Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 12/11/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
December 11, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean,  Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Tim Tyler (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  Lon Herman
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:   Lisbeth Lipari
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Vice Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

Minutes of September 11:  MS. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED; MS KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Lisbeth Lipari, 1 Samson Place - Front setback

Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes a variance for an additional 8' into the setback, which already encroaches by 5', in order to build a 12'x20' addition for kitchen and dining room.   She originally requested a 12'x17' addition, but today she requested the other 3' into the setback.   The house built before the current zoning code was established. 

Ms. Knox explored the property.  The way the lot lies with Burg Street and Samson doesn't seem to be as much of an encroachment if it were a flat line.  It seems to fit in well with the other houses.  She would have no objections to the variance, especially since the house was built before the requirement. 
Mr. Heim asked whether she considered going from the corner back and she replied that she did but that wouldn't work because of the fireplace.  She explained the difficulty in placing it anywhere else.
Mr. Heim asked how far the property is from the lot line goes to the right of way, but she does not know.  The application does not have the ROW marked.  Did she have any response  from neighbors?  Yes, they have no objections.   Mr. Strayer said the Brodies were in to look at the plans, and they had no problems.  There is a hill with two levels, so Mr. Strayer doesn t see the ROW coming into that hill.  Mr. Heim said the University ooriginally sited these houses to face Samson, and that's why they apparently face Burg Street but have a Samson address.  Ms. Knox asked about sidewalks and Mr Strayer said at this point the Village is looking at sidewalks and roadway alighment.  But they don't know what side of the street it would be on.  Ms. Lipari would still have about 20'. 
Mr. Heim said from time to time they change the center of the road, but he hopes the center would not be moved closer to what the applicant wants to do.

Mr. Heim applied the application to 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. Because of the way the lot is laid out, in this district the answer would be Yes-It would be unreasonable to grant the variance due to restrictions to the lot.
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. A literal interpretation would keep them from building.  A lot of the neighboring properties do violate the code
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant bought the property as is.
D. That the 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 would not.
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 posed variance.   It would not do so.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE APPLICATION #03-157 FOR FRONT  SETBACK AS AMENDED  BASED ON THE FIRST THREE CRITERIA.   MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS  UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Finding of Fact:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE LIPARI APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES, AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF DECEMBER 4, 2003.   MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND   THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
 
Next Meeting:  January 15, 2004

Adjournment:   7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 9/11/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 11, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean,  Lon Herman (Chair), Trudy Knox, Tim Tyler (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  Bill Heim
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Visitors Present:   Brian Corbett
Citizens' Comments: None
Swearing in: The Vice Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.

Minutes of August 14:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED; MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Brian & Nora Corbett, 117 South Prospect Street - Side setback

Brian Corbett said they have already gone ahead and built the skateboard ramp since he thought he had approval from GPC and because it's a temporary structure. It comes right up to the fence, so he applied for an after-the-fact approval, and GPC said it had to be no taller than 6'. It's like a trampoline.  It will be enclosed by a fence, and If it were located in an approved spot, it would be more visible from the street.

Mr. Strayer said the skateboard ramp is less than 10' from the property line and the discrepancy came about during the change in staff personnel. Since the ramp was on the lot line, GPC approved it pending approval from BZBA.  The neighbors have offered no objections.

Mr. Corbett said they are considerate of neighbors and noise (one neighbor has a new baby) and safety issues.  Mr. Herman stressed the importance of consideration of the neighbors.  

 MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE APPLICATION #03-071 FOR SIDE  SETBACK.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS  UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Mr.Dean applied the application to 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 way the lot is laid out-very deep and very wide-makes it impossible to place the ramp in any spot that would adhere to the code. It's not a permanent structure.
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 probably is no other ramp in the district, but there is some recreational equipment close to lot lines
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. There are no special conditions; this is not a permanent structure.  It is close to a public driveway.  A garage is located on the other side of the lot.
D. That the 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.  Most of the lots either have sheds or other buildings right up to the lot line.
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 posed variance.   The applicant has assured us he will ensure safety and minimal noise.  The public should not be able to skate on the ramp.

Finding of Fact:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE CORBETT APPLICATION AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES, AS LISTED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2003.   MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND   THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
 
Next Meeting:  October 9, 2003 (Ms. Knox will be absent)

Other Comments:     Ms. Knox noted that sometimes people think approval from GPC is a blanket approval and they proceed without addressing the GPC stipulation of BZBA approval.  This needs to be made clear to applicants.

Adjournment:   7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 8/14/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
August 14, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:  Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Tim Tyler (Vice
Chair)
Members Absent:  Don Dean,  Lon Herman (Chair)
Also Present:  Tom Mitchell, Village Planner
Visitors Present:   Rod Butt, Robert. Kent, Herb Murphy,
Janna and A.L. Bessin,  Tom Linzell, David Graham
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing in: The Vice Chair swore in all those who wished
to speak during the evening.

Minutes of July 10:  MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS
DISTRIBUTED; MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Minutes of May 8:  Postponed until next meeting.

New Business:

Rodney Butt, 40 Pinehurst – Rear Yard Setback

Mr. Mitchell said the applicant wishes to amend his
previous approval, extending  depth of deck at farthest
point an additional 8’.  
Mr. Butt explained further details on the map provided. He
said the floor plan will not change, but he would like
another 4’, 12’ extending off one area and 16’ off the
other area.  It will be 18’ from lot line.
 When asked by Mr. Heim why he needed to come back again
for further amendment, Mr. Butt explained that he wanted
more room to be able to enjoy the outside.  He is ready to
begin building.
Mr. Heim asked if the neighbors are in agreement with the
proposal and the answer was yes.  Three letters of
approval have been provided, two in our packets, and
another from neighbor Jim McKivergin, read by the Village
Planner, expressing his approval, saying it will be of
benefit to Mr. Butt to do the project.
Ms. Knox noted that there is a lot of vacant land nearby

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE APPLICATION #03-073 FOR
REAR  SETBACK.  MR. TYLER. SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS  
APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. HEIM VOTED NO).

Mr. Tyler applied the application to 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. Mr. Butt was requesting a
variance for a larger deck closer to the lot line, and
because the lot is long and narrow, it has a peculiar
shape which is different from most of the other lots in
the area.
    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. It
would deprive the applicant because of the other people
who have decks in the setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  .That is
correct since the applicant did not create the irregular
lot area.
D. That the 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 will not because we are not giving him
anything we would not give anyone else.
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
posed variance.    .We have heard no testimony that it
would.

St. Edwards Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road –
Parking spaces
    Mr. Mitchell said the requested variance is to
reduce the parking space dimensions and change the layout.
    The project manager introduced others with him
tonight and said they want to address BZBA’s concerns.  
There really are two points they are trying to
communicate:  (1) We have a unique situation with the
church and it’s different from other commercial
establishments and institutional users.   The lot will
usually only be utilized about 5 hours per week, compared
to other commercial lots.  There are few times when the
lot is completely full.  Our parishioners are familiar
with the lot; it’s not for visitors.  The code requires 1
space for 5 seats, and the only way to accommodate that
would be a variance to decrease the size of each space.
Aisles are to be 22’ but we are requesting 24’ with single-
striping, vs. double-striping in the code. We are
requesting 60’ corridors, vs. 62’ in the code. (2) The
storm water management is the other unique situation on-
site. The site has some dynamic natural aspects, such as
trees and the golf course, which were a challenge when
looking at the storm water management.  The situation is
dynamic because on the north there is a hill with about
50’ of grade and the water ends up in a “bathtub.”  
Desiring to be a good neighbor, we have started replacing
the pump.  We feel it’s important to maintain permeability
and to keep as much green space as possible.  These are
the two important keys for your consideration.  
    Ms. Knox asked what variances are being requested
that have to do with water run-off.  The manager said the
size of the parking spaces.  If they are held to a larger
parking space size, it reduces the permeability and
aggravates storm water management.
    Mr. Heim asked whether they have thought about how
much green space would be taken with smaller spaces
compared to larger spaces, and the answer was No, but they
have a plan, and he explained for the members how it would
work.  The code requires 10’x20’ spaces with an aisle of
22’, and we are increasing this to 24’.
    Ms. Knox was concerned about car doors bumping the
next cars.  Village Council and GPC set standards, and
that is what we go by.  Other people have excellent
reasons why it should be what they want it to be, but it’s
irrelevant what other people do.  Here she sees a large
mass of pavement for the few occasions when it will be
needed.
    Mr. Heim asked how many spaces are there now
compared to the number requested and was told there are
172 now and would be 195 after rebuilding.  Mr. Heim
thought it would appear they are requesting 23 more
spaces, but the Manger said no, they are requesting a
variance based on the two items he mentioned above.
    Atty. David Graham said the reason the applicant
is here is that the GPC made a determination that we would
need a certain number of spaces, and according to your
code, we could use the existing pavement to get to that
number.  In addition, we tried to reduce the storm water
problem.
    Ms. Knox asked whether they discussed with GPC the
number of spaces they would need and was told they said it
was depending upon the variance.  The requirements are
based on the Ohio Building Code with fixed seating
requirement of 1 space for 5 seats.
    Ms. Knox asked how much more asphalt they would
need and was told it has not been calculated but the
members can see it on the map. It’s about 5 sq.yards.  She
asked when will all the spaces be filled because she would
hate to see all that asphalt, but was told that’s an
imponderable point.

MR TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-075 AS
SUBMITTED.  MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY
MAJORITY (MS. KNOX ABSTAINED).

Mr. Tyler applied the application to 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 special circumstances in
this case are to comply with the amount of spaces they
need.  They are limited by property boundaries.
    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 is the only church in the area.  To add parking space
would deprive the property of desired green space.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant
did not create the circumstances.
D. That the 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 would not confer undue privilege.  Many
parking lots have 9’x18’ spaces.
     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 have heard no
testimony by neighbors to this effect. Less paved area is
beneficial to drainage.

New Business:

Janna and A.L. Bessin, 111 Chapin Place - side and rear
setbacks

Mr. Mitchell explained that the applicants have received
GPC approval for erection of a 10’x12’ gable shed with 18”
overhang, with materials to match the house.   They want a
variance to put it a little closer to the lot line to fill
a gap in the view and back it up to the Stukus shed.   
Ms Bessin said they have talked to the neighbors, and Ms.
Fletcher would prefer it to be in the proposed new
location as opposed to going by the book.  The Stukuses
wrote a letter saying they have no objection.  She added
that they will replace the old fence.  
Mr. Heim asked where it would show, looking from the
street, and Ms. Bessin said it would be partially hidden,
and she intends to plant gardening around the shed to
enhance it.
The property next door belongs to Denison, and Ms. Knox
asked what happened if they wished to utilize their ROW.  
Would your shed be moveable?  Ms. Bessin said Yes. Bit
there is a 60’ Reserve and she hopes a street would never
go in there. Mr. Mitchell noted that Denison was notified
of this hearing and we received no objections from them.

