BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
APRIL 22, 1999
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey, Eric Stewart
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
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
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
1. Granville does not need any more commercial property.
2. These ad hoc decisions degrade property values and spoil residential and visual appeal
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.
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
Mr. Sharkey thought it was not clear that there would not be an increased burden on
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
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.
Next Meeting: May 27, 1999
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.
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
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.
Section 1183.02 describes the spaces required for on-site
Given the requested use and square foot requirements,one
would expect parking for 15-20 automobiles. There is one in
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
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
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
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS