Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 12/16/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

DECEMBER 16,1999

Minutes

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

Stewart

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors:Bruce Woodmansee,Kaye Callard,Bob Seith,Phil Wince,Judy and Denny

Guenther,Lisa Meby

Minutes of November 18:

Page 3,Delete sentence startingT "he steeple shutterso.n..l"ine 4.

Page 5,Line 3 under Concluding Comments,changeo "n the"to in approximately.

Change last word under Concluding Comments to applicant.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.

HERMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS IJNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizens'Comments: none

New Business:

Bruce WoodmanseeK a&ye CallardT h(e CallardCompany1)2,0 West Broadway -

Nonconforming Use

The applicants wish to change the nonconforming use to a business office. Phil

Wince explained the nature ofthe advertising business,saying no products will be made

there,no customers will visit the office,no signag no noise,no traffic,no nuisance,and f' s_)

no changes will be made except to move in their furniture. There is sufficient parking on- L,rsite.

Nobody works in the office on nights or weekends;no lighting is requested. The g

business would utilize mailing services,telephone and Internet to conduct the business.

No additional landscaping is required.

Neighbor Bob Seith asked whether they would use the garage,and they said the

entire building would be used,except for the garage. They do not plan to sublet.

The previous business closed less than a year ago. GPC members felt this was a

good fit for the property. There would be less intensity ofuse,and-thatjs what the-staMIV< refers to. 4At, j i f -

C.'1 /<c#.L..;i- .

7TEWART MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR

NONCONFORMING USE BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED,WITH THE

STIPULATION THAT THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBLET OR USED

IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN AS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION

WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL,MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

C c1- 0)6 1 /

10'

21'

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria for nonconforming use:

1. The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not increase the burden on

public facilities and service such as streets,utilities,schools and refuse disposal

imposed by the existing nonconforming use. It will not increase these burdens because

the activity ofthe business will be less than the previous use. There are few employees 00 '

and no customers. There are no other uses than the office activities, no products being

delivered or made and there would be a low volume of trash.

2. The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not increase be detrimental

nor disturbing to existing uses in the district and will not entail a use which

constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons in the surrounding use district. The

proposed use will not be detrimental or hazardous to others. There would be a lesser

volume of traffic than the previous business.

Finding of Fact: MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF THE

BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MRE.E+RMAN SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.A0 %,9.9-t1*L*/ V.j*

Concluding Comments: Ms. Wimberger said the special meeting on December 30 is to

discuss Mr. Fackler's fence and sidewalk in order to expedite the process for him.

The controversial tree-removal at the Presbyterian Church issue is awaiting a

response from the Tree and Landscape Committee. Mr. Herman wants Mr. Hurst to

review the Finding ofFact.

Adjournment: 7:35 p.m.

PLEASE NOTE: Next meeting is a special one: December 30,Thursday

Thursday, January 28, 2000, Next regular meeting

BZBA Minutes 11/18/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

NOVEMBER 18,1999

Minutes

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

Stewart

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors:Rodger Asmlis,Peter Cea, Sharon Arps,Julie Hopson,Eleanor Cohen,Brad &

Karen Pfau,Jeffrey S. Jalbert,Muffy Chyne,Laura Main

1

Minutes of October 27,1999:

Page 3,Paragraph 1: c"h.a.n.ge in plans,according to Ms. Franks."

Page 3, Paragraph 2,line 1:: give some weight to alleged actions..."

Same paragraph,go down 5 lines and deletef o"r her crafts."

Page 3,Paragraph 3, line 4: s"u.c.h.a large structure that close to the property

line,although as originally submitted,it was acceptable. The roofline ofthe new

structure.M...r. Herman added that the criteria for approval include special circumstances

not resulting from...."

Page 3, last paragraph: w "ith other large structures which have been approved

within the central area of the village.

Page 4, line 3, deleteP "revious precedents do not apply here."

Page 4,ParagraphA: w"h.i.c.h are peculiar to the land in this case."

Page 4,Paragraph C: I"t is clear that any special circumstances..."

Page 4,Paragraph D: Delete r"etroactively."

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizens' Comments: none

New Business:

BradK &risti Pfau,1125 NewarkG-ranville Road d-etached garage

The applicants wish to construct a one-story,two-car 24'x30' garage where a

previous garage foundation exists. This is in the Open Space District,and side and rear

yard setbacks will require variances,as they are required to be 50' from the property lines

Mr. Pfau explained why the location in the plan is the only feasible one for them.

It will be set back farther than the previous one so that they may have more frontage. The

eastw/est location will be the same. There is a hill, so adhering to the code would place

the garage below the house. Thick foliage creates a natural buffer from the neighbors.

Another location would be more obvious to the street and less aesthetically pleasing.

There would be direct access offthe ROW without the addition of more concrete. They

plan to match exterior materials of the house,and they used the Monomoy garage as a

model. The previous garage was demolished,prior to their ownership,because it was

dilapidated. The trees next to the slab will remain,but the one behind the house will be

removed. The neighbors are pleased about the plans,for there would be more on-site

parking and the kids'toys will be put inside.

Mr. Sharkey stated that this is a largu property and placing the garage as shown

would make a lot of sense. It is not close to any other structures and doesn't encroach or

infringe and is not unduly large. The topography is fairly open.

Ms. Caravana thought the primary rationale for a garage being built as shown is

that there was a previous garage there. The neighbor's garage is also within 50' ofthe

line.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS

AMENDED TO ALLOW THE GARAGE TO BE PLACED AS CLOSE AS 4'

FROM THE EASEMENT ON THE WEST AND 4'FROM THE PROPERTY

LINE ON THE REAR. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Essman applied the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or

structure(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the

same zoning district. The topography and shape ofthe property precludes another

location. The lot is large and the proposed location is sensible and appropriate.

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 is not enough room to

build a garage according to the code except in the front yard. Other garages are located

within the setbacks..

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The former garage was demolished before the Pfaus purchased the

property. There would be special problems without a shared driveway.

D. Granting 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 is an Open Space District so not applicable here.

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. Actually,the plan would alleviate the problem of

parking,so this would enhance the health,safety, or general welfare ofthe immediate

area.

2

BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999

BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999

Sprint,Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway -Height variance

Peter Cea explained the necessity for a telecommunications antenna 6' high to be

attached to the steeple ofthe church, replacing the existing finial. This would require a 3'

height variance,since the surrounding hills preclude acceptable reception. The new white

flashing would match the existing white color. 4-be steep18s* hottwee»uldb-e-semove1dandf-

efabriea4-fei:t-hes-igna140p-enetrate. The microcell unit is for local,downtown

coverage 4( -5 square blocks)a,nd since it is low power,it has to be close to its

destination. Strict adherence to the code would not allow radiation power beyond the

very immediate area of the church. Mr. Cea said that if Sprint abandoned the site,they

would restore the steeple to its original condition.

Mr. Cea answered questions about wider coverage and explained in detail how a

telecommunications antenna works.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS

SUBMITTED FOR A 3' HIGH VARIANCE FOR THE ANTENNA ON TOP OF

THE STEEPLE. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria for variance:

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. Requirements for an antenna boil down to the location on the

church steeple as the only possible location in the downtown area. The appearance ofthe

plan allows the antenna to become an integral part of the church. Foliage on-site demands

an antenna tall enough to clear the trees now and in the future.

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. Since the company cannot

piggyback onto another antenna,we are allowing them the right to compete with other

companies with antennae in the area.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The hills were already here.

D. Granting 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 privilege has been extended to other companies

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. We see no way the health,safety, and general welfare

would be affected by approval.

3

BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999

James and Julie Hopson,123 South Pearl Street - side and rear setbacks

Ms. Hopson explained that they wish to build a two-car garage 2'5"from the

north lot line and 3.0'from west line where the old too-small garage is located. The door

would be on the west side,and there would be a 5'woodshed on the north. This would

allow them to use off-street parking. They wish it set back far enough for visitors' cars to

park in the driveway. Mr. Hopson has spoken to all the neighbors,and no one has a

problem with the plan. The second floor,accessible via interior stairway, is for storage,

and there will be no utilities.

Ms. Caravana thought the structure would be less imposink if the gable did not

face the street. She also suggested cutting the angle ofthe point ofthe roof,and Ms.

Hopson will discuss this with her husband. She also asked about the fence and its

ownership,which needs to be surveyed. There needs to be sufficient space behind the

garage for service,and she suggested 3' as a minimum. Ms. Hopson will speak to the

Darfuses about this.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED

TO ALLOW 2'.5"FROM NORTH BOUNDARY AND 3' FROM THE WEST

BOUNDARY FOR THE WALL. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for variance:

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. An existing structure presently encroaches on the north side and

somewhat on the west. The driveway exists,and granting variance would allow applicant

to use existing pavement without pouring more pavement.

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 garages in the area

encroach into the setbacks.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. Applicants purchased the small garage with the house.

D. Granting 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 do not see how it would confer undue privilege.

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. Approval would not affect the health,safety,and

general welfare.

BZBA Minutes;Nov. 18, 1999

Finding of Fact: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE

BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Concluding Comments: Mr. Sharkey asked whether others agreed that approval for the

Presbyterian Church addition stipulated leaving the big evergreen on the east side. If so,

the builders are required to replace that tree with one ofthe same size.on4he same Spot. - /

Others agreed,and Ms. Wimberger will notify thetridde,FE' S 1 /1.2- y*..

Adjournment: 8:46 p.m:

PLEASE NOTE: Next Meeting is at irregular time: December 16,Thursday

BZBA Minutes 10/27/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

OCTOBER 27,1999

Minutes

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

Members Absent:Bob Essman

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: James and Jill LeVere,Steven Katz &Constance Barsky,Ned Roberts,Barbara

Franks,Carmen Maclean

Minutes of September 23, 1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE

MINUTES AS PROVIDED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS

UNAN[ MOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wishedto speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizens' Comments: none

New Business:

JamesJ i&ll LeVere,216 North Granger Street d-riveway variance

The applicants wish to construct a driveway within 10' ofthe property line. Mr.

