came out in favor of the Village. No

traffic would be more than we estimatedin--fact may be lower.

They came up with the result that drive-through portion would LLf·* r

generate 90 trips during peak hour. A deli/bakery is not a ON

1 convenience mart and would still generate,traffic of a retail

specialty shopland as a result there werd '24 trips per hour per 1&J*1sa,-m00e0assqi.nftt.he,ofrirasbtoustc2e0nanerwio;trtihpesy.looTkheednuamt btehres wweorrestabcaosuet the

scenario.

Wince, Mr.

In answer to a question by Mr. Ridgeway said a

fast-food drive-through would generate a lot of traffic. Locating

McDonald' s south of the intersection should not have an

adverse effect on Fackler' s. He added that if an convenience

mart were located here, it would generate a lot more cars.

With regard to the BZBA Finding of Fact, Mr. Ridgeway

thought that the statement that their traffic study "may grossly

understate the volume of traffic. . .is" unfair. Projections in

the second report, he stated, are more than fair, and Mr. Samuelson

found the same results. Lunch volume is not similar to fast

food and they thought there would be no impact at Fackler' s

during the noon hour. The afternoon peak hour should be looked

at instead.

There is no reason to believe, Mr. Ridgeway went on, that

there would be a nuisance or traffic hazard. Traffic arrives at

a random basis. He has watched traffic at two drive-throughs

near his office and has never seen a problem. Mr. Wince asked

him about handicap access, and he said most access is by way of

ramps. Drive-throughs are particularly helpful to handicapped

people, elderly, and mothers with children.

GEORGE FACKLER was sworn in. Mr. Wince asked whether it was

Mr. Fackler' s intention to build a fast-food drive through, and

he said No. He was asked to describe exactly what the facility

is going to look like, and Mr. Fackler said it would be an

upscale dining area with sit-down atmosphere. A bakery-deli also

will have sit-down dining. The drive-through is only one aspect,

a small aspect.

Mr. Wince stated that some of the issues he has to discuss

have to do with overall decision of the Board and the appeal.

Mr. Herman asked him to wait, since the comments he will be

giving us will be the ones made at the meeting on October 16.

Mr. Wince said that it is not their intention to be compared to fast- a food drive-through; in fact, while he does not accept a ban

on drive-throughs, if you look at the draft proposal of the

Cherry Valley Rapid Response Team, it does not apply to Fackler' s. Mr. Herman reminded him to keep to the October 16

meeting.

Mr. Wince had other comments: (1) denying Fackler' s a drivethrough

would be discriminatory because there are drive-throughs

at banks, gas stations, and at the Mill as well as Wendy' s. (2) There is a possibility of anti-trust violation because of Wendy' s drive-through. (3) There is no restriction in place at the moment against drive-throughs, and even if it comes up later, Fackler' s applied beforehand. (4) There is no evidence of nuisance, as suggested by BZBA' s Finding of Fact. 5) Regarding "takings,"

there is a possibility of litigation with regard to damages to Fackler' s. 5) You can' t use traffic as an issue to control

competition, or to say that a community does not need a particu- lar type of business. "Need" is not a zoning decision. We are

dealing with facts, not opinions. If the proposal is otherwise

proper, officials must find other ways to regulate traffic. Any development of the site will result in increased traffic, and that is what business is all about. Evidence that a facility

will generate more traffic is not sufficient cause to deny a conditional use. (6) Selling liquor is legal if you have the proper permit. Mr. Wince wanted to end his comments on a positive note: 1) Drive-throughs are very convenient. 2) The

design was made to respond to needs and requests of Granville. 3) We will spend a lot of money on the facility. 4) We' ve made changes requested and tried to cooperate. 5) Denying this

request will restrict the economic viability of the community. 6) The bakery will be open in the morning before the other businesses and more traffic is assumed then. There will be more ttirmaeff.ic at the restaurant at lunch but that is not a high traffic At dinnertime the bank will be closed.

