Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 4/24/1997


April 24, 1997


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


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 .



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


Caravana applied the criteria:

That_special_circumstances_o_r conditions exist w_hich




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


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 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


building.They have moved the kitchen to the rear cinderblock


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

but have cancelled those plans and moved kitchen to that proposed


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_ _


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



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.



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


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.






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.




Adjournment: 9: 15 p.m.

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

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.