LeVere explained that adhering to previously approved decisions would create an

unforescon elevation problem,and by oreating an entrance to the garage from the rear

alloy they would have better turning radius and protect the neighbor's footers and

landscaping. They originally planned three bays but now have ended up with two bays and

added a window. He would like th keep the curb cut on Granger up to the kitchen

window to enable access for visitors, groceries, etc.,and landscape the remaining .

driveway. The neighbors think this access would be an improvement.

The alley has not been vacated between Granger and Sunrise and is Village

property,in grass. The neighbors maintain the alley. Ms. Wimberger added that ifthey

receive a variance, they will go to Village Council for approval for using the alley. Ms.

LeVere said that it's a narrow alley,and a camper was parked there this summer.

Mr. Sharkey was concerned about other residents using the alley this way,but

other neighbors have no problem with the LeVere's plans.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS

SUBMITTED WITH STIPULATION THAT BZBA IS MERELY

PERMITTING THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY EXTENDED

TO THE END OF THE'PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO ENDING IT 10'FROM

THE END;AND ISSUES RELATING TO MAINTENANCE AND USE OF

THE ALLEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO VILLAGE COUNCIL DECISION. MR.

STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

7/

ly

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:

BZBA Minutes, October 27, 1999

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 lay ofthe land would require an extensive amount of

excavation on the neighbor's driveway and kill a lot of trees if applicant adhered to the

code. This is the only other way to get to the back for the garage, and the driveway

would have to go all the way to the end of the 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. This criterion does not apply.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. Special conditions relate to the topography of the lot.

D. Granting 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.

It does not appear it would confer undue privileges.

E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the

health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the

vicinity of the proposed variance. We do not believe the health,safety,or general

welfare would be affected by this variance.

Daniel M.Rogers,210 East Maple Street

The applicant is seeking approval for setback variances on east side t(o 1 2- 'a)nd

rear ( to 3')for his garage.

Ms. Caravana recused herself from considering this project,as she is a close

neighbor. }

Ned Roberts provided history ofthe project,saying the original saltbox design was

changed in midstream resulting in a completely new plan being erected. Mr. Roberts said

Mr. Rogers felt the new design with the lower hip roof was more practical and would

reduce the massing. The second floor would now be utilized. They extended the garage

4' to add more room for vehicles.

Scott Harmon surveyed the lot,and they placed the slab in relation to the survey.

A neighbor thought the project was 1' from her property line.

Mr. Herman wanted clarification as to how this happened,and Mr. Roberts

explained that GPC did not like the massing so Mr. Rogers worked on the drawings. GPC

did not approve them,so they resubmitted Mr. Roberts'drawings. Since these changes

were substantial,GPC wanted BZBA to reconsider the variances.

2

BZBA Minutes,October 27, 1999

Barbara Franks admitted this was not the right way to go although they thought

they had artistic rights. The representative from the Village,Reza Reyazi,had visited

several times and said nothing about the change in plans. Upon questioning,Mr. Reyazi

did not recall the situation but wanted it surveyed. 4:>U-n4* 71*p*6ge.*.*,

i

Mr. Herman stated that it seems the applicant would like us to give some weight to

actions taken by a former Village official that did in some way support what has been

done,but the footprint is quite a bit larger now in order to use the upstairs. Ms Franks

said they had permission to build the garage 2' higher than it is now. The roofline matches

the house. She knows this was not done correctly and this has put a lot of people on the

spot. She wants the extra space for light and height-for-her-erafks-and as a rumpus room

for the kids. The garage will be beautiful,she stated,and will improve property values of

other homes on the block. The plans were on the drawing boardbefore she decided to

open Footloose.

Mr. Roberts said there are a lot ofprecedenotsr /changed plans and nothing was

done. Mr. Sharkey recognizes that things may hay6 occurred in the past that were a little

loose,but now BZBA must determine setbackvance»s. BZBA considers massing in

conjunction with setbacks. Generally BZBA d965 not allow such a large structur>

although as submitted,it was acceptable. Thdnew structure runs the entire width and

Aen- aiists higher. The original plan had a peak and descended quite a bit. PuoT

Mr. Herman added that the criteriajnclude special circumstances,p€sulting from

actions of applicant;undue privilege,etcA.,nd the applicant fails these tests.

4+-

Neighbor Steve Katz felt the structure Iis extremely massive as a two-story building

with hip roof He does not think BZBA would have approved it in its current state. It's

almost as big as the house. Constance Barsky was concerned about prior notification.

Carmen Maclean agrees that it's too big.

Ms Caravana reminded the group that the most important thing for theBoard to

consider is not to judge whether the applicant has done the right thing or the wrong thing.

We are not a punishing body,but we have to look at the garage and pretend it is not even

built and decide whether we could approve it. She does not think we should hold it

against Mr. Rogers because is is already built.

Mr. Herman is concerned about setting precedents This would undermine the

legitimacy ofthe work BZBA is doing,and he does not see any way around that.

Mr. Stewart stated that had this application been brought to us at first,he could

not have supported it. He is uncomfortable with other appfevedill-a-g¥e structureslyl' 1 Us- tee-crowded- and- imposespn- the-neighboTs.

V X. r-

6-W»irC41 r-C1.4£, .c,«uk.4U-3 e»--

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AS IT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. MR.

STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ( with

3

the previously noted recuse).

BZBA Minutes,October 27,1999

The applicant may appeal to Village Council if he chooses- PreTiuorprecedentda

e-not,applrhere:

Mr. Herman applied the criteria for variance:

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. We have received no evidence that there are special circumstances

which are peculiar in this case.

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. If in fact this was approved,it

would have deprived others who have chosen to conform with provisions of the code.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. It is clear that im* special circumstances do result from actions of the

applicant. . a/77

D. Granting 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.

Ifthis was approved, it would confer privilege thatB-lfeaetivelrwas not applied to other

structures.

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.Not applicable

Finding of Fact: MR SHARKEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE

BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 8: 10 p.m.

PLEASE NOTE: Next Meetings are all at irregular times:

November 18, Thursday

December 16,Thursday

BZBA Minutes 9/23/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

SEPTEMBER 23,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman, Greg Sharkey ( Vice Chairman)

Members Absent:Lon Herman ( Chairman), Eric Stewart

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: Stephen & Patricia Davis,Denise & James Mack

The Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Sharkey.

Minutes of August 26, 1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES

AS PROVIDED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Vice Chairman}

Citizens' Comments: none

New Business:

Stephen and Patricia Davis, 448 West College Street

The applicants wish to remove the 60-year-old garage and build a one-car cinder

block garage in the same location with the same footprint and roofline. The difference will

be an arch in the front door. The garage was built into the hillside and the pressure has

pushed the walls beyond repair. A variance is needed for east side setback requirements.

GPC members had no problems with the application.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR 448

WEST COLLEGE STREET FOR A ONE-CAR GARAGE IN THE SAME

LOCATION BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or

structure(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the

same zoning district. The proposed structure will be a replacement of an existing

structure in the exact same location, the same size and footprint. The layout of the land

would prohibit another location.

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

BZBA Minutes, September 23, 1999

zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Other garages are built within

setback limitations.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The garage was built by another owner.

D. Granting 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.

Others have garages within the setbacks, so no undue privilege would be granted

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. We do not see how the health,safety, or general

welfare would be affected; in fact, the garage would improve the appearance of the

neighborhood.

Denise and James Mack,420 West Maple Street

The applicants are requesting a side-yard variance to build a two-car A-frame style

garage on the carport. It will not go into Sugar Loaf There is insufficient room for a

garage because of landscaping and lay ofthe land. Because of drainage restrictions,the

garage cannot be built closer to the house, and they will put in a horseshoe drain to lead

water to the road. Mr. Mack said that a big maple tree will be removed when the village

widens the road, and adding curbing would preclude parking on the street, as they have

been. Although a one-car garage would probably fit within code, the applicants want

space for two cars and tools. Two trees would act as buffer from the street.

Ms. Caravana thought that because the lot is spacious it would not impinge on the

neighboring property, which has a garage close to the property line if not actually on the

Mack lot. The hill in back limits placing garage further back.

Mr. Sharkey added that they do not want to chop up the yard any more than they

have to. He asked about the driveway material and Mr. Mack said it would be blacktop, little a wider than it is now,for easier snowplowing. He asked about landscaping and Mrs.

Mack thought she would put in flower beds and a herb garden. They may add a sidewalk

from back door to the back ofthe garage. There is a lot of shade from the trees.

MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK BE GRANTED AS REQUESTED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Essman applied the criteria for variance:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or

2

BZBA Minutes, September 23, 1999

structure(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the

same zoning district. The topography of the lot does not allow many options. The

drainage of this area creates a need to push the garage away to keep water from the

house. The existing landscape on the property will help the neighbors' property and

create visual screening from the street. It's a fairly spacious area so that 4' would not

create a cramp. It's only one story high.

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 applicant does not

currently have a garage,and most village residents enjoy a garage.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The applicant did not design the lot ofthe slope.

D. Granting 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 frequently granted side yard setbacks to accommodate different situations.

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. This plan will allow property owners to park cars off

the street,which is a safety factor.

Finding of Fact: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE

BOARD AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 7:50 p.m.

PLEASE NOTE: Next Meetings are all at irregular times:

October 27, Wednesday

November 18, Thursday

December 16, Thursday

BZBA Minutes 8/26/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

AUGUST 26,1999

Minutes

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

Members Absent:Greg Sharkey

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: Walter Krause,Sara Lee

Minutes of July 22,1999: MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PROVIDED. MS.