Ms. Caravana asked Mr. Oney about the sidewalks removed to eliminate conflict with people crossing drive-throughs, and Mr. Oney said they are willing to make changes. There will be a sidewalk along Cherry Valley and shared curbcuts to future developments. Mr. Wince added that they are responding to Village Council_comments_and tF_tedto_center people' s coming

5

through the main entranceway to have a place where people can

meet.

Ms. Caravana asked for clarification between the two traffic

surveys and how much area we were talking about. Is it reasonable

to compare this concept to a small beer/ wine carryout? Mr.

Wince would encourage people to sit in the restaurants. The

counts were made there because it was a busy street. Even if

traffic were increased, it would not require street improvements.

Ms. Caravana asked whether road counts take into account future

businesses, and the answer was negative. Mr. Ridgeway said

nothing changes existing traffic. In response to BZBA' s Finding

of Fact, they tried to break it down and that is in the revised

traffic analysis.

Mr. Wince stated that the applicant' s traffic studies different in the estimate of number were of vehicles. In answer a

question by Mr. HermanM,,r. Wince would say the Finding of Fact is unreasonablem--/

Mr/H.erman asked how much time is consumed waiting for an ordera,n/d the answer was one minute to one minute and a quarter. If there are 8 cars lined up, Mr. Herman went on, then each could wait 10 minutes or so. Mr. Fackler thought there would be

different clerks and cars would be moving along smoothly. Mr. Wince thought people should call ahead and have it ready to pick

UP.

Ms. Caravana asked whether there were other ways to accommo- date handicapped persons, and Mr. Ridgway stated that businesses

are required to furnish spaces, and it' s more convenient for these people to sit in their cars. Separate windows for handi- capped people are not common. She stated that drive-throughs at McDonald' s are critical to economic viability. What factor would limit the traffic at Fackler' s so much less than other drive- throughs, and Mr. Ridgeway referred to the trip generation at their peak hour. These other facilities are open longer and rely on a steady stream of traffic after peak hours. Mr. Wince stated

that a Wendy' s grosses a million dollars per year, and the one at Cherry Valley is $1. 7. The average beer/ wine drive-through

grosses much less than a fast-food drive-through. Ms. Caravana

stated that ITE studies say there is potential for more traffic and necessity for road improvements. She is trying to determine reliability of traffic estimates. Mr. Ridgeway likes to do at least two. He stated that a convenience mart would have high traffic movement.

Mr. Stewart asked why the intersection at Rt.16C/herry Valley was not considered, and Mr. Ridgeway said that Mr. Tail- ford said it was not necessary. He thought one-third of the traffic would come from the major intersection.

6

9>

Mr. Sharkey understood why the beer/ wine drive-through was

chosen, but with respect to the noontime peak, he asked what kind

of food service is offered there. Mr. Ridgeway thought the same

food would be offered at noon and night. Mr. Wince added that

they used that facility because they knew it would have high trip

generation. Mr. Sarkey thought they were comparing apples to

oranges and the estimate is the only basis for lunchtime comparison.

Mr. Ridgeway said they were using a higher rate. Mr.

Wince said that Mr. Samuelson used a convenience store which has

a higher trip generation rate. They were trying to find something

with a lot more traffic than they expected. Mr. Ridgeway

thought there would be less traffic at noon because people would

be off at work, and lt would have less traffic than Wendy' s. Mr.

Herman asked whyis-- it because of the product mix sold there,

and the answer was yes. He asked whether product mixes ever change, and Mr. Wince said business will react to demands.

Mr. Reyazi was sworn in and Ms. Caravana asked him about

Macrc.esRseymaazni asgetamteendt athnad twbhaestehder the entrances were appropriate, and, A.j on current estimates they are GW- f- neatt with whatisb-een proposed. She also asked whether Mr.

Fackler would be paying for any road improvements and whether

that would sway us in terms of traffic concerns, in case the numbers suggest more traffic. Mr. Reyazi is concerned about the

impact if the traffic studies represent a true estimate. Mr. Wince stated that those issues were not brought up before, but Ms. Caravana based her comments on new traffic numbers, which are increased from the numbers last time. Mr. Wince said that both

traffic engineers have stated there would be no substantial

impact nor need for road improvements. Mr. Reyazi wanted to clarify with Mr. Ridgeway the omission of the Rt. 16C/ herry Valley intersection and said he had no documentation on this.

