BOARD, OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
November 6, 1997 -Special Meeting
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
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.