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE  03-096    MR HEIM SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Tyler applied the application to 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 applicants want to locate
the shed farther back and closer to the neighbor’s shed,
and we agreed it’s a better solution.  Also they need to
work around large trees.  The house is on an angle, making
it difficult to place the shed in an approved location. An
approved location would place it in the middle of the
yard.      
    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.  
It would deprive them of rights since we have approved a
lot of sheds in the setback.  
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  .They did not
create the circumstances.
D. That the 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 true since we would not deprive anyone
else.  We have granted a lot of this type of approval.
     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 have received
no testimony to the effect that it would.  It would be
more aesthetically pleasing in the proposed location.

Minutes of May 8, 2003:  Postponed until the next meeting.

Finding of Fact:  CONSENSUS APPROVED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS
FOR THE BUTT, CHURCH, BESSIN APPLICATIONS AS THE OFFICIAL
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH
THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED
ORDINANCES .   THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
 
Next Meeting:  September 11, 2003
Adjournment:   8:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 7/10/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 10, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean, Bill Heim, Trudy Knox,  Lon
Herman (Chair)
Members Absent::   Tym Tyler (Vice Chair)
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner, Mike Crites,
Law Director
Visitors Present:  Mark Clapsaddle, Jerry Martin, Tom
Linzell, Jon Stanley, Scott Wagner, John Compton, David
Bussan, Scott Gillie, Rod Butt, Leta and Greg Ross
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.
New Business:

Scott & Anne Gillie, 1075 Newark-Granville Road– Side  
Setbacks

Mr. Dorman said the application is for variances for a
first floor 608 sq.ft. addition.,  This replaces an
earlier approved application.  The west setback would be
25’ and the east, 45.5’, vs. the standard of 50’.    Mark
Clapsaddle, architect, said 62 per cent of the home
already is in the setback, and 57 per cent of the new part
will be inside the setback. The addition will increase the
size by about a fourth. The existing porch will be
demolished.  The home sits about 230’ from the right of
way.    

MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE APPLICATION #03-071 FOR
SIDE  SETBACKS.  MR. DEAN. SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean applied the application to 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 peculiar size of the narrow
lot  and the.topography create special circumstances.
    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.
Most of the houses and/or lots in this open space district
encroach into side setbacks.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  .Space is
limited in this district, and this is no different from
other lots in the area.
D. That the 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. Again, it is the area, they cannot do anything
else with the proposed building.
 Other lots have more space to work with.
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
posed variance.    .We have heard no testimony that it
would.

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway  – Modification of Side
Setback

As a modification to an earlier approval, the applicant
now wishes to have a  bigger deck, 12’X19’,  which will be
wrapped and have clapboard siding painted to match the
house.  Since the deck is 5’ larger, a variance is
required for additional square footage.  The 5’ west
setback was approved earlier.  
Mr. Bussan said the house is 3’ from the property line.
The addition goes deeper into the property but no closer
to the property line.  It will increase the size by about
59 square feet. The lot adjoins the school property.
    No testimony has been heard against the proposal.
    Mr. Herman determined that this 4 per cent
addition is a minor modification.

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-072M AS
SUBMITTED.  MS KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the application to 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. This is an irregularly shaped
lot, and there is no other way to plan the addition.
    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 are other properties in the area that do not meet
setback requirements
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is
not going to be expanding the variance currently in place
because the building already encroaches significantly on
that side.
D. That the 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 property is like other properties well
within the setbacks and this does not do what others do
not do.
     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 have heard no
testimony by neighbors to this effect.

Rodney Butt, 40 Pinehurst Drive – Modification of side and
rear setbacks

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant requests a
modification to the earlier approved variance for an
8’x22’deck.  The deck would have been 15’ from the rear
property line, vs. the required 50’.   The applicant
compromised by building the new house 10’ closer to the
front   Now they request a 16’x20’ deck, which would be
17’ from rear lot line, vs. minimum of 50’ in the code.  
The neighbors who originally opposed the plan have moved
away.  
Mr. Herman asked for clarification of the area, and Mr.
Dorman explained the measuring process.  
Mr. Butt said the request is to gain more space for deck
furniture,  By moving the house closer to the street, the
additional 8’ will be closer to the rear setback line.
Ms. Knox felt there was a reasonable amount of space,
according to the drawings, but she had concern about
having once approved a negotiated amount and on the second
round coming back and asking for more. She asked if he had
thought about expanding the deck at that time and Mr. Butt
said No, but that he might change the plan at some future
date.
Mr. Heim said we have not had time to inspect the property
yet, and he (and others) would like the opportunity to do
so.  The applicant agreed to table.

MR. DEAN MOVED TO TABLE  03-073 UNTIL MEMBERS CAN LOOK AT
THE PROPERTY.   MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

