Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 09/23/99

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1 3
1

BZBA 10/27/99

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
1
4

BZBA 11/18/99

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

BZBA 05/27/99

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
Respectfully Submitted,
Betty Allen
4

BZBA 03/24/99

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
A 1
4-O,-A-J¥
7 /
U,
The subcommittee will next set to work on a commercial packet. Mr. Sharke 6„064 Mr.
Hermanibe liaison with GPC and the Village on these matter. t€00»CAdjournment:
9:05 p.m.
Next Meeting: April 22, 1999
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
5

BZBA 03/04/99

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.)
111;
4,1,
r .5 2
7 ,
1 t" ,
17, 11
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 07/22/99

GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 22,1999
1) CALL TO ORDER
2)ROLL CALL
3) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A)June 24, 1999
4) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
5) NEW BUSINESS
Administrative Actions
A)Terry &Sue VanOfferen -210 South Mulberry Street
VRD, AROD B-99068
Variance Application -side yard setback
6) OLD BUSINESS
Aldministrative Actions
A)Debra Llewellyn -415 East Broadway
SRD-B,AROD B-99061
tabled Variance Application -side yard setback
B)Bank First NationalM- (ark Gearhart)2 -22 East Broadway
VBD,AROD B-99015
tabled Conditional Use Application -Drive-through banking
7) FINDING OF FACT Approval
8) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday,August 26, 1999,7:00 p.m.,in the Village Council Chambers.
B)Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,September 23, 1999, 7:00 p.m.,in the Village Council
Chambers.
9)ADJOURNMENT
1

BZBA 07/22/99

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
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

BZBA 04/22/99

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

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.