CARAVANA SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MIL those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Vice-Chair}

Citizens'Comments: none

New Business:

Sara Lee, 124 South Cherry Street -Setback and Lot coverage Variances

The applicant wishes to build an addition to her home,which would require side and rear

variances and a variance for lot coverage 5( 4%in lieu of50%S)h.e had previously received approval

in 1997)to build a different design and garage,but she lacked the finances at the time and is now

shifting the orientation of the plan to enter through the dining room rather than the entry. The proposed

addition would not be closer to the neighboring properties and will not be visible from Cherry Street. It,

would sit farther from the rear lot line than the garage does and would be the same distance from the

south lot line as the house. The original application was for 151.67 sq. ft,and this one is for 154.87 sq. ft.

The A.C. would be behind the new addition.

Ms. Lee said the plan would not impact the neighbors' view nor impair vision of Broadway. The

back yard is almost useless and might better be utilized for enhancing the house. She stated the plan

would add value to the house and add privacy. She would like to have a bedroom on the first floor.

Ms. Caravana said that although it's rare that a person requests three variances, in this case (1)

there was a former approval; 2( )the smallness of the lot makes construction nearly impossible without

variances. Additionally, the back yard cannot be used for a garden due to the damp moss-like conditions.

The yard is so small that she has been told by real estate agents that it is not considered an asset;3 ()there

is not room downstairs for another bedroom;4 ()the entire neighborhood is tight. The neighbors are

agreeable to the plan, and Ms. Caravana recommended that the applicant's window not face directly into

the neighbor's. In this case,although green space is at a premium,Ms. Lee is asking for a reasonable

request.

Mr. Essman said it would be hard to deny the application because it is so similar to what was

approved earlier. Also, the new plan is even more preferable in its orientation.

MR HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr.Herman applied the criteria for variance:

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. We have a very tight

and unusual small area to work with, and one of the peculiarities is that an application had already been approved for 99 per cent of the area.

Granville BZBA Minutes,August 26,1999

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 know of numerous instances of additions going beyond 50 per cent. She is not increasing

the square footage above what had already been approved previously. Having a bedroom on the first floor

is something others in the area have.

C: That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. In square

footage and footprint,the plan is not appreciably over what was previously approved.

D. Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this

Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

Other additions exist which encroach into the setbacks.

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

Board has heard to evidence that the health, safety or general welfare would be affected.

Finding of Fact for Decision for Bank First National on July 22:

MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECISION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE DRIVETHROUGH

AND ATM REACHED AT OUR LAST MEETING. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact for Tonight: MR.HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD

THIS EVENING AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 7:30 p.m.

Next Meeting: September 23

BZBA Minutes 7/22/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

JULY 22,1999

Minutes

Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Greg Sharkey

Members Absent: Lon Herman,Eric Stewart

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors:Mark Gearhart,Dick McGuinness,George Parker,Terry and Sue Van Offeren,Bob and Jean

Mason,Ed Cohn,Debra Llewellyn

Minutes of June 24,1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PROVIDED.

MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizens'Comments: none

New Business:

Terry and Sue VanOfferen,210 South Mulberry Street -Setback Variance

Mr.VanOfferen publicly thanked Kathryn Wimberger for her assistance in this process.He

stated they wish to (1)demolish the one-car garage and ( 2)build a new two-car wooden garage with

windows and shutters to fit within the footprint, 3()remove brick driveway,4 ()install a blacktop

driveway,expanded near the second garage entrance. The north wall will be 11'beyond the existing wall.

A variance for south side setback is needed for the 1.4'setback. The peak will be 4'taller than the

existing garage.

Ms. Caravana is concerned about the proximity to the neighbors'property. She felt that 1.4'is

not sufficient to maintain or paint the garage without going onto the next lot and asked whether the

applicant could move it to 2' from the line. Other Board members agreed. Mr. VanOfferen thought that

could be done.

Bob Mason,the neighbor,said the garage has been there for many years and has been no

problem.

Mr. Van Offeren said that in order to fit within the setback they would lose three trees and a lilac bush.

With the new garage there will be extensive landscaping done.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE

2' SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for variance:

A: That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures( )involved

and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

A garage already exists on the property,and they would like to maintain the historic look as much as

possible.

Lp

BZBA Minutes;July 22,1999

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 garages exist in the setback.

C: That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.N/A

D. Granting 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. The Board does not feel that the

variance would confer any undue privilege in that there are other garages encroaching into the setback in

this district.

E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,safety and

general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The

Board does not feel that the health, safety or general welfare would be affected,and believe that it would

maintain the historic look of an attached garage and make it more architecturally appealing by pushing it

toward the center of the lot

Later in the meeting,Mr. VanOfferen requested that his application be reopened to make use of

the location survey. He preferred the location as submitted. He said that maintenance at south side of

garage would be tight and shouldnE/t be compared with the Schnaidt house,which is a lot bigger. It's

only to be 9 M'high and they did not want gutters, so painting will be easy. They did not want an

attached look . It is on a hillside and they would be farther to the house when they back the cars out. Ms.

Caravana thought 22' would be plenty of room for the garage, or they could push it further back into the

yard. But Mrs. VanOfferen said that would require cutting down more trees.

Mr. Sharkey said they are not trying to be difficult,but 2' is probably a better way to go and

would like to see them try to do it, or take the 7"out of the garage or the wall. The Board doesn't want to

place the applicant's relationship with neighbors, now or in the future, at risk. If a neighbor wanted a

fence,it would be tough.

Mr. Sharkey stated that the Board is happy to amend their prior approval that should the

applicant decide to move the structure back up 2' from where it is in the plan,that is fine with the Board.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO AMEND THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE VANOFFEREN

APPLICATION AT 210 SOUTH MAPLE TO ALLOW THEM THE OPTION OF PUSHING BACK THE

LOCATION OF THE GARAGE UP TO 2'FARTHER EAST IF APPLICANT DESIRES. MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Debra Llewellyn, 415 East Broadway -Variance for side yard setback

This application had been tabled at the last meeting. Ms. Llewellyn staied that she wishes to add

a 12'x14' wood deck on the west side which would require a variance to 8'10"from the 10' requirement.

It will have a lattice overhead to hang ferns for shade and extensive landscaping. The Papes next door ( to

west)have no objection to the application. In order to fit within the ordinance she would have a long,

narrow deck,which would be unsatisfactory and less aesthetic. This is a logical place for the deck,given

the orientation of the house. The rest of the property is asphalt for parking. It is quite far from the street

and would be hard to see from the street.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITI'ED. MR. ESSMAN

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2

BZBA Minutes;July 22,1999

Mr.Essman applied the criteria for the variance:

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 orientation of

the house limits the possible location of the deck. The length of the property between the house and the

neighbor's house creates a more than adequate buffer. The existing asphalt precludes placing it anywhere

else.

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 property owners have added decks and the applicant would be deprived of the

opportunity to enjoy a deck.

C: That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A

D. Granting 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. The location is out of sight both from

the street and the one neighbor. She's asking for only a 3'12"variance.

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. This

application will not affect the health,safety or general welfare.

Bank First National -Conditional Use application

This application was tabled on March 25, pending additional information.

George Parker,Dick McGuinness,and Mark Gearhart explained the changes in the application

which were requested earlier: 1()traffic study,2 ()site plan, 3()elevation. Mr. McGuinness explained the

Traffic Survey,saying the ATM machine would be replaced by a free-standing ATM with vacuum air tube

and drive-through covered by a canopy. The traffic study was undertaken on a Friday afternoon and

Saturday morning and was distributed to the Board. They ran a capacity analysis through various

scenarios of growth. They looked at studies at other banks with drive-ins. What they came up with was

minimum delay patterns: 6 seconds for people exiting the parking lot, and there should be no adverse

effect on Prospect Street traffic. He added that a lot of the parking is used by the coffee shop.

Regarding pedestrian traffic, he said the report was random. A lot of people cross the street,and they

counted those crossing the bank's driveway. More discussion ensued on the traffic study, particularly the

pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Sharkey asked about expectations for the future, now that the Bennett station is empty and

the businesses on the north side are low impact establishments. As averages,these increases are included

in the traffic report.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Gearhart showed the landscaping plan and described the equipment. There

will be a walk-up window for the ATM with sidewalk. The canopy will be extended about 12' in order to

get all the equipment under roof. Trees will hide most of the facility with dense screening under the trees.

They will fill in the missing hedge portions and,with permission, trim existing shrubbery belonging to the

Bennetts. They will remove one parking spot along the sidewalk and plant a tree and low ground cover.

It needs to be low in the NW island so as to provide a clear view of sidewalk before people get to it. The

sea of blacktop will be relieved by attractive planting. They would prefer limiting the parking lot to bank

parking,but people will likely use it for the coffee shop and other errands.

All signage will be improved at the rear entrance. At this point signs include (1)arrows pointing

onew- ay in and onew- ay out; 2()arrow on the pavement sayingd "o not enter"3;) t(he big sign B"ank 1st

National"at the entrance;and (4)a stop sign or " pedestrian crossing"sign at the exit. Lamp posts will be

replaced with posts of similar style as is used by Denison University and there will be adequate lighting at

night. They will remove the unattractive white posts at the entrance.

3

BZBA Minutes:July 22,1999

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE AS SUBMITTED

WITH CONDITIONS: ( 1)LANDSCAPING TO REFLECT DISCUSSION DURING THIS MEETING

AND (2)RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN AT DRIVEWAY

AND SIDEWALK INTERSECTION. MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms.Caravana applied the criteria for conditional use:

A. The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development

standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The bank is a conditional use,and all standards are met.

B. The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with the

existing land use. A bank is already in existence at this location.

C, The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets,

utilities,schools, and refuse disposal. Traffic studies and observations of the Board indicate that the

increase in traffic will not be a burden on public facilities at the location.

D. The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses,and will not entail

a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.

