Granville Community Calendar

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

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.