|modify remove organize post follow up|
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
Members Present: Jack Burriss,Bernie Lukco,Richard Members Salvage,William Wernet,Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:Keith Myers
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel)V,irginia King,Laura Andujar,D.W.King,Frederick Leary, Diana Parini,Waite Carlisle, Sam MackenzieC- rane,Sharon Sellitto,Stan Levin,Steve Contini,Barbara Franks, Jean and Bob Mason,Dan Rogers
Minutes of March 8: Page 1, after F: change to"Mr.Mvers agreed."
MR.LUCKO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR.BURRISS
SECONDED,AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Sharon Sellitto was sworn in and stated she had to leave before the Rogers
application was considered,and she wanted to express her concern about his structure. She had spoken to the intern in the Planning Z&oning office p(rior to Ms.Wimberger's start date)and had written a letter
of objection to the massive size of the building.
Denison University,Monomoy,204 West Broadway
The college would like to add window boxes on the front two windows similar to those on the
side,the same color and trim.
MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PROPOSED. MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Waite Carlisle,424 East College Street
The applicant would like to install two air conditioning units on the west side directly adjacent to
the driveway of the neighbor. The units would face the units of the neighbor. There are two trees but no
bushes for screening,but they will plan landscaping in the future.
MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITI'ED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Stephen and Teresa Contini,210 Sunrise Street
The applicants wish to add a front porch and a bedroom and a breakfast nook in the rear. He
stated that this is a Sears home built over fifty years ago and they want to keep the style consistent with
the architecture and use the same materials as much as possible. The three-season porch will have
windows on three sides. Asphalt roof shingles will match current materials. At the base the skirt will be a
stone facade. At the front this would be about 1foot high and tie in with chimney and it would be about
272 feet on the sides. They would move air conditioning units to the north side in a niche.
Mr. Burriss asked for details about the roof,and Mr.Contini stated that the roof is at a different
angle and will appear flatter and have no gable. A roof of minimum slope may not be able to
accommodate shingles. Mr. Burriss felt that the richness of the architecture might be lost with addition of
a wide porch. The porch will have trim between the windows and sides. and false columns will decorate the front The porch would place the dwelling in line with its neighbors.
Mr. Burriss also recommended retaining special features to preserve the richness there now and asked whether the special keystone centered over the door would be repeated over the new door,and Mr. Contini thought it would be possible to preserve it.Mr.Salvage added that the drawings do not show trim around the windows,nor sculptured trim,nor columns. He recommended duplicating detail below all new windows. He recommended consideration of a metal roof and the Village Planner can approve final material and color.
MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1)TRIM 2-3 INCH WIDTH BE INSTALLED AROUND EACH OF THE WINDOWS;2 ()
SCULPTURED TRIM SIMILAR TO WHAT IS THERE ON ALL THE CORNERS VISIBLE FROM
EITHER STREET;3 ()EXISTING SCULPTURED DETAIL BE RELOCATED OVER NEW FRONT
DOOR;4 ()RECTANGULAR TRIM DETAILS CURRENTLY BELOW THE WINDOWS BE
DUPLICATED AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE BELOW WINDOWS ON WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF
THE HOUSE;5 ()THAT THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN OPTION OF HAVING ROOFING MATERIAL
AND COLOR ABOVE THE NEW PORCH BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE PLANNER. MR.LUKCO
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James andAmanda Hudgens,124 West Maple Street
The applicants wish to extend and redo porch across the front and attach a 16 foot two-car garage
with wooden door and bedroom on west side of house,matching existing materials. Applicant will need a
variance from BZBA. The applicants are not present tonight,but there were other interested citizens on
hand and they were sworn in en masse.
Edith Schories,nextd-oor neighbor 1(28 WestMaple)h,ad written a letter and spoke tonight of
her strong opposition to the project for the following reasons: 1( )The homes are already too close
Jogether and this project with its 1 foot setback would remove morning and afternoon sunlight from her
carefully cultivated gardens and deprive her of daylight required for her eyes. 2 ()Runo- ff from the roof
would land in her driveway and freeze with no sun available to thaw the ice. The dampness would also
enter her basement;3 ()an undesirable tree close to property line,added to the runo- ff,makes for added
mustiness and gutterc-logging;4 ()fire hazard from too close a building;5 ()disputed property line;6 ()
diminished property value and quality of life.
MR.LUKCO MOVED TO ATI'ACH THIS LETTER TO THE MINUTES,MR. SALVAGE SECONDED
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Frederick Leary added that the real issue is architectural review: The garage would be too close
to the street. All neighbors are in agreement that they would not want this addition. Such a project would
diminish property values not only in the neighborhood but throughout the Village.
He thought Mr. Hudgens could plan the garage in the back yard.
Jean Mason stated that the project is too close and too crowded. The Masons built their one-car
garage to conform as close as possible to code and approving such a big project is unacceptable.
Mr. Lukco stated that (1)surveys in the Village are often in question,but the fence-line is
probably appropriate as benchmark. 2 ( )We have a responsibility that any additions or buildings will
improve and upgrade the historic district,and he can not believe this design would improve the character
of the neighborhood. 3 ()He also has a problem with the garage in front of the house. 4 ( )The massing is
not appropriate. He would be opposed to the application.
Mr. Burriss said that West Maple has a nice consistency give attention to the architectural richness among the buildings on the lots. People and try to maintain the historical character. The proposed addition and massing ignores that relationship completely.