The proposed use would not be detrimental to neighbors and could possibly enhance the town by changing

to an improved pattern especially with conditions imposed by the Board to increase visibility of the

sidewalks when existing the property. This would enhance the driveway even with increased use. With

proper lighting it would not be a hazard to people. Also,with the addition of a sidewalk it would enhance

safety.

Finding of Fact: MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THIS

EVENING AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey will write up a formal Finding of Fact for Bank First National's conditional use.

Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.

Next Meeting:August 26

BZBA Minutes 6/24/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

June 24,1999

MINUTES

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

Members Absent: Greg Sharkey

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsay Mason,Intern

Visitors: Scott Harmon,Ben and Nadine Rader,Ben Spencer,Bill Stevenson,James Harris(D?an)i,el

Ramsey,Bob Kent,James Fry,Kirk Combe,Peter Schreiber,Jerry Van Offren,Don E. Rife,Yod Delaviz,

Patrick Windley,Sue Barton,Eleanor Cohen,Jim Porter,Ray Titley

Minutes of May 27 1999: Page 2,fifth paragraph,change "leads"to lends.

Paragraph (A), add It was a verv small variance that was granted and the structure was a onestory

house.

setback.

Page 3, delete " a room"at end of seventh paragraph and add an enclosed addition., :

Add after Paragraph (C.): The house was built prior to the zoning ordinance.

Add after Paragraph ( D):Other structures in the district have existing encroachments into the

MR.ESSMAN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. MR.

STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizen's comments: None

New Business:

Benjamin and Nadine Rader,311 East College Street -Side yard setback

Don Rife,from JBA Architects,stated that they need a variance for the side yard setback for the

new three- car,two-story garage to replace the old structure. It would be built on the same site and have

storage space upstairs with access from the front. It would reduce the setback to 1. 2' from property line,

as surveyed by Scott Harmon. To move the garage farther west would destroy an old tree. A breezeway

would connect garage to the house. He added that other garages in the neighborhood are within the

setback. They don't want to put the garage closer to the house because it would eliminate a lot of the small

back yard.

Ms. Wimberger stated that the Granville Inn next door encroaches onto Raders'property by 6',

but the property line is 10 feet from the proposed garage.

Ms. Caravana was concerned about the size of the garage and closeness to the side yard property

line and suggested putting it in another location without requiring a variance.

Mr. Rife said they discussed that,and they do not think it would ever affect the Granville Inn

because the Inn's wall is so tall. They have also considered lowering the upper floor by 3' if necessary.

The Raders expressed their need for a three- car garage, rather than a two-car garage.

Ben Spencer,neighbor to the east,never realized this would be of such a magnitude, as he had

not reviewed the plans prior to the meeting. His concern is about the nice shade tree(s)on the NW and

SW ends of his garage which might be affected by the construction and location of the proposed garage..

The footings would probably compress the root systems of the trees. He is also concerned about the

setback of the garage in relation to his property. He added that the drawing does not appear to be drawn to

scale with respect to the exact location of the Inn on his property and his garage size.

Bob Kent,from Granville Inn is concerned about the 5' distance between the garage wall and two

of the Inn's sleeping rooms and would like the building to be set back farther and the roofline to be lower.

4

BZBA Minutes June 24, 1999

Mr. Rife foresaw these questions and concerns,and lowering the eave would lower the overall height of

the structure, but Mr. Kent disagrees. Mr.Rife also noted that the second level could be reduced in height

so that it would not be a full second floor wall. The roof could be sloped so that the walls would be part of the roof instead of complete walls and a full ceiling. Mr. Rife and Mr. Kent disagreed on where the

proposed garage roof would meet the second level of the Inn. Mr. Kent thought the highest point would

come up to about 3 feet into the view of the window. Lowering the roofby 5' would lower the impact for

the sleeping rooms but would still impact the bakery on the first floor.

Ms. Caravana summarized the concerns: 1( )w:here the neighbor's trees are on the plan; 2()

getting an arborist's opinion about how close they could go without harming the trees;3 ()lowering the

height to 1 1/2 stories ( 4)the scale is not good,nor is building any structure that big so close to the lot

line;and (5)making it a two-car, rather than a three-car garage. As proposed,the plan does not fit the

criteria and might set a bad precedent.

Mr. Rife thought they could move it over and line it up with the house .

Mr. Essman asked about accessibility for fire vehicles, and Mr. Rife said that is not considered a

fire lane because it is not paved. They will provide a fire wall in the 'garage.

Mrs. Rader asked to table application.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Maple Grove Cemetery,East Maple Street -Conditional Use

Jim Havens,Township Trustee, introduced the application for expanding the cemetery. There

was a land swap between the Village and the Township in order to gain more land to improve access.and

eliminate Driscoll Lane a few years ago. They will have gravel roads and it will be self- maintained. A

special levy will pay for improvements, and there will be a landscaped buffer/ screening with fencing.

They will move the existing 6' chainlink barbed wire fence to surround the cemetery to protect against

vandalism. Northern neighbors are uphill and the fence will not impact their view,unless they look down

toward the bike path.

The architect said the fence would be inside the screening and would be painted (green).

Sue Barton,northern neighbor,does not like the idea of a chainlink fence with barbed wire in

her back yard,but Mr. Havens said it must be on all four sides.

Mr. Crates, neighbor,echoed her concerns but realized that with fencing on three sides,vandals

would have to enter through his property. His assumption is that the landscaping would hide the fence.

He also expressed concern about flooding in the southwest corner of the lot. Mr. Havens said they would

address the flooding issue when the time comes.

Brian Davis, neighbor,has had a lot of experience with vandalism elsewhere,and they can get

through a very small space. Barbed wire fencing is necessary.

Scott Harmon,Surveyor for the Township Trustees, stated that Old Colony is not enclosed by a

fence and a lot of damage has been done by malicious vandalism.

Ms. Caravana reminded the group that the fence is not part of tonight's Conditional Use

application.

Mr. Herman thought the group could include in the Finding of Fact language such as: I"f the

conditional use is granted, strong consideration should be given by the GPC to appropriate screening

which takes into account security as well as aesthetic concerns."

The architect stated that this client ( Township Trustees)is probably one of the most sensitive

clients he has ever worked with, and will work with this group to resolve any problems.

Eleanor Cohen wondered about burying in the flood plain ( if it is in the flood plain)and was

reminded that the applicants would have to go through GPC to address those matters.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED WITH

CONDITION THAT THE GPC TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND NOTE NEIGHBORS'

CONCERNS RELATIVE TO ADEQUATE SCREENING AS WELL AS CONSIDERATION

OF SECURITY CONCERNS WITH THE BALANCE OF THE CEMETERY. WE

2

1/S '4

BZBA Minutes June 24, 1999

ENCOURAGE THE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO COME

UP WITH A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL PLAN. MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria:

A)The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicabe development

standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The application is a conditional use for this district.

B)The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with

the existing land use. All standards are met by the proposal,and the plan is in accordance with plans for

the area. It is an extension of the current land use.

C)The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as

streets,utilities,schools,and refuse disposal. It would not create an undue burden,and no additional

public services would be required.

D)The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses,and will not

entail a use,structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons

or property. It would not be detrimental to existing structures and would not create problems as long as

neighbors' concerns are taken into consideration.

Grace Haven AcademyS (pring Hills Baptist Church)1,820 NewarkG- ranville Road -Setback variance

Bill Stevenson stated that the applicants wish to construct a playground at the southeast side of

the church, which will require a variance from the 50' setback for a swingset and toss- ball equipment,and

they will add a fence if necessary. It would be contiguous to the Village Green,and they want to do the

right thing, as far as being a good neighbor. They would do mounding,fencing,or whatever is required.

Ms. Caravana asked whether there are other areas on the property where the equipment could be,

and Mr. Stevenson said yes,but that would bein the front yard near the road, and other areas are wooded.

Neighbor Kirk Combe opposed the variance and feels the application does not meet the criteria.

He and other neighbors wrote a letter in strong opposition to the variance expressing their many

concernsA.(ttachment.4).

Mr. Herman reminded the group that originally BZBA requested parking in the rear but the

church would not do that.

Bill Troy said they have had difficulties with the church in the past, and the privacy bank/ berm

has not helped much. Balls land on their property,and floodlights are on at night Kids come into the

yard often and use the Village Green yards as short-cuts.

Paul Swenson agrees and wonders why the church should be allowed to make it worse. Keep to

the required variances.

Jim Fry also fears setting a precedent. The school has plenty of space for a playground.

Mr. Stevenson said they are "testing the waters"at this point to find out the concerns of the

neighbors,and Mr. Herman asked them to do their homework and come back later. Ms. Caravana

suggested a meeting with the neighbors and consider other locations. Make a compromise.

Peter Schreiber is both a neighbor and a member of the church and noted the probable security

issues with the playground so far from the church. The church has thought this through. Mr. Schreiber

has noticed kids are still playing at 11 p.m. on the property and there's potential for vandalism as well as privacy and safety issues. He believes they can put the playground somewhere else.

Yod Delaviz said they try to be good neighbors but are concerned about the security,noise,and safety and agrees with his neighbors.

Ms. Caravana said that approval would constitute undue hardship for the neighbors even with a fence,which would not decrease noise and lights.

Mr. Stevenson requested tabling the application.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

r

3

BZBA Minutes June 24,1999

Debra Lewellyn,415 East Broadway -Variance application

Ms. Lewellyn was not present,and Ray Titley,deed holder,and the Board had many questions

about the proposed deck with lattice,which could not be answered to the Board's satisfaction. The

drawing was unclear and therefore they would like to see a betterc/learer drawing or at least the applicant

of builder attend the next meeting to answer their questions.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR.STEWART SECONDED,AND IT

WAS UNANIMOUSLHY APPROVED.

Fred Abraham,460 and 472 South Main Street -Tabled variance

Mr. Abraham is not present this evening.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO CONTINUE TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR-STEWART

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR.HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE DECISION OF THE BOARD FOR

THE CEMETERY AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION

WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED..

Adjournment: 9:15 p.m.

Next Meetings: July 22 ( Mr. Stewart will be absent)and August 26

BZBA Minutes 5/27/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 27,1999

MINUTES

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

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsey Mason,Intern

Visitors: Jim Cooper,Frank Murphy,Sharon Wells,Joe Hickman,Darryl Payne,Martha Matesich

Minutes of April 22,1999: Page 1: Add at end of second full paragraph: A percentage of her sales are

telephone orders.

Page 2, Add at end of Line 9, This is a difficult standard for the applicant to meet.

Page 4,add at end of first b( ): T h e"re will be less vehicular conflicts on East College Street as a

result of placing the driveway on Granger Street.

Change a( ): in"cr.e.as e.the burden on public facilities by increasing traffic and need for

parkingin.c.re.a.se in pedestrian traffic under the new proposal there would be more tenants occupying

the property than at the current time."

tdMR.rES#S7MA1N4MOV8E'DUTHA T T'HE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}

Citizen's comments: None '

New Business:

Sharon Wills, 116 Bantry Street-Variancefor Lot Coverage

Ms. Wills wishes to have a house built in the Village Green,which does not specify maximum lot

coverage in its covenants. The PUD permits 20 per cent coverage. Her request,while within setback

lines,would be 21. 55 per cent coverage. If there is a discrepancy, the ordinance prevails. Jim Cooper,

legal counsel, said that in 1993 the GPC and the engineers approved specifications for the Village Green

but neglected to clarify total lot coverage. The restrictive covenants set forth in the plat call for a minimal

building area of 1800 sq.ft for two stories and 1400 sq.ft for one story of living area. Ms. Wills' building

plan, stated Mr. Cooper,appears reasonable and consistent.

Frank B. Murphy, developer of the Village Green said he went back and found all two-story

houses are within the 20 per cent,and the Wills house would be 1850 sq.ft. or 2300 with garage. He was

not aware of this 20 per cent until recently. There are four other homes over the coverage allowed,and

there are six lots left. Ms. Wimberger thought that there were seven houses over the maximum 20 per cent,ranging from 20.4 sq.ft to 31. 18.

Darryl Payne asked about setbacks and was told that all are within setbacks. He added that most lots are quite small and they like it that way.

Ms. Matesich stated she lives next door to Ms. Wills property and wondered if Ms. Wills could redesign her house to fit within the lot coverage. She feels the 1 12/ per cent over the 20 sq.ft. maximum is significant and will severely impact her space and view.

Mr. Stewart asked what options have been explored that would not require a variance, and Mr. Will said that when they bought the lot,they assumed they could put it as the setback decreed. They spent a lot of money on the plans and nobody said anything about the restriction. They were told it's too big even though within setbacks They could change things and move the house farther back. The house is

li

f 4

4

BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999

wheelchair-accessible The next-door neighbor stated that the actual house is the issue,rather than the

setbacks.

Although Mr. Sharkey takes neighbors' concerns seriously,in this case there are several other

homes exceeding the maximum lot coverage. The Wills could move the house farther back,and he feels it

appropriate to grant the variance. The next-door neighbor felt that just because there have been other

variances allowed,that is insufficient reason to do it again. Mr. Sharkey said they did not come before

this body for variances..

Ms. Caravana stated that she was opposed to the last variance the BZBA granted test it set a

precedent.These matters should be written in the covenant rather than granting variances all the time.

She thought Ms. Wills could shave a couple of feet off the garage. She does not see hardship or special

circumstances.

Darryl Payne feels it appropriate to grant the 1 1/2 per cent over the maximum20%than to build

a two-story because most of the houses are one story on this side ofBantry Street. It would be better to

have a one-story house fit in with the other homes. He doubts that anyone could detect aesthetically the 1

1/2 per cent overage.

Mr.Herman wondered whether the neighbor's concern would be remedied by not granting the

variance and did not think it would be There is precedent in this area and to deny the variance would

deprive her of rights enjoyed by others. , e , -

Mr. Stewart felt that since other houses exceed the coveragele.alls this credence to Ms.Wills

assertion that nobody knew about this and it would be unfair to impose that kit?d ofrestriction. That it's

one story makes it less imposing on the street.

Ms. Caravana stated that the other houses were built over the maximum through an oversight on

the part of the Village,and in this case a variance should be granted. But we should take this into

consideration when the other seven houses are built.

Ms. Wills said that three years ago they selected their lot and wanted to be sure it was in

accordance with the neighborhood and feels this plan will fit in well. The overage is not very much.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. ESSMAN

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman 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. N/A .

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 received testimony in terms ofother lot coverages exceeding 20

per cent;there are seven in this area.

C)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

N/A

D)Granting 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. There are seven others who exceed

the maximum lot coverage.

2

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. It

would not affect health,safety or general welfare. It would be consistent with the other homes.

Joseph and Karen Hickman,326 North Granger Street - Variances

The applicants wish to construct an 8'x18' a(pproximately)front porch within the front and side

yard setbacks. It would extend 3'-4' closer to Granger Street. It would line up with other houses on the

street, and several houses in this area .have front porches within the front setback The variances are for

front and side setbacks and lot coverage. The house already exceeds the lot coverage at 23 per cent,and

the plan would increase it to 24.9 per cent.

Mr.Hickman stated that his family requests a front porch p"rimarily because everybody should

have a front porch."It's a relatively small house and there is no other place for a porch. The Hickmans

believe that a front porch would be a good aesthetic addition to the house. It would have a wooden floor

with a shed type roof and a railing with wood spindles. He thought the improvement would enhance the

neighborhood.

Mr. Sharkey adduced about the location compared to others,and Mr. Hickman said the fourth

house down is closer to the road than this would be. He would like a variance from the code in order to

make the porch large enough to put chairs and a swing on the porch.

A neighbor across the street thought " it would be terrific for Joe to have a front porch."

Ms. Wimberger stated that Mr. Hickman included the pavement in his calculations but it does

not need to be, so it's 23.6 per cent and with the ;proposed porch,it would be 24.9 per cent instead of 37

per cent. There have been variances for other houses in the area. Other houses exceed building lot

coverage of 20 per cent.

Ms. Caravana said the pool is temporary and included in the calculations but could be removed.

The porch is open so would be less imposing than aF-een*.41- a -·,4--*·4* 1-AZ*2S.€'

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:

A)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures( ) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The structure is an open porch and less imposing on the neighbors. The applicant has a temporary pool, which is included in the coverage but could be removed.

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 in the district have slight lot coverage overages. A literal interpretation would deprive him of the privilege of sitting on his front porch. CD That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. TDhe)BGoraarndtisnegesthneo pvarorbialenmcewwitihll tnhoist ccroitnefreiar. r )f C r- iE />j 1/ r,u,1>,Lr/ *\ Ordinance to other lands on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this privilege would be granted boyr sthtrisucvtaurriaenscien the same zoning district. The Board feels that no undue

r L1/-

3 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999

4 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999 F i

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

variance would not adversely affect and might even enhance the area.

Finding of Fact:Consensus of the group adopted the decisions of the Board for the two applications as

formal findings of the Board.

Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.

Next Meetings: June 24 and July 22

Adjournment: 8:50

BZBA Minutes 4/22/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

APRIL 22, 1999

Minutes

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

Members Absent:

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner

Visitors:Chuck Peterson SentinerJ),ohn Klein, Rebecca and Dan Begley, Mike Frazier, Bob

p Seith, Jean Hoyt,Ann and Jim Ormond, Cheryl and e.]ff Jalbert, Judy Guenther, Teri and

Norman Ingle, Andy Crawford, Karen and Doug Frasca, Rebecca and Dan Begley, Mike

Frazier

Minutes for March 25,1999:

Page 1, fourth line up from bottom, change "1/2 story"to one story.

Page 2, at end of second paragraph, "no other option."

Page 3, In the paragraph starting with Mr. Herman, second line, change "will"to may

and delete the word "dangerous."

Page 4, at end of second paragraph, change "incremented"to impacted.

Page 4, add at end of 4h paragraph. Mr. Herman said it's important that the applicant

knows a pedestrian study is requested.

Page 5, last two lines, change to "Mr. Sharkey "suggests that Mr. Herman be liaison

with GPC and the Village on these matters, and all Board members agreed."

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,

AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

William Fickling and Teri & Unda Ingle,120-West Broadway

The applicants wish to open a general store with professional offices on the second

floor in this building which is a nonconforming use change. A variance is also required for

fewer parking spaces than required. Mr. Fickling stated that the proposed use will not be

detrimental or disturbing to the area . The property has been nonconforming for over thirty

years. He expects most of his traffic from walk- ins rather than drivers. He wants local

customers rather than tourists. Mr. Ingle added that they plan a gift shop with cosmetics,

cigars, candaym-odem version of the old general store. No tenants are lined up for the

second floor at this point. Hours of operation would be 10-6 Monday through Saturday and

maybe open Sunday aftemoons sometimes. No services will be provided. No external

changes are proposed and very few internal ones; and the parking, 75 per cent owned by 120

West Broadway, is to be shared with Pinkerton's. They anticipate 30-35 customers per day.

Current owner Judy Guenther was asked about her walk-in traffic, and she had maybe

5-6 customers per hour, 30-35 per day. She was open fewer hours than the applicants

propose. 'r»Sk .7, u e.--6--r-<L-<2, --

c- **' - Bob Seith, immediate neighbor, stated that both the flower shop and the basket shop

had a lot of deliveries, which decreased amount of parking available for customers. Mr.

Fickler said he would have very few deliveries. Mr. Seith heard that when the construction for

the church is finished, parking will be improved, but the church received approval for fewer

BZBA Minutes, April 22, 1999

spaces than previously. He added that history is a terrible thing to lose and an important thing

to remember. Eventually a nonconforming use reverts back to residential and we should not

allow it to be permanently commercial. Also, the increased hours of the proposed store are

more extended than the basket shop's hours.