St. Edwards Catholic Church, 7895 Newark-Granville Road –
Parking lot

In connection with their ongoing church expansion, Tom
Linzell, archutect, said the variances they are seeking
have to do with the parking lot striping, shortening the
width from 10’ to 9’, single striping rather than double,
and decreasing the length of the spaces from 20’ to 19’.  
They are requesting an aisle width of 24’ rather than the
minimum 22’.
They wish to add spaces instead of adding more parking lot
area.  They are proposing 196 but Mr. Linzell does not
know how many spaces are there now.    There will be six
handicapped spaces.
Mr. Dorman said the parking lot will have a pair of
curbcuts with a loop connecting them. No traffic study has
been made because this is not required   He thinks the
proposed plan is better than the current situation.  
Mr. Herman asked whether just the new part will be
restriped and was told the whole lot will be restriped.  
The proposed variances would include the entire lot.  They
would get about 13 more spaces by not double-striping.
Mr. Heim noted that half the cars sold in Licking County
are SUVs and trucks, but the current plan is to decrease
size of spaces.  Mr. Dorman noted that big lots in town
are not consistent in size. Discussion ensued on area of
lots and spaces. Mr. Dean wondered how many spaces would
be lost by adhering to the code.
Mr. Herman asked specifically what variances are requested
and was told by Mr. Linzell that they are trying to
minimize pavement space.  They cannot expand outwards, so
they are making adjustments to interior space.  Adhering
to the code would not provide the required spaces. Mr.
Herman felt that all was balanced against the amount of
expansion.  There is a difference between special
circumstances that are not created by the user.  The
church is creating a need.  He recommends the applicants
take a look at the criteria for granting variances and how
the application meets those criteria.
Ms. Knox would like to consider some of the underlying
problems  and table this application.  
Mr. Heim asked about drainage and whether there is a
working pump to the run-off sewer and was told they will
remake the old sewer.   
    Mr. Herman stated that what we are looking for is
a comparison of what adhering with the code within the
boundary would offer versus what a variance would offer.  
Is there an adverse impact?

MS. KNOX MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION.  MR. DEAN SECONCDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville IGA, 454 South Main Street – parking lot
    
Leda Ross said they are redoing the parking lot and need
variances for (1) parking spaces, (2) double striping, and
(3) screening.  There will be 6 handicapped spots, two on
the side and 4 in front..
Mr. Dorman said the space will be repaved and
restriped,and drainage issues will be addressed by the
engineer.  They will add planting islands and landscape to
dress up the lot. There will also be a sidewalk from Main
Street to the store
Most spaces will be 90º  and they want to do 9’x18’ single
striping.  In the back there is a gravel parking lot for
employees but since they are unpaved, they are not
technically included in the total.  
Variances are for (1) parking lot screening  The applicant
would not screen the parking lot with hedgerows across
entrance. (2) They are asking for 11 deciduous trees.
Strict adherence to the code would require 37 large trees.
(3) Parking space dimensions.  There would be a few 45º
spaces and 6 handicapped spaces.  They are requesting
9’x18’ parking spaces, whereas the code requires 10’x20’.
(4) Although the code requires double striping, the
applicant would lose 20 spaces and is requesting single
striping. . The maximum number of spaces for this lot is
146, and 43 are being applied for
Ms. Ross said generally the number of parking spaces is
adequate, but sometimes the lot has been filled.  In the
future if the store expands, the volume will increase and
they may  use some area around the ATM.  She is reluctant
to put the hedge all around the lot because if they do
expand, they would have to remove the hedge.  
Jim Siegel’s letter from Tree and Landscape Commission was
discussed and was agreed upon with the substitution of
deciduous trees for evergreens specified in the code.
Evergreens do not do well with salt spray. Small trees are
to be planted, rather than large ones. There will be 2
trees near the ATM rather than 3.  
Mr. Heim noted the code specifies actual retail space, not
storage space, be considered in the requirement for
parking. The Rosses did not know this percentage..Mr.
Dorman said the SBD standard would apply
Mr. Herman thought this was different from the Catholic
Church because the IGA is shifting spaces around in an
existing boundary
Ms. Knox would like more handicapped spaces.  Coming in
straight from Main Street is safer than winding around the
parking lot.  Drivers should park in the center of the
lanes so everyone has sufficient room.  

MS. KNOX MOVED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.  
MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the application to 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 applicant is coming in with
a reorganization of existing parking spaces that currently
do not meet code requirements,  They are looking to
provide several additional spaces consistent with existing
space size.   
    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 is not applicable because they are the only building
and the only lot.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  .In terms of
the configuration, it has existed for a long time and the
applicant only wishes to expand the lot.
D. That the 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. They are the only building, so this is not
applicable.
     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 have received
no testimony to the effect that it would do so. It might
make opening car doors safer.

First Federal Savings & Loan,126 North Prospect Street -
Conditional Use

(Mr. Heim recused himself from this application.).
    The bank wishes to move from its present location
to Prospect in order to purchase the building and to
reduce the amount of space they have.  Scott Walker said
this move requires approval of a conditional use.  He sees
no conflicts with the new location.  There will be no
drive-through.  They will not increase the building’s
footprint, although they will be coming farther toward the
street.  The footprint includes the front porch.
    John Compton added that the office is very small,
more of a satellite office for Granville residents. And
transaction volumes are low.  The new space would reduce
their area by about half. They have 3 off-site parking
spaces.  He described the parking situation.  For their 3
employees they have 3 spaces.  The code requires 4 spaces,
which they have secured.  Occasionally they use a part-
time worker, so there would be sufficient space.  With the
construction and expansion of the church on the alley,
they were unable to use the drive-through for the past 6
months.
    Mr. Herman asked what impact the move would have
on street uses and was told by Scott Walker that being
smaller, the number of parking spaces would be reduced.  
John Compton  said there would be no impact because
customers would be walking on Prospect Street.  
    Mr. Dorman asked whether there would be any
problems with the conditional use, and none were noted.

MS KNOX MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AS
OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION...  MR DEAN SECONDED, AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean applied the application to the criteria for
conditional use:
A.The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning
district and the applicable development standards of the
Zoning Ordinances are met.  The bank is in the Village
already so it meets this criterion.
B. The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate
plans for the area and is compatible with the existing
land use.  There are three existing banks within one block
of this location, so this would have to conform.
C.  The proposed use will not create an undue burden on
public facilities and services such as streets, utilities,
schools and refuse disposal.  The proposed use will not
create an undue burden.  They have found several off-site
parking spaces for their employees.
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 is consistent with the uses already in the
neighborhood.
     
First Federal Savings & Loan,126 North Prospect Street –
Parking Variance

    Mr. Dorman explained that the bank wants to
renovate, and the code calls for 4 on=-site parking
spaces.  Given the existing size and lot coverage, there’s
no room for on-site parking.  The applicant has entered
into a lease agreement for parking behind East Broadway to
satisfy some spaces.  The variance is for off-site rather
than on-site parking.  (Taylor’s may go to cameras to
protect their space for customers.)
    John Compton said they have secured a long-term
lease with extensions, so this would not be an issue for
two years.  The applicants felt it would have no adverse
impact on the street.  People park wherever they can They
would try to get into a lease arrangement with Unizan to
reserve some spots.  They want to retain amiable relations
with their neighbor.  Mr. Herman thought a condition could
be added to the approval to seek, rather than to require,
such a lease for 2 spaces within 30 days..  Mr. Compton
said they have agreed to pave the off-street spaces.
    Members thought a general discussion regarding the
letter Greg Ream wrote about protecting his parking lot
would be in order.  It was noted that the coffeeshop had
no problem with customers finding parking spaces.

MR. DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE PROVISO
TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIZAN TO SECURE 2 PARKING
SPACES FOR 1ST FEDERAL’S USE WITHIN 30 DAYS.  MS. KNOX
SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Mr Herman applied the application to 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. There is no provision for
sufficient parking on-site due to the nature of the
parcel... There are 3 other existing banks within one
block of that location, so this would have to be accepted
also
 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.  A
literal interpretation would deprive applicant of rights
enjoyed by others contiguous to the property
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  The size of the
lot and building on it have been in existence well before
this use was requested.
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. Other adjoining properties also have difficulty
meeting requirements in terms on on=-site parking.
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 have received no
testimony that granting of this variance would affect
health, safety or welfare in an adverse way.

Minutes of May 8, 2003:  Postponed until the next meeting.
Finding of Fact:  MS. KNOX MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF
FACTS FOR THE IGA, GILLIES, BUSSAN, AND FIRST FEDERAL BE
APPROVED AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE
FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMIO OF JULY 7.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

Comments for the Good of the Order:  Mr. Dorman said this
is his last meeting as he is resigning as of July 25 to
accept a position as Planner in Grove City.  “This Board
has been good to work with, and I wish you good luck.  We
will get you a planner who will carry on what I have
started.”
    Mr. Herman responded that “It’s important to
acknowledge your significant contributions and
expectations which have elevated the work of this Board
since you have been here and the manner in which you have
been able to help, since that often could be tense.  It
has been a pleasure to work with you, and I wish you the
best in your new job. I hope Grove City understands what a
gem they are getting.”
:  
Next Meeting:  August 14, 2003
Adjournment:   9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 5/8/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
May 8, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean, Bill Heim, Trudy Knox, Lon
Herman (Chair), Tym Tyler (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:   None
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Fred Porcheddu, Vince Engel, John
Noblick, Kristi Pfau, Alan Miller, John Minsker, Miles
Waggoner
Election of Officers:  MR. HEIM NOMINATED LON HERMAN TO BE
CHAIR; MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MS. KNOX NOMINATED TYM TYLER AS VICE CHAIR; MR. DEAN
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Swearing In: The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.
Citizens’ Comments: None

New Business:

Alan Miller, 334 Summit Street – Side and Rear Yard
Setback Variances

Mr. Miller said he wants to build a garden shed, with a 4’
wide portico, in the back yard 5’ from both the side and
rear lot lines.  He added that it will look like a 19th
century smokehouse with barn siding in connection with the
time the home was built.  There are other sheds in the
neighborhood.  The reason for the variance request is that
the back yard is extremely small and 10’ from the lot line
would put it right in the middle of the yard.  The shed
will enhance the property.
Ms. Knox asked whether there are lots of trees, and Mr.
Miller said there are a few.  He said he has consulted
with the neighbors and they have no objections.
Mr. Heim wondered about lot coverage since this will be
8’x10’ with a porch.  Mr. Miller said it will be placed on
gravel.  Mr. Dorman said this does not exceed the maximum
lot coverage.
Mr. Herman asked about similar structures in the
neighborhood and Mr. Miller said there are others closer
than 10’; there is a garage two lots down with the same
type of material.  It will be about 13’ tall.

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-032.  MR. DEAN.
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION 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.  Yes.
    
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
are other properties in the area that have similarly
situated structures and to deny this application would be
to deny the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
property owners.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  They do not,
the lot sizes have been established and were so prior to
the current zoning code.

D. That the 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.  See response to (b).
 
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 have received no
testimony to suggest that could be the case, and do not
see that as a possibility either.

Brad & Kristi Pfau, 1125 Newark-Granville Road – Side Yard
Setback Variances

    Ms. Pfau said they wanted a sunroom and kitchen
addition to the back of the house.  The yard is very
irregular as it was formed as a result of a family plot
that was parceled off.  The existing structure is closer
to the property line than the new structure proposed.  The
neighbors with whom they share a driveway are in favor of
the plan.  The Planning Commission has approved the plan.
The architect explained that the windows will match the
existing ones, and they will get rid of the second window
and try to move it to the Newark-Granville Road façade.  
The upper level has board and batten.

