Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 09/23/97

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 10/23/97

BOARD-OF«ZONING AND', B' UILDING 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

11/20/97

*.BOARD 'OF'Z'ONINGM,AND B-'UILDING A' PPEALSv'''9' r'-1·3. t.:·1:,2 .. i,:e* : - J : - . p':,
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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

11/06/97

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.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen (from cassette tape

03/27/97

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 ainvtihoelaFtiiondnin?gMorf. FHearcmt.an 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 _
8
9
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 cision within 30 days. Other members of BZBA
agreed, and the meeting will be April 24.
4,61L'6-e€x<-Q1///t u-
Adjournment: 10: 15
Next Meeting: April 24
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

06/26/97

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.
1
3
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.
5
6
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)··
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

02/27/97

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
concerned about perishable refuse. Ms. Caravana added the concern of screening and the proximity of next-door neighbor.
aid79
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. Ms. Guenther will decide on I511I1] 75-5-t:9-nuwtt-t__3Ttlt1.if;A- '7 L-r
Next Meeting: March 27
Respectfully submitted,
ReZa Reyazi took notes and
Betty Allen typed minutes

BZBA 12/13/97

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4
3

BZBA 08/26/97

MEMO
Granville Board ofZoning and Building Appeals
Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Thursday, August 26, 1997
Meeting on Thursday, August 28, 1997
Due to lack of applications the BZBA will not meet on Thursday,August 28. Your next
regularly scheduled meeting is on Thursday, September 25, 1997.

04/24/97

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)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
10

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.