Karen Frasca stated that succes, of any business is dependent upon location, and this

area is not a good location and people cannot see the sign, and a business is not appropriate

in a residential area.

Mr. Sharkey stated there is already a nonconforming use and a different one61,1€boo

opened as long as it does not increase the impact on facilities.j (' 7W, 430

Mr. Herman stated that this proposal represents the third proposed use for this site In

27 months. Under a nonconforming code, the intent behind it is to have the unit come into

conformance. This building has not been used as a residence for thirty years, and maybe in

one or two years from now we will have another application. Maybe Village Council should

change the code.

Ms. Caravana stated that by keeping the site nonconforming protects the neighbors

because if it is rezoned, anything can come in. As long as demands are not increasing burden

on utilities, we are obligated to allow a nonconforming use to continue.

Mr. Ormond, from Pinkerton's, stated there was never a time when there was difficulty

parking in front of the building.

Jeff Jalbert, next door, stated that Ms. Guenther had stated originally that most of her

business would be from phone orders, but the many trucks frequently park in front of my

house. They have difficulty getting in and out of their driveway when three spots are filled.

Mrs. Jalbert added that she believes in zoning and because of that decided not to add onto

their garage for a business.

Jeff Jalbert handed out a memo outlining his objections to the application, summarized

as follows:

1. Granville does not need any more commercial property.

2. These ad hoc decisions degrade property values and spoil residential and visual appeal

of neighborhoods.

3. In our business we are able to attract high powered talent because of Granville's fine

environment. The community cannot afford to degrade that livable environment and

displace similar low impact, high tax revenue businesses.

4. West Broadway is an important gateway and shouldn't be degraded.

5. A successful general store requires significant traffic.

6. This application is inconsistent with the current code.

7. The current owner was allowed to make significant improvements to the property, which

enhances its financial value and demands a commercial venture.

8. It is hoped these variances would eventually melt away.

9. Neighbors who have made considerable improvements should not be imperiled financially.

10. Business activities should not take place in a residential area.

11. Insufficient parking.

12. Insufficient loading and unloading space.

13. We should not approve an office for unknown tenants.

14. They may demand more signs, further disrupting the neighborhood.

Andy Crawford, applicants'attorney, objected to certain of Dr. Jalbert's comments, saying the

site has been nonconforming for many years, and the issue is one of fairness. He does not

think property values will decrease.

2

3 BZBA Minutes, April 22, 1999

Mr. Herman asked whether anyone has been interested in buying the site as a

residence, and Mr. Ormond, Realtor, said no, but others disagreed.

Ms. Caravana stated that al!Granville has insufficient parking, and we cannot hold the

applicants to a higher standard than others. She has more concern about the unknown

tenants upstairs and their signs. It would be OK if the applicants wanted to use the upstairs for

an office but not to rent to a tenant. Mr. Essman agreed with her, but Mr. Stewart thought

there would have to be increased activity for a general store but there would be fewer

deliveries.

Mr. Sharkey thought it was not clear that there would not be an increased burden on

facilities.

Jean Hoyt has concerns about parking availability for any upstairs tenants, who would

probably park there all day. Mr. Fickling would like to have tenants without cars. He needs the

income from upstairs tenants. Ms. Hoyt, a real estate appraiser and neighbor, would love to

see a residence in that spot but realizes commercial areas are more lucrative. She wonders

whether there would be a public hearing on any future upstairs tenants. Mr. Sharkey said if it

is a change in use, it would have to come to BZBA.

Ms. Caravana wondered whether we could approve an application without knowing who

the upstairs tenants will be, and Mr. Sharkey thought we could put fairly specific conditions on

any approval. Ms. Wimberger added that the criteria specify that no additional burden will be

placed on facilities.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, AND MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED. THE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY DISAPPROVED THE MOTION.

Granville Exempted School District,East College and North Granger Streets

The applicant seeks variance to permit cross-property access through a shared private

10' driveway in the rear of three proposed properties in order to reduce curbcuts on East

College and provide for improved pedestrian safety. There is less traffic on Granger than on

College Street. The proposed drive would abut the empty space between proposed lots and

the school building. Any approval needs to be contingent upon Village Council's approval of

the pending rezoning. There was no objection to having the drive placed right on the lot line.

John Klein spoke about the project and answered questions. The drainage will be

controlled by downspouts on the houses. They will re-grade the area to Ms. Hannahs' and

other soggy residents. Neighbors had no objection to the shared driveway. They will restore

the tree lawn and add landscaping. Trash cans would have to be hauled to Granger Street.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION ON THE CONDITION

THAT VILLAGE COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING TO VRD AND ON THE

CONDITION THAT DRAINAGE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE

SITE PLAN ARE COMPLETE. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana then applied the criteria to the variance request:

a)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar structure( to the land or s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the

4 BZBA Minutes, April 22, 1999

same zoning district. The lots are presently undeveloped. This provides a unique

opportunity for a joint driveway and curbcuts and maximizes parking on the street.

b)That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive

the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties same zoning district

under the provisions of this Ordinance. A literal interpretation of the ordinance would AD

force driveways onto College Street, rather than less traveled Granger StreeTth.,ere waul€1c-roof

be less vehicular conflicts on East College Street.2.u, C_F_>r--->LY/ -' AScr***=

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the acti6ns ofrhe

applicant. The properties are undeveloped.

d)Granting 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.

There are other shared driveways in the area.

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. It will benefit safety by reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts

and promote safety. It will help reduce more impervious surfaces.

APPLICATION FOR NON CONFORMING USE CHANGE request by Mr. &Mrs. Ingle and

William Fickling for 120 West Broadway, under item (a)under new business:

Ms. Caravana applied the criteria to the NONCONFORMING USE request:

a)The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not increase the burden on public

facilities and service such as streets,utilities,schools and refuse disposal imposed

by the existing nonconforming use. The nonconforming use change will probably

increase the burden on public facilities by increasing traffici There is also reason to believe

that because of the nature of the business, there wpuld beh,n increase in pedestrian traffic. A 4 t.3XeA 9_- 9 » » _9 ., ) 4 )L\-

b)The proposed nonconrorming use will not be detnmental nor disturbing to existing

uses in the district and will not entail a use which constitutes a nuisance or hazard to

any persons in the surrounding use district. Because there would probably be an

increase in traffic, there would be a nuisance on the neighbors and adjacent property

owners. There was much testimony this evening on the concerns of the neighboring

property owners.

Finding of Fact: MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD FOR

THE TWO APPLICATIONS AS FORMAL FINDING OF THE BOARD. MS. CARAVANA

SECONDED, AND THE FINDING OF FACTS WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjoumment: 9:45p.m.

Next Meeting: May 27, 1999

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Allen

TO: BZBA

From: Jeffrey S &Cheryl P Jalbert

128 West Broadway

April 22 1999

Re: Application for nonconforming use for 126 West Broadway

First,we ask that this document be made part of the permanent record.

With your permission we will either outline or read it in its entirety.

We are, for the second time in several years,again requested to revisit the

issue of a change in the nonconforming use for the property at 120 West

Broadway,this property being zoned village residential.

There are,at times, pressures in the village to extend the current business

district. However,we do not believe that ad-hoc exceptions are the

correct way to approach that;even more so when the Village already has

more than enough land zoned commercial for a city of 40,000 people

according to land-planner Frank Elmer's calculations during the

comprehensive review plan process.)Ad-hoc solutions degrade the

values of adjacent properties and,in general,s "poil"the visual and

residential appeal of neighborhoods.

As some of you knbw,we started an Information Age business 12 years

ago. One of the reasons that we elect to stay in Granville and that we can

attract the high-powered talent we do is because of the particularly fine

environment that the village represents. The Granville community

cannot afford to degrade that livable environment and displace similar

low impact,high tax revenue businesses.

West Broadway represents one of the gateways to the village and its

visual appeal is particularly important both to local residents and as a

source of " tourist"traffic that benefits most if not all Granville

merchants. If we degrade that gateway,in fact, other businesses will decline.

The captioned request is to permit a " general store"together with at least

two offices in the building. The store will be a retail establishment

serving general clientele. To be successful, such a store must experience significant traffic.

0

22/

J ,

4 A

This request is clearly a substantial extension to the current and previous

uses. We believe that the implications of this new use render this request

inconsistent with the current Planning and Zoning code of the village.

A couple of years ago,the BZBA permitted the current owner to

substantially renovate and extend the building. The investments involved

were significantly in excess of the amounts permitted under sections

1149.02 and 1149.07 of the Planning and Zoning code. As a result the

current owners have found themselves with a considerable interest in

having this property being a de-facto business property as defined for the

Village Business District. However,it is in the Village Residential

District.

That interest,however,is not appropriate to the interests of the Village or

the residential neighbors. It is the duty of the BZBA to enforce the

zoning code and to protect the property values of persons owning

property conforming to designated use. De-facto extensions of the

Village Business district to permit a " General Store"in a residential

district violate that responsibility of the BZBA.

We are neither attorneys nor versed in law. It is,however,our

understanding that section 1149 is constructed with a specific goal. That

goal is that variances from the code would slowly melt away.

It is an unfortunate fact,although true,that the Village is not and cannot

be the guarantor of anyone's investment. However,it is important that

the Village protect the reasonable expectations of property owners who

make investments in their properties with that property's zoning in mind.

In this case,a number of residents,ourselves included,have made fairly

significant investments and enhancements to our residential properties in

our residentially zoned district. These investments, which are in line

with what the residents of the village have collectively called for through

their enactment of Granville's zoning ordinance,must not be imperiled.