MR HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-034.  MR. TYLER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Tyler 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.  Yes, we have a very irregularly
shaped lot, and the size of the lot is peculiar and
existed before the current zoning ordinance.  Relocating
the kitchen to an area that does not require a variance,
given the existing location of the house, is not practical.
    
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
are other structures, typically older buildings, on other
properties in the same zoning district that do not comply
with the standards of the current zoning ordinance.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No, the
building was there and the lot size had already been
established.

D. That the 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.  After review it would not, there are other
structures on other properties that are similarly situated.
 
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 based on
having no issues raised from any of the neighbors.

Fred Porcheddu, 136 Shepardson Court – Rear Yard Setback
Variance

The applicant explained that he wishes to have a storage
shed in a corner of the yard which has not been touched
for forty years.  The structure would be located 12’ from
the rear property line.  It’s a very small house with a
smaller basement/garage, and he needs a place for yard
implements.  This would be behind the trees and painted to
match the house.  It would be a barn shape, and there is a
similar one in a neighboring yard.    
Mr. Tyler asked whether it is permanent, and Mr. Porcheddu
said it’s not attached to the ground, and in a few years
they may replace it with a garage.  It will probably have
electricity but no plumbing and will be 9’5” tall.  It
will be completely above ground with pea gravel beneath.  
The reason to offset it from the neighbor’s shed is a tree
in the way.
Mr. Herman stated that one of his concerns is height, and
Mr. Porcheddu said it will be a little smaller than the
neighbor’s shed, and oriented toward the house.  The shed
will be roofed with shingles to match the house.  

MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-036.  MR. TYLER
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean 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.  From the pictures submitted it
shows that there is a shed that is very similar to the one
the applicant is building to the house right next door to
him.  The natural terraces on the lot make it impractical
to get it closer to the house.  He has a good size lot,
but it is about the only level spot on the lot because of
the terraces.
    
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
are already several other garages and sheds in the area.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No, he has a
pretty good size lot and his is keeping plenty of space
around the shed so he can maintain the building and lawn
around it; and the applicant is trying to preserve the
trees left on the lot.

D. That the 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 several other garages and sheds in
the area.  I don’t think this is really any different than
the others.
 
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.  Nobody came to testify
that had any concerns, so the proposed location should not
have any adverse effects.

Centenary United Methodist Church, 102 East Broadway -
Variance from Landscape Requirements

    Miles Waggoner said that following their
appearance a year ago, the chairman of the Tree and
Landscape Commission called to his attention that they did
not have the proper variances for landscaping in the
parking lot island.  They want to request that the BZBA
reconsider the landscaping requirements.  He understands
that the requirement is for four large trees.  Instead,
they would like to plant six smaller trees as recommended
by Mr. Siegel of the Tree and Landscape Commission.  This
would allow for more parking spaces as well as sufficient
room for tree roots.  Other parking lots in the area do
not have large trees.  It will enhance the appearance by
helping to screen the dumpster and define the parking lot
entrance better.  The Tree and Landscape Commission
recommended three Aristocrat Pears and three Ivory Silk
Lilac trees be used.    
    Mr. Heim thought pear trees would be slow to
provide screening, but Ms. Knox, in considering
Granville’s new street trees, said that they would grow
fairly fast.
    Mr. Dorman said the trees would be supplemental to
what the church is planning for the dumpster enclosure.  
These trees would be less than 30’ tall.  One large tree
for every 3,000 square feet is required; they have 12,000
square feet for the lot, so they would need four large
trees.  In lieu of the four large trees they are
requesting six smaller trees.  The variance then is to
waive requirements for large trees.  Mr. Siegel feels the
area is too small to allow 4 large trees to have
sufficient room to grow properly.  They would choke each
other off.  Mr. Siegel said pears will reach 15-18’’ and
lilacs, 20-25’.  These would be fairly mature trees. To
provide enough space for four would mean sacrificing
several parking spaces.
    Mr. Herman does not want tiny trees.  
    Mr. Minsker said they will go with whatever size
trees Mr. Siegel recommends.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-038 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION:  (1) THAT THE CHAIR OF THE TREE &
LANDSCAPE COMMISSION WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THE
LARGEST DIAMETER TREES, AS IS PRACITCAL, BE PLANTED IN
BOTH AREAS.

    Mr. Waggoner noted that they are delaying
completion of the parking lot paving until the village
installs fire hydrants in the loop around Linden Place.

Mr. Tyler 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.  Yes, we are granting this
variance based on recommendations of the Tree & Landscape
Commission Chair that 4 large trees would not work in the
planting areas and in their place 6 small trees will be
planted.

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.  Not
applicable.

C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.  No.

D. That the 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’s a unique circumstance; there really is no
other comparable situation where privilege could or could
not be conferred.

     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.  No, we have
received no testimony to that effect.

Finding of Facts:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING
OF FACTS FOR THE MILLER, PFAU, PORCHEDDU, AND CENTENARY
UMC APPLICATIONS AS THE OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD,
AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF
THE GRANVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE
VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 2, 2003.  MR. DEAN SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

Minutes of February 13:  MS. KNOX MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. HEIM SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS APPROVED WITH 4 AYE VOTES AND 1 ABSTENTION (MR.
TYLER).  {Ms. Knox recommended that minutes be studied at
home rather than at the meeting.}

Minutes of April 10:  MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS APPROVED WITH 3 AYE VOTES AND 2 ABSTENTIONS (MS. KNOX
AND MR. HEIM)  

Closing comments:  Ms. Knox noted that at one time we
talked about requiring boundary surveys, and Mr. Dorman
said he and the Law Director discussed adding survey
requirements to the code.  Mortgage surveys are not
acceptable for us.  People must use boundary surveys.  
Scott Harmon, Surveyor, has made his case, and a number of
structures are on the line or over it.  Village Council
would have to approve this.  Some areas of the town should
be re-platted, but we have started to lay the groundwork
by installing monuments at several intersections.  Ms.
Knox asked whether there might be a grant to pay Scott
Harmon to do the re-platting.