Mr. Ridgeway affirmed that Mr. Tailford said to base studies on the Newark-Granville intersection.

remandMedr.FHinedrminagn asked Mr. Reyazi to give his evaluation o' f the of Fact. 1) Mr. Reyazi stated that there was a second traffic study review done. It is pretty much along the

same lines as Mr. Samuelson' s but raises more concerns regarding level of service and lack of scope. (216Also, ilrdoesn' t make any ddirfifveere-tnhcroeugwhh.at the square footage is 69 opposed to the beerw/ine Even if they were different, we would still come up with the same figures and he does not think that is accurate. 3) He is concerned about the lack of consideration of future development aspects. Mr. Wince objected because the issue of sfuiotunrse. development and Rt. 16 was not the subject of the discus- Mr. Reyazi can understand why the Rt. 16 intersection was naogtainc.onMsri.deRreeyadtzh-ie-dreidisnoat f2i,n0d00 car average. f(Mr. Wince objected 7¢ find the addition of the trafficany new evidence. He did not 4 e'J, count to be convincing. The beerw/ine drive-through had a food operation at one time. He wondered _about _the system of operation _in terns _of cars coming _

f i7-- 9 0»C<0-\c O I\ \ »1-0,r l-0%-5 / - ')/)

7

through to be served and how long it would take. He did not find

any new evidence that accurately represents a convincing drivethrough

aspect. He did not find them comparable. Traffic is a

judgment call. Wilbur Smith said the change to level of service

D would not be acceptable. Mr. Ridgeway said that people pull

figures out of reports that are inconsistent. This is a worst

case scenario. Mr. Ridgeway said that Wilbur 4 Smith did not use 1 > th ,e 3,5 trip generation from the delib/akery. He came up with 14 6632TTEional cars and he misused the f igures. Mr. Reyazi said Mr. Smith is using the worst-case scenario with the right-in 1

out access. This is similar to what he was talking about rk*461 :,

Semaritlhier. Mr. Wince thought that Level C is 20-30 , 5iIEt'O/,*. says it' s 10-20. Twenty eara could be C or D.

s.ef.*

Mr. Herman recommended that he has not had time to review

all the paperwork received, but Mr. Wince speaks at the same time and won' t let him finish. Mr. Herman let Mr. Wince ask more

questions of Mr. Reyazi. He first asked whether Mr. Reyazi was a traffic engineer, and the answer was No. He asked whether Clyde

Williams reviewed the first and second traffic studies and then AN, asked if Mr. Reyazi sent m- e a FAX saying, I" am contemplating asking another engineer to review this study,s"o the village thwiriecde.Clyde Williams twice and got results twice that agreed Didn' t Mr. Samuelson on two occasions indicate the development

would have no substantial impact on traffic and that no Noon. -site improvements would need to be made? Mr. Reyazi answered.

Mr. Herman stated that what is being suggested is there are issues related to judgment calls between Mr. Reyazi and earlier traffic engineers.

Mr. Wince stated that a July 17 memo from Williams to Mr. Hickman indicates the development traffic will have minimal impact and no roadway improvements will be needed at this time. Mr. Reyazi agreed that it said that. Mr. Wince asked whether any other business in that SBIb)e(e\n cited as nuisance because of traffic. Mr. Reyazi was not aware of any.

Mr. Stewart asked whether Mr. Reyazi knew of any procedure for citing anyone for nuisance, and the answer was No, but he has been working on plans to alleviate problems in the future. Mr. Wince thought that village planners can cite anyone for nuisance; even Wendy' s can be cited. He added that Fackler' s was cited for violation of the Moratorium. Has anyone else been cited for such asked him to keep to relevant paragraphs saying Mr. Wince wanted to go on record as these items refer to the Moratorium and that Mr. Herman has cut him off from asking Mr. Reyazi about traffic matters. Mr.·Wince continued by asking Mr. Reyazi, if you have a traffic problem, you have the ability as village planner to notify that person or business that_ that business is creating a nuisance, and _

Mr. Reyazi said that depends on what you mean by nuisance.

Mr. Herman closed the session by stating that he has 32

pages of paper and lots of notes and testimony to review.

Village Council has charged us to examine all evidence and he

thinks it appropriate to consider this information further and

come up with a vision within 30 days. Other members of BZBA

agreed, and the meeting will be April 24.

Adjournment: 10:15

Next Meeting: April 24

BZBA Minutes 2/27/1997

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

February 27, 1997

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent:

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Vimitgra: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Judy Guenther, Jeff and Sherill

Jalbert, Bob Seith

Minutes: December 19. 1996: Page 1, third paragraph from bottom,

change to: Mr. Contini stated that there would be at least a

partner. a secretary. and he himself. There is an apartment above the business area." IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS AMENDED.

Citizens Camments: None

Public Hearing:

Dennis and Judy Guenther, 12 Q W. Broadway -

Use and Variance application

Change in Nonconforming

Ms. Guenther presented the plans to change the nonconforming

use by opening a tea room and gift basket shop. Ms. Caravana asked

about parking places, and Ms. Guenther said available there are a lot of spaces next to the house, and Rev. Henderson informed her that people could park in the church' s parking lot, but Ms. Guenther did not think this would be necessary. Ms. Guenther

explained the changes that would be made to the building, as listed in the floor plan, and the equipment required for the restaurant. An exhaust fan wouldst »be required.

Ms. Jalbert, who lives next door, stated that the building is 18" from their .h,eme-0. 0*.C- :» .*.1.%4,j U' U ,

Ms. Guenther stated that staff will be in the building beyond operating hours, but not very long. There are three fire escapes. They will not use the upstairs for public traffic. Dining

etumrnploovyeeer s.is mostly done by reservation, and there would be 4-6 They will improve the back lot. Mr, Seith, who lives next door on the north, stated that there is a mudhole there.

The parking listed by applicants, stated Mr. Herman, is public area and might impost a burden on public facilities.

Ms. Caravana asked whether measures have been taken to walilellviiamtepronveuisances, and Ms. Guenther said that if possible they the building. If Mr. Seith plans to improve his fence, applicants will cooperate with him. Trash will be collected daily, and stored in the patio. Mr. Stewart asked about the oexbhjeacutsiot nfaabnl,e alnodcaMtsio. nG. uenther said it will be vented in the least

Ms. Guenther stated that the gift=basket shop has about 10=12

visitors a day in addition to telephone orders and employs 2

people. It' s difficult to tell what percentage of business is

pedestrian pass-by traffic; it' s part of what Granville strollers

like to visit. Hours for gift shop will be 10 a.m. to 3: 30 or 4

P. m.

Public Comment:

BOB SEITH, 116 Locust Place, prepared a statement.

JEFF JALBERT asked about a 15=person party place. Sherill

Jalbert said that Ms. Guenther is a great person and successful

businessperson, but what would happen in the future if she left?

4-9-AIGA

MR. AND MRS. FRASER prepared a statement.

JEAN MARSHALL, former member of Thrift Shop in subject

location, stated that the shop was open 4 days a week and customers

came from surrounding areas, When trucks made deliveries, parking more spces were taken up. 1

noisieAr visitor was concerned about kitchen noise, likely to be than the former tenants.

notdebfeU«c-tin*g1 * fr the use,

residential.

DON CONTINI stated that while

change in nonconforming use shouldA revert to

Neighbors bought houses knowing what was located there.

MR. HERMAN said that BZBA can enforce hours of operation and more information is needed regarding venting. Parking is a concern. Maybe applicant could consider limiting times of delivery. Mr. Stewart had similar concerns. Mr. Essman was concerend about use. Ms.Caravana added the concern of screening and the proximity of next-door neighbor.

BZBA members felt they needed to consider the variance for repairs and alterations along with the change in nonconforming use. Members felt they needed more information so will continue the public hearing until the next meeting.

Next Meeting: March 27

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.