Besides being a propagation of the business activities of the village to

residential areas,an action specifically contrary to the new

coniprehensive plan,the current request fails to meet several other requirements.

1

Section 1183.02 describes the spaces required for on-site

parking.

Given the requested use and square foot requirements,one

would expect parking for 15-20 automobiles. There is one in

the proposal.

e The proposal is inaccurate. We took a tape measure to the front

of our home and found that, according to the requirements of

section 1183.02 for parallel parking,there was generous

parking for at most two vehicles,not the three shown. It is

likely that all the other parking estimates are also overstated.

This agrees with our experience. When three vehicles are

parked,as occurs with depressing frequency,one always

overlaps our driveway.

The plan shows five (5)parking spaces in the back of the

building where Pinkerton Real Estate is located. Code requires

ten feet per head-in parking space. It is difficult to believe that

this building is fifty (50)feet wide. Again,the plan is

misleading in its representation.

Pinkerton parking counts are irrelevant in any event. We are

not presented with a permanent and binding agreement between

the current owners of the Pinkerton building and the purchasers

of 120 West Broadway. Even if that agreement were present,

we should discount it because that would render the Pinkerton

building significantly non-compliant.

Further,it is unrealistic to expect such a grant of parking space

could be permanent should the Pinkerton building change

ownership or control.

Parking is already a problem in downtown Granville and,at

times,in this first block of West Broadway.

When the village is busy,such as on a Saturday morning, or

even just some balmy days, our experiences with parking

indicate that on-street parking is already a problem.

Section 1183.05 of the code specifies that any loading and

unloading area must be no more than fifty feet from residential

lots. The lot at 120 West Broadway is,itself,less than fifty feet

wide. The loading area would have to abut the property at 116

Locust Place and is certainly closer than fifty feet from ours at

128 West Broadway.

Our conclusion from all of this is that the parking requirements alone

would cause this request to be denied. This should not be a surprise as

this is, after all,a residential neighborhood. The burden on public

facilities is quite clear. Other impediments such as loading facilities also

exist.

There is more,however.

The request uses two potential office renters as justification for low

impact use. This is not an appropriate consideration for a general nonconforming

use permit. We cannot depend today on unknown tenants in

the future. Who would guarantee that?It would fall to the neighbors to

police something that should not have to be policed at all. Besides being

inappropriate, it is also highly unfair to burden neighbors with this

responsibility.

The request envisions a general store. How can we expect that the foot

and vehicular traffic from that will be comparable to current use?It will

certainly increase, and increase substantially. A C"@neral Storeb"y, its

very nature,requires substantial traffic to be economially viable.

There is also the issue of signs. Currently there is one sign. One can _ hardly expect that business people will be content with sharing that

space. It is small for one business, much less the three that are envisioned in the request under consideration.

What will inevitably happen is that the requests for more signs will grow. Again,this disrupts the residential aspect of the neighborhood.

For all the reasons above,and especially because it has become a burden

for us repeatedly to be the proponents of rational and fair zoning,we ask

that you deny this request. A retail store has no " business"in a

residential neighborhood. It will destroy the quiet,erode the picturesque

image of the village,crowd our streets with parking, and reduce

adjoining property values. Granting this request will, essentially,

recapitulate all the sins of spot zoning.

As we end this,it is well to reflect on what the philosophy behind

nonconforming use is. As we understand it,the goal is to protect the

nonconforming uses that were present when the ordinance was put into

place. That is, the goal was to not force any activity to cease and move to

a new location. The goal is most emphatically not to grant a permanent

business location in a residential district. As mentioned,the expectation

is that over time such non-conforming use will melt away.

The burden ofjustification for a new nonconforming use must rest on the

applicant and must meet the two criteria specified in section 1149.03:

e No increased burden on public facilities

e No detriment or disturbance of the neighborhood.

It is clear that the use that is applied for in this request did not exist at the

time that the ordinance was enacted. This is a new use. It is also clear

that the two criteria are not met. The parking requirements will

overwhelm the first block of West Broadway; the addition of foot traffic

will add to the noise and disruption of the environment; the business

district will encroach on the residential district; the property value of

residents will decline.

Approval of this request is also a bad long term strategy for the village.

It will degrade the very environment that makes Granville so comfortable

and attracts residents,businesses and visitors and tourists to come here.

Cheryl P. Jalbert

128 West Broadway

Jeffrey S. Jalbert

BZBA Minutes 3/25/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

March 25,1999

Minutes

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

Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana

Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: Mark Gearhart,Ed Cohn,Carolyn Kibler,Regina and Mark Ceneviva

Minutes for February 25,1999:

Page 2,add after No. 6: ,especially while addressing the BoarcLEs concerns it not be done

in such a way that the number of proposed parking spaces is reduced.

Page 3, add at end of last sentencean,d, will advise the Board if its assistance withthe

Evans Foundation is needed.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of March 4,1999:

MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT MINUTES BE APPROVED AS PROVIDED. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Mark and Regina Ceneviva,977 NewarkG-ranville Road

The applicants wish to build a 24E/x30AE twos-tory garage toward the back of the

property beyond the tree because there is not enough room to add onto the existing garage. There

would be a 5/E setback from east property line,rather than the required 14AE. The existing garage

will be demolished and driveway extended to the garage. The applicant will replace the asphalt

with a cement driveway.

Mr. Sharkey asked what the building would be for,and the answer was they need room for

both cars and need storage space above,accessed by interior stairway,and one and a half stories

would not provide quite enough space for storage. There will be no plumbing. The next door

neighbor is agreeable to the project,and there have been no other objections.

The distance now from the property line is 8/ E,also within the minimum setback,and Mr.

Sharkey is not comfortable with such a large structure even closer to the property line. He would

1»prefer a ESktory garage. He asked whether Mr. Ceneviva could shift the east wall to maintain

the BLE distance and move west wall 3AE farther into the yard. The tree might have to be trimmed a

bit. Mr. Ceneviva willlook into this adjustment and into the distance ofthe neighboring barn from

the line.

Mrs. Ceneviva stated that they will want to add firewood storage and a grill and the 3AE

encroachment would crowd the yard,in addition to wanting a play space for the children close to

the house.

Mr. Sharkey added that the Board is careful about setting precedents; a lot of people have

been denied variances for even longer distances from property lines. Mr. Herman added that we are

trying to work out things that make sense. He wondered what the applicant has done to avoid

needing a variance. Mr. Sharkey said in order for the Board to grant variances,there must be no

other option 11+,/

A r -

The applicants requested a vote at this time with conditions.

MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT

BE MODIFIED IN A MANNER TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED NEW GARAGE IS

NO CLOSER FROM THE EASTWARD BOUNDARY THAN THE EXISTING GARAGE.

OTHER DIMENSIONS WOULD BE AS PROPOSED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman 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. Currently there exists a garage within the required setback minimum;therefore,there is a

precedent for situating the garage in the same way.

b)That a literal interpretation ofthe provisions ofthis Zoning Ordinance would deprive

the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions ofthis Ordinance. Based on our review ofthe site as well as adjoining properties and

garages in the area,they too do not conform with the setback requirements or property lines so they

enjoy those rights already.

c)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the

applicant.

The desire for a two-car garage is common in the community,and the ability to build one in the

j amount of land there is reasonable and does not result from actions ofthe applicant.

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. Adjoining properties also fall within areas ofthe setback.

e)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect safety and the health, general welfare ofthe persons residing or working within the vicinity ofthe proposed variance. No adverse effects are foreseen.

2

1

3

Bank First National,222 East Broadway

Mike Gearhart explained the bank's plan for a drive- through behind the bank. The former

bank closed the drive4hrough and installed an ATM and took out an island. The Bank First

National wants to reinstall the drive- through to accommodate handicapped people,those who do

not want to leave children and pets in the car while they are banking,and to increase safety. There

would be two lanes and a combination drive- through with vacuum tubes and an ATM.

The applicant was asked about a traffic study and he replied they took a survey for a week

and learned that:

29%were people who would always go to the drive- through

49%would sometimes use a drive- through

32%would never use a drive- through

27%oftransactions were by people who walked through the front door

68%at some level would either use a drive- through or walk in

He added that having a drive-through would add parking spaces in front. The ATM would require

a 60" x54"structure and in back of it a 4'6"high device for the vacuum tubes.

Mr. Herman appreciated applicant's desire to provide us with information about projected

traffic,but the methodology is flawed and fears that thereDea lot more traffic back there.

Drivet-hroughs require formal traffic studies for conditional uses. Increased traffic on Prospect p 1*

impacts the fire department and pedestrian safety. A new owner ofthe corner station might also

want a drive- through,so this one would set a.dangerous-precedent. We need to ensure that no

undue burden is caused on people or services. The applicant has to anticipate additional traffic if

they want their bank to grow.

Mr. Gearhart said they want to provide more customer convenience and safety,and they

anticipate a 5%increase in business per year. A walku-p device is more vulnerable to crime than a drive- through. Neighbors have no objection to the plan.

Bernard Lukco offered that the former bank abandoned the drive- through because there

was no ATM and the service was not used much. There was no teller there and people just walked

into the bank. He added that a traffic study is necessary but a pedestrian study is also necessary. A lot of students and others just walk to the bank.

Mr. Sharkey's concern was with pedestrian safety.

Carolyn Kibler,manager of bank,said since the driveway is narrow,the bushes would have to be trimmed for better visibility. When they reverse the traffic patterns,people would exit where it would be safer. She would hate for her bank to be the first where someone gets hurt in that alley and so they feel responsible to make it safer.

Mr. Stewart would feel better with full knowledge ofwhat we are getting into,especially regarding the Fire Department s needs.

1

1

Mr. Herman wants to see exactly what is proposed,i.e.,bushes,islands,the aesthetics,

volume,and safety. Traffic engineers can help with the requirements.

Ed Cohn thinks a traffic study is fine. He is a little concerned we are talking about two

different directions to focus on with the traffic study. He does not think traffic would be

incrementwi very much.