    Mr. Heim thanked Mr. Dorman for the thorough job
he does in property descriptions and preparing for these
meetings.  

    Ms. Knox recommended that Joe Hickman write in his
column about the necessity of getting approval for sheds
and also of looking at other outstanding examples of
stylish sheds, i.e., one in Alexandria.

Next Meeting:  June 12, possible work session with the Law
Director
Adjournment:   8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 4/10/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 10, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:   Don Dean, Lon Herman (Vice Chair), Tym
Tyler
Members Absent:   Bill Heim, Trudy Knox
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Barbara Hammond, Mary and Mark
Milligan, Tim Riffle, Jon and Dagmar Farris
Citizens’ Comments: None
Swearing In:  The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening
Election of Officers:  Postponed until the full membership
is present.

New Business:

B. Hammond Interiors, 123 East Broadway – Side Yard Setback

Ms. Hammond said their storage is currently in a truck and
they wish to replace the truck with a 10’x20’ salt box
type pre-fabbed wooden storage building, painted to match
the building.  It would have two windows and a double
entry door on the east and will take up the exact space
that the truck now occupies. It will sit on pre-treated
lumber. They will give up one parking space. The shed is
manufactured in Mt. Vernon and Comfrey Corner (in Newark)
has one just like it.  
Mr. Herman asked about parking spaces, and Ms. Hammond
said they have nine spaces available and are only using
five.  She has heard no negative comments from her
neighbors, and PNB, according to Mr. Dorman, said it’s ok
as long as it isn’t right up against the building.
Mr. Herman asked whether the shed is permanent, and Mr.
Dorman said it’s temporary.  The Law Director felt we
should consider the side yard setback, although it’s would
be hard for any business in this vicinity to meet the 10’
side yard setback requirement.
Mr. Herman also asked whether there is any way the shed
could be sited so that it falls within code, and Ms.
Hammond said she wished there were somewhere in the
Village where she could rent space, but could find none.  
For ease of accessibility and safety, there is no other
location in close proximity to the store.  It will look
better than the truck.

MR.  DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-019 FOR A SIDE
YARD SETBACK.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean applied the criteria in Section 1147.03 to the
application:

a)  Do 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 discussed the downtown
properties all go side to side anyway, there isn’t any
division between the buildings, and this structure will be
similarly located about 1’ from the Park National Bank
building.

b)  Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicants of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the provisions of this Ordinance?  A
literal interpretation would not allow them to have
storage which is already in fact in place at this site.  
If the statute is followed exactly they would be deprived
of a right that they currently enjoy.

c)  Do the special conditions and circumstances result
from the actions of the applicant?  They are not
requesting anything out of the ordinary; given the truck
that is there now the building will look better.

d)  Would the grant of the variance confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands and structures in the same zoning
district?  All buildings downtown are on the line as far
as setbacks go.

e)  Would the granting of the variance in any other manner
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance?  The applicant is locating the building
on a spot in the back near the Park National Bank building
where it is completely out of the way of the general
public; the only people that could possibly get into it is
the applicants’ employees and it will much safer for them
than the truck that currently serves as storage for them.

Old Business:

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Rear Yard Setback

    MR. DEAN MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION #03-005 OFF THE
TABLE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.

    Mr. Herman stated that this is our second hearing,
and there had been some concern about the massing and size
and how it will relate to the other structures in the
area.  We need to make sure there is no undue privilege.
    Mr. Riffle, Architect, produced revised drawings
and explained his changes to reduce the massing.  He said
there are some comparable garages in size.  One on College
and Pearl is almost the exact replica of this.  
    Mr. Milligan added that the garage has gone from
28’ to 26’, and the building has been moved to 3’ from
property line rather than 2’.  
    Mr. Tyler asked how close it would be to the next
house, and Mr. Milligan said they wanted a variance to
move it further to the north, toward the Library, to give
more room for the neighbor.  
    Neighbor Jon Farris thinks the garage is a great
idea.
    Mr. Herman wanted to save the tree, but Mr.
Milligan had been told by the landscaper that the tree “is
not long for this world.”

MR. DEAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-005, INCLUDING
THE REVISION AS SUBMITTED FOR THE APRIL 10TH MEETING.  MR.
TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Herman applied the criteria in Section 1147.03 to the
application:

a)  Do 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 size of the lots in that area
are peculiar to the existing ordinance, in that other
properties do enjoy setbacks that are at odds with the
current code and this one has the same peculiarity.

b)  Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicants of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the provisions of this Ordinance?  There
are many other garages in that area, of the 2-car variety,
and the applicants are requesting something that is
similar to other garages in the area.

c)  Do the special conditions and circumstances result
from the actions of the applicant?  The lot size as well
as the ordinance governing the area was neither set by the
applicant; again the applicant is attempting to build a
garage.

d)  Would the grant of the variance confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands and structures in the same zoning
district?  Upon review and receiving testimony there are
other garages in the area that are similar in size and in
fact a few that are somewhat larger.  With the revisions
in the application that has been brought before us on
April 10th, with reductions in the size and length,
massing has been addressed which is a key concern of this
Board.

e)  Would the granting of the variance in any other manner
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance?  We’ve received no testimony that would
suggest that building the garage would in anyway affect
the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing
or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance.

