Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 11/8/07

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals


November 8, 2007 7:00 p.m.


Members Present:  Amber Mitchell, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Also Present: Don Holycross, Village Manager, D. Michael Crites, Law Director, Allison Crites, Assistant Law Director.  Laura Andujar, Jean Crumrine, Jack Thornborough, and John Noblick. 

Mr. Heim explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding. 

Mr. Heim swore in Manager Holycross.  Law Director Crites asked for the record to reflect that the oath taken by Manager Holycross pertains to all statements made regarding any application this evening, November 8, 2007.  

The BZBA Board agreed to hear items under ‘New Business’ before hearing items under ‘Old Business’ to allow the Law Director to further review changes made to Application #07-073. 

New Business: 

Barbara Visintine, 418 West Broadway,  #07-084

Suburban Residential District (SRD) regulations.

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

Variance request submitted by John Noblick, Jerry McClain Construction, for the property located at 418 West Broadway.  The request is for approval of a variance to increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty percent (20%) to twenty-two and a half percent (22 ½ %) for an addition.   

Discussion: Mr. Heim inquired on the wooden deck structure on the back.  Mr. Noblick stated that this would be replaced with new wood.  Manager Holycross indicated that the wooden deck structure is not considered to be impervious since water is able to move through it.  Ms. Mitchell asked if there have been any concerns raised by neighbors.  Manager Holycross stated that he has heard no comments or seen any correspondence against Application #07-084. 

Ms. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #07-084 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Gill (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #07-084 is approved as submitted. 

Old Business:

Speedway Superamerica LLC, Speedway Drive, #07-073

Planned Commercial District (PCD); also required to follow some of the Suburban Business District (SBD) regulations. 

Variance request was submitted by Laura Andujar for the property located on Speedway Drive (vacant lot) west of the Arby’s restaurant and owned by Speedway Superamerica, LLC.  The request is for approval of the following variance:

1)      To reduce the requirement that roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 8/12 to a zero pitch requirement to allow for the construction of a flat roof.  

Mr. Heim swore in those witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing.

Discussion: Mr. Heim asked if there was a motion to remove Application #07-073 from the table.  There was no motion to remove the application from the table.  Mr. Heim moved to discuss a portion of the application that was changed by the applicant after the former BZBA meeting.  Law Director Crites explained that the changes made to the application are still a part of Application #07-073 and if the board wished to discuss these matters, the application would need to be removed from the table.  He stated that the sign portion of the application has been transferred to the Planning Commission for review, but the variance part will still need to be heard by the BZBA.     

Ms. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #07-073 from the table.  Seconded by Mr. Gill. 

Roll Call Vote: Mr. Ashbaugh (yes), Mr. Gill (yes), Ms. Hoyt (yes), Ms. Mitchell (yes), Mr. Heim (yes).  Motion to remove Application #07-073 from the Table carried 5-0. 

Laura Andujar, 88 Arden Place, Hebron, stated that they are proposing a building with a flat roof, rather than a roof with an 8/12 pitch.  She stated that they have worked with the Planning Commission and they approve of the roof design that they have proposed.  She stated that the Planning Commission has suggested some roof designs that do not have an 8/12 pitch.  

Ms. Mitchell questioned if the testimony given by Mr. Thornborough at the previous BZBA meeting can be considered.  Law Director Crites stated that he ordered a transcript from the previous meeting and reviewed the statements offered by Mr. Thornborough and the applicant.  He stated that Chapter 1139.06 of the Code states that only testimony offered by the applicant, owner of the property, or owners of property adjacent or contiguous can be considered by the hearing board.  Law Director Crites stated that testimony by any other person who claims a direct interest in the matter can also be considered.  He stated that the question remains if Mr. Thornborough fits into one of the four categories listed in Chapter 1139.06.  Law Director Crites stated that he concludes that Mr. Thornborough does have general interest in the outcome of the application, but their statute states that there must be a direct interest in the matter.  Law Director Crites went on to say that the BZBA Board handled the matter correctly by accepting the statements offered by Mr. Thornborough, and a determination needed to be made if the testimony offered fit into one or more of the four categories from Chapter 1139.06.  Law Director Crites concluded that the testimony offered by Mr. Thornborough on October 11, 2007 did not fit into either of these four categories.  Mr. Gill questioned if a business interest could be considered. 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he neglected to mention at the October 11th hearing that he also owns commercial property located north of Route 16 and south of Fackler’s.  Law Director Crites asked the approximate distance from the applicants property.  Mr. Thornborough guessed approximately 500 feet away, but he said that he is a poor judge of estimating.  He added that the property is certainly within ¼ mile of the applicant’s property.  Mr. Thornborough stated that if the variance is approved it could result in decreasing the value of his property.  Law Director Crites concluded that Mr. Thornborough’s statements offered this evening could supplement the testimony offered on October 11th.  He stated that with the additional testimony offered this evening, he prefers to error on the side of citizenry, and he believes that the testimony offered by Mr. Thornborough can be considered by the BZBA board when rendering their decision.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he does not feel that a variance should be granted to the applicant because it does not follow what is in the Code.  He stated that he prefers to see buildings that look like old Granville.  Law Director Crites stated that Mr. Thornborough has indicated that his primary objection is that the proposed building does not look like other buildings in the area.  He asked Mr. Thornborough if he feels his property would diminish in value if the variance is granted.  Mr. Thornborough stated “absolutely.”  He went on to say that the applicant is requesting a strip mall and the Code does not allow strip malls to be built in Granville.  Mr. Thornborough stated that the flat roof on Arby’s did not require a variance and that was simply an overlook by the previous Village Planner.   