UYj<o64*1

Mr. Sharkey also wants to see a clean,clear drawing and elevations. He agrees it would be

safer to have a drive- through but requests a traffic study.

Mr.Essman agrees with the pedestrian safety issue and feels it is possible that witha _7 4-*_,#

drive- through,it might cut down on traffic using the alley as a turn-around..

The applicants request the Board to table the application pending further study.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE

FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Work Session:

The Application Process

Zoning Inspector. Bernard Lukco from the Planning Commission,stated that he and

others from GPC have designed a method to clarify the process for applicants and to avoid

problems down the road. Without a Zoning Inspector,everyone assumes that applicants will

proceed according to plan. But since this is often not the case,they have recommended hiring a Zoning Inspector as a solution to the problems mounting with nonc-ompliance and construction or work without a permit.

Mr. Herman added that the person should be computer literate for spreadsheets and data bases and

some knowledge of zoning regulations. Mr. Stewart added that the person would report to Ms. Wimberger.

Mr. STEWART MOVED THAT THE GRANV[LLE PLANNING COMMISSION ( GPC)AND

THE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS ( BZBA)HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL DISPUTES REGARDING ZONING PERMIT COMPLIANCE.

GENERALLY,THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT THE HOMEOWNER AND/ OR

CONTRACTOR HAVE NOT ADHERED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PERMIT. WHILE

IN TYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE VILLAGE PLANNER,WHO ALSO ACTS AS THE ZONING INSPECTOR,WOULD HAVE MONITORED PROGRESS ON THESE PROJECTS, WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT ALLOWED FOR THS[ TYPE OF FUNCTION. THEREFORE THE BZBA REQUESTS THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL GIVE THE VILLAGE MANAGER AUTHORITY TO HIRE A PARTT-IME ZONING INSPECTOR TO ASSIST THE VILLAGE AND VILLAGE PLANNER TO ALLEVIATE FUTURE PERMIT PROBLEMS. MR.HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

4

Fees. The subcommittee also took a look at current fees and broke them down into a

different format- 4hose for the GPC and those for BZBA. Mr. Herman said there needs to be a

relationship between fees and what they are supposed to do. The fees are for administrative costs.

Ms. Wimberger will try to get fee schedules from other towns.

Sample Packet to be given applicants would include:

a checklist of what is required

an information sheet explaining the checklist

samples of good applications

a permit application

zoning/ architectural permit with date and phone number.

The subcommittee will next set to work on a commercial packet. Mr. Sharke 6„064 Mr.

Herman liaison with GPC and the Village on these matter.

Adjournment:

9:05 p.m.

Next Meeting: April 22, 1999

BZBA Minutes 3/4/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

March 4,1999 -Special Meeting

Minutes

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

Members Absent:

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: Jean R. Hoyt

Minutes: Minutes for February 25 have not been approved yet. Mr. Herman,who was absent on

C February 25, asked for clarification on the minutes ofDecember 17 where the matter of"standing"

was boxed in. Ms. Wimberger explained that any citizen may speak during Citizens Comments,

3 regardless of standing. E (veryone needs to be sworn in, possibly en masse.)

Citizens comments: None

Old Business:

Jean R.Hoyt,117 Locust Place

This application was tabled at the last meeting, pending further research into the conditions

granted the Presbyterian Church for parking along Locust. Those spaces on the west would be for

compact cars only to make it more accessible for emergency vehicles. As a result ofMs. Hoyt's

curbcut,two spaces willtikely be lost.

Ms. Hoyt has spoken with the construction engineer,and he is ready to prepare her driveway

soon. The first 8' would be paved for an apron and the rest will be gravel.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS

SUBMITTED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Mr. Sharkey applied the criteria to the variance:

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. This property is land-locked,and given the approval for the addition to the

Presbyterian Church,special circumstances include but are not limited to the fact that Ms. Hoyt will

be allowed to park her vehicle off the street and leave more room for emergency vehicles. After

reviewing this with the Finding ofFact for the church,we are doing nothing to violate the Finding of

Fact. There is no option to place the driveway anywhere else,and she has no frontage on a public

street. No negative comments have been received. The driveway is planned in a location which at

some time in the future might end in a garage.

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 received no testimony that would affect

the applicant.

c)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the

applicant. Special circumstances do not result from actions ofthe applicant. This property is unique

and small to begin with, and she has limited access to a driveway.

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.

We have received no indication that approval will confer undue privilege.

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. To the contrary,we have heard from immediate neighbor Mr. Seith who is in

favor ofthe driveway and we also have evidence that it will not adversely affect anything else. If

anything,it will improve access for emergency vehicles.

Election of officers:

MR. STEWART MOVED THAT FOR THE COMING YEAR MR. SHARKEY BE OUR

CHAIR AND MS. CARAVANA BE OUR VICE CHAIR. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

BZBA Minutes 2/25/1999

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

February 25,1999

Revised Minutes

Present:Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Lon Herman

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner

Visitors: Jean R. Hoyt,Fred Abraham,Greg Ross,John Oney,Allen Baker,Bob Seith,Barbara in(

Abe's office)F,rank Brauner

Minutes for December 17,1998:

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MR.

STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens comments: None

New Business:

Jean R.Hoyt,117 Locust Place

The applicant wishes to construct a gravel driveway with concrete apron,which requires a

variance for front-yard parking. The property currently has no off-street parking. The other option

would be to locate the driveway within the side yard setback,also requiring a variance. However,at

some time she would like to add a garage at the end of the driveway. Her plan would alleviate some

on-street parking. Church construction workers need to use the space now,and the contractor has

promised her a gravel or concrete driveway when they are finished.

Neighbor Bob Seith and other neighbors think this is a very good idea and it would clean up

the property and the aging fence. He explained that Locust is a dedicated street,and Ms. Hoyt is

entitled to park there.

Some BZBA members thought the gravel would look better than concrete,and they could

give approval for both,depending on the applicant's ultimate decision. Although a curbcut would

eliminate one or two parking spaces,the open space would provide more maneuverability for fire trucks,etc.

Mr. Stewart asked what variances was the church given for parking,and members agreed this

should be verified before approval is given. Ms. Wimberger will check her records,and Ms. Hoyt will

check with the contractor to see when he is planning to redo her driveway. A special meeting of BZBA is possible if necessary.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED PENDING

RECEIPT OF INFORMATION ON THE CHURCH VARIANCES. MR. STEWART

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Fred Abraham,460 and 472 South Main

2.

John Oney,architect,explained Mr. Abraham's plans to remodel his buildings. He thinks they

have created a dramatic difference and are repeating existing characteristics and colors of the station

and the mill. Allen Baker added that they are not adding any square footage but will improve the

facade and clean up the area. All four sides will be finished,and a canopy and a tower will be

included. They are in the process of acquiring ROW agreements. Concerns have arisen over the

FHOD,the parking,and the height of the tower.

A. Parking and Traffic Flow. The diagonal parking they have planned on the north side is

very tight and may not be workable. Sludge trucks and others witllikely still use it as a two-way

street and make it impossible for two cars to pass going in either direction. Ms. Caravana thought it

would be nice to have a fence separating the bikepath from the driveway,but there is insufficient

space there. Mr. Abraham thought maybe the Mill could move their driveway from the south to the north side.

More space could be provided on the north by parallel parking or moving the parking to the rear area.

Mr. Ross said the IGA parking lot is generally only 50 per cent full.

There will be three pedestrian- access points: two near the bikepath and one connecting to the IGA with a sidewalk. To slow down traffic, would speed bumps could be added or a flashing light. Striping be added,and the walkway could be bricked-in.

There is a 0' setback on rear south side,and landscaping will be required.

A bikepath parking area will be provided,perhaps with bike racks.

Mr. Sharkey summarized the discussion on parking and circulation:

1. Will the north roadway be one way?

2. How will the bikepath be separated from the roadway?

3. The north roadway is too tight as it is planned.

4. Remove parking and put it in the rear.

5. Work with the Village on keeping the north roadway onew- ay,especially for sludge trucks. 6. How to provide 135 parking spaces;specifically,while addressing the Board's concerns it , should be done in such a way that the #ofparking spaces not be decreased.

B. FHOD. Final determination is up to the Village with assistance ofthe LCPC. Mr. Abraham has given space for a storm sewer and catch basins. They will do what they have to do to comply with regulations. Mr. Oney said that since the buildings are already there,they are not required to raise the noor above the 100y-ear flood mark.Ms. Caravana asked how much ofa burden would fall upon the town and how much onMr. Abraham in the event of a flood.Mr. Abraham suggested an agreement between the Village and himselfsaying there would never be a burden placed ionnsuthraenVceil.lage. He has inquired into insurance with FEMA and found he will have no problem getting

Mr. Oney said there will be special measures taken to avoid floods. They would put flood- resistant materials on the bottom 12"ofthe facade,but doors are still needed. All mechanicals and FelHecOtrDic.als would be above 12".Mr. Sharkey thought the ordinances were nebulous in regard to

2

Ms. Wimberger will check with the Building Department in Newark and with our engineers.

A flood expert could be consulted for safety aspects.

C. Height. Members had no problem with the height.

Mr. Abraham explained that Phase I will include the facade in Building A and improvements in

the interior as well as redoing the parking lot. In Phase II Abe's will move to back part ofthe building

and add four new retail spaces. In Phase III the fertilizer warehouse will be moved out and an

existing concrete slab will be removed. The NAPA store will be cleaned up and a two-story office

complex will be added.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER REVIEW.

MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana suggested our writing the Evans Foundation about this plan,which would

improve appearance and safety. Mr. Abraham will consult further with his lawyers and adjacent

property owners and will advise the Board if its assistance with the Evans Foundation is needed.

Adjournment: 9:50 p.m.

Next Meeting: March 25, 1999

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.