Minutes of February 13 are deferred until a quorum of
members that attended that meeting can vote on them.

Finding of Fact:  MR. DEAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF
FACTS FOR THE HAMMOND AND MILLIGAN APPLICATIONS AS THE
OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE BOARD, AND WE FIND THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GRANVILLE
CODIFIED ORDINANCES AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S
MEMO OF APRIL 4, 2003.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.


Next Meeting:  May 8, 2003
Adjournment:   7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

BZBA 2/13/03

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
February 13, 2003
Minutes

Members Present:  Bill Heim, Lon Herman (Vice Chair),
Trudy Knox.  Don Dean was welcomed as a new member.
Members Absent:  None.
Also Present:  Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present:  Tim Riffle, Steve Mershon, Mike Frazier
Citizens’ Comments: None
Election of Officers was deferred until the next meeting
Swearing In:  The Chair swore in all those who wished to
speak during the evening.

New Business:

Mark Milligan, 212 East Elm Street – Rear Yard Setback

    Mr. Dorman said in his memo that the applicants
want a 1 ½ story two-car garage with storage, including a
trellis installed on the south side of the garage to tie
into the existing landscaping and lawn structures.  It
would be 2’ from the rear property line as compared to the
10’ minimum specified in the code.
    Tim Riffle, representing the Milligans, said they
want to build a new 24’.x 28’ detached garage at the rear
with a second floor for storage.  They are pushing it back
as far as possible because it has been intensely
landscaped by a previous owner and they want to keep as
much green space as possible.  A lot of houses have
garages pushed back on the lot.
    Steve Mershon added that it was pushed to the west
because there is a fence along the property line and in
order to get a turning radius, they had to site it there.  
It would give Connie Westbrook more visual areas and make
it less cluttered for her.
    Ms. Knox thought a lot of landscaping would be
covered and it would take up a lot of green space and
there is also a large tree there.  Tim Riffle said the
tree would have to go.  They would like space to park two
cars in front of the garage.  He does not know how much
green space it would consume.
    Mr. Heim asked what is happening with the space
where the library wishes to expand, and Mike Frazier,
President of the Library Board, said they have had
discussions with the Milligans, and at the present stage
for the library, it would be 20-22’ from the south
property line.  The Board of Trustees voted to not object
to the Milligan’s plans.  Steve Mershon said part of the
beauty of moving the garage back is that the library
wanted to keep the trees as barrier; and there would be a
courtyard in the library’s new plan.
    Mr. Riffle noted that the stairs go up in the
middle of the garage, and there is not much headroom.  At
the peak dormers are 11’
    Mr. Herman asked whether they have consulted with
the Fire Department and was told the Fire Department will
look at the building and the code. He also noted that we
always wonder whether this space would be turned into an
apartment, since we discourage this, and Mr. Riffle said
there will be no plumbing but there is water, heat, and
electricity.  The house is higher than the garage.
    Mr. Heim noted that this is a pretty good-sized
structure, and Mr. Riffle said it is not very visible from
Elm Street; you won’t see much through the landscaping. He
added that the average car is 20’, and the Milligans need
space for lawn equipment.  .  Mr. Mershon said it would be
more visible closer to the alley.
    Mr. Heim asked whether the applicant is owner of
the house, since on the deed Mary Milligan is owner.  Mr.
Dorman said it’s a joint ownership.  Mary’s name will be
added to Mark’s on the application.  
    BZBA members discussed with Mr. Riffle ways in
which the garage could be made smaller, and Ms. Knox noted
that the owners knew about the storage space when they
bought the property. One problem is setting a precedent
with such a big garage. Mr. Riffle cited other nearby
garages as big as this one.  Mr. Dean thought it would be
tough to get anything in there.  Mr. Heim wants to see
evidence of other 28’ garages in the area.  The one across
the alley is only one story high.
    Mr. Heim wanted to save the tree, but Mr. Riffle
said in the construction process they would have to go
into the root system.  
    Mr. Herman said following our criteria, special
circumstances and undue privilege in this case do not
suggest a condition for a variance.   He would like to
talk to the owners about the project.
    The applicant has checked with neighbors and given
them site plans, and they have no objection to the
project.  
    In summary, Mr. Herman said the major concerns are
(1) massing and (1) try to create more space by changing
proportions and cutting off at least 2’ and come back and
see us.  Try to make it more like others on the street.  
Mr. Mershon suggested tabling the application.  

MS. KNOX MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #03-005.  MR. HEIM
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

    Mr. Herman suggested that Mr. Riffle walk around
and get a sense of how big these other buildings are.  
Avoid undue privilege issues.  Ms. Knox suggested a pull-
down staircase.    

Minutes of November 14, 2002:  MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MS. KNOX SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of December 11, 2002:  MR. HEIM MOVED TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Comments:  
Ms. Knox asked whether the tree at the Pyle lot will have
to be cut down, and Mr. Dorman said it’s a street tree and
too valuable to cut down.
    Mr. Heim was concerned that sometimes people get
approvals from GPC, have their hopes set on the project
and then get denied by this Board.  Mr. Dorman said the
Planning Commission really focuses on architectural design
issues.
    

Finding of Fact:  None

Next Meeting: Thursday, March 13th  and April 10th
Adjournment:  7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

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.