Laura Andujar stated that she understands the objection to shopping centers, but the matter before the board is in regards to roof pitches.  She went on to say that old Granville does not have 8/12 roof pitches.  

Jean Crumrine, no address given, stated that she is in the process of purchasing the property on Speedway Drive.  She stated that a development plan offered by NorthStar was received well by Granville.  Moreover, she stated that the Planning Commission feels that an 8/12 roof pitch would be hideous on their building.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he agrees that NorthStar’s proposal was quite nice, but it had different roof pitches.  He suggested having three units with three different pitches and he believes this is what the Code has in mind.  

Mr. Gill said that there have been many statements regarding the Planning Commission’s feelings regarding the style of the building.  He questioned if this is considered “here-say” and if it is typical for the BZBA board to receive any official statements from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Heim stated that they have at times received things from the Planning Commission and there have been representatives who attended their meeting.  Law Director Crites stated that it is important to note that the Planning Commission and BZBA are two distinct entities and he would be reluctant to have the Planning Commission reply or even come to a BZBA meeting because they could find that they need to hear and render a decision on a matter that they had already heard testimony about.    

Ms. Hoyt stated that three of the four roofs located in this area have flat roofs, but some have a pitched facade.  She stated that it is unfortunate that Arby’s slipped through.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she does not believe Arby’s has set a precedence in the area.  She stated that there is more land in this area that is bound to be developed and the BZBA has to be careful what precedence is set for the area.  

Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that he would like to review what is actually in the Code.  He stated that he has only reviewed the portions of the Code provided by the Village Planner.  

Mr. Gill stated that he feels there are no grounds for accepting the variance.  The request is simply that the applicant wishes to not follow what is in the Code.  He asked if the BZBA can suggest a different roof pitch.  

Ms. Andujar stated that they could go back to the drawing board and present a flat roof with the façade of having a pitched roof.  

Mr. Heim questioned if this is what the BZBA Board would like to see.  Law Director Crites stated that the BZBA has the ability to approve, disapprove, or approve the application with modifications.  He stated that if the application is disapproved, then the applicant will have to re-file and pay the filing fees again.  Law Director Crites stated that the application could also be tabled, but he would like a date certain to consider it again.  He stated that the applicant would need to request that the application be Tabled.  

Ms. Andujar requested that Application #07-073 be Tabled until the December 2007 BZBA meeting.  

Mr. Gill made a motion to Table Application #07-073 until the December 13, 2007 BZBA meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Mitchell.  

Roll Call Vote: Ms. Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh, (yes), Mr. Heim (yes).  Motion to Table Application #07-073 carried 5-0. 

Application #07-073 is Tabled until December 13, 2007.  

Law Director Crites reminded members of the BZBA Board that they are not a precedent setting board.  He stated that their job is to follow the Code.  He stated that they have to review each application and render a decision based on the testimony offered to them at that time and they are not to consider items that may have been approved/disapproved several years back. 

Finding of Fact  for Application #07-084, 418 West Broadway

Mr. Heim read the following Findings of Fact:

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 districts.  No.

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 the Ordinance.  Yes, others have added on to their homes in the same area.

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  Yes.

d)      That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  Yes.

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.  Yes. 

Mr. Heim stated that the BZBA Board weighed the four “Yes” answers the highest.  

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-084.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The Findings of Fact for Application #07-084 are Approved.  

Approval of the Minutes

October 11, 2007

Mr. Gill  made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt  

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes) , Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  The minutes are approved as presented.  

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ashbaugh made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Motion carried 5-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:20pm. 

Next Meeting December 12, 2007




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.