Mr.Salvage felt that there may be a better way to accomplish what the applicant wants without impacting the neighbors. Also the property line issue should be cleared up.
Mr.Wernet thinks that whatever the true property line is,the project is too close to it. Also, the wide suburban garage door is not appropriate with the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks the best way for citizens to do these things is in concert with neighbors
before coming to GPC,which was not done in this case. He agrees with his colleagues.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED;MR. LUKCO
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.
Dan Rogers,210 East Maple Street
The applicant was asked to provide a modification of his application,since the structure was not
built according to the approved plan. There is a wide discrepancy in the total footprint,and the
architectural design is very different. Although irrelevant to this application,the two years available for
construction is pu now. Three citizens were sworn in.
Ad 6 <1 f b /
Mr. Rogers stated that what he was hearing was (1)that property values would be diminished
and ( 2)that the new construction is not authentic. But that is why he bought the house: to restore it to
the way it was or should be. He is doing all the work himself and that it why it is taking over two years.
The garage is going to match the house. He changed the roof- line to make it authentic and improve
property value. When he is done,it is going to be worth more than others on the block and look like a
true carriage house. His mistake was in not coming back to GPC with changes in plans. He will put in a
brick driveway later. Siding will be milled to match the house and he will rebuild the front porch. There
will be no rental above the garage,and the garage is for his truck.
Sharon Sellitto sympathizes with Mr. Rogers' predicament but is concerned that the garage is
bigger and closer to the properly line than intended but does not see how to correct it at this time.
Mr. Lukco felt the original design was appropriate but it would be a hardship to change back
Mr. Salvage does not think GPC would have approved this design because of the massing and
preferred the original saltbox effect.
Mrs. Rogers said it is not very pretty now but it will look really authentic when they are done.
She says it is 2 feet off properly line. The original variance was for 1 foot.
Ms. Wimberger has heard complaints from other neighbors,and Mr. Wilkenfeld has also.
Mr. Burriss added that what was approved was very appropriate. It would have been similar in
scale to other buildings in the neighborhood with story and a half in front and 1 story in back. The new
plan is a slightly smaller version of the house;other neighborhood outbuildings are quite different from
this plan. He is thinking now about compromises,and is very troubled by the fenestration patterns. Mrs.
Rogers said the neighbor wanted no windows on his side,but Mr. Burriss said they could add false
windows. He asked the applicants to look at Monomoy Annex b(ehind 204 West Broadway)T.his new building before the Commission is no longer a rustic outbuilding and needs to be less massive.
Mr.Wilkenfeld had two concerns: 1( )It does not matter whether the building was inspected;the applicant made an agreement and gave us his word and then did something different. That puts us in a difficult position to find a way to correct what has been done. 2 ( )GPC is fearful of setting a bad precedent by this application.
Mr. Salvage is also concerned about ( 1)precedent- setting and does not want people to cite
financial problems if it has to be changed. 2 ()He appreciates a lot ofwhat Mr.Burriss has stated and
hopes the applicants can come back with elevations everyone can live with. 3()He would like to see more
neighbors here,rather than remaining anonymous. 4 ()More details are needed,i.e.,chimney and heating
system. 5 ( )He does not think this is a flat roof in the middle. 6 ( )He does not think the recessed door fits
there in the corner.7 ()This project needs to fit the historic architectural district. A compromise is needed
but GPC does not have one. The responsibility is on Mr. Rogers to determine where we are going.
Mr. Lukco summarized his concerns: 1 ()Wants to see some kind of a site plan showing
neighbors' houses and the alley in detail and to scale.2 ( )We need Mr.Rogers to tell us what it willlook
like. We need to see a scale drawing showing details,windows,brackets,moldings,etc., for each side.
3)Applicant did not do what he was supposed to do,so it is up to him to come up with an acceptable
Mr. Wernet is also concerned about precedent- setting;it is not fair to others who do follow the
rules. Anyone who feels impacted by this project could force the Village to take steps.
d'MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR ITEMS A,B,C,AND D UNDER NEW
BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR.LUKCO SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
Adjournment: 10: 15 p.m.
Next Meetings: April 12 and April 26
Edith A. Schories
128 West Maple Street
Granville, Ohio 43023-1139
Planning and Zoning Department
141 East Braodway
Granville, Ohio 43023-0514
Dear Ms. Wimberger,
March 18, 1999
Exwl Bi TA 0
Thank you kindly for your letter of March 8, 1999 on Hudgens's request for a
variance to Village Ordinance section 1159.03 to permit construction of
a two-story, 20 foot wide garage and room addition with only a one foot setback
from our common property line to my east,instead of the required 10 foot
Apparently,Mr. Hudgens applied to you,notified all the neighbors and then
came to me last,Tuesday, March 9, 1999, after dark,one day before I
received your notification, to be precise.
I was the last to know.
In telling of his plans, he told me the required setback was 6 feet. The next
day I called your office and learned the required setback is 10 feet, indeed!
I told him his plan was not acceptable to me.
The Hudgens's proposed two-story,20 foot wide building, one foot from the
property line would deprive the long east side of my house and front porch of the
light and warmth of the morning sun, resulting in higher heating bills for one
thing. The sun is essential there. And just as important to me is the sunlight
inside the entire east half of my house,as I have already had 3 eye operations and
need bright light to see.
Besides,we bought this house precisely because of all the sunshine in the
eastrooms in the first place;the two-story house on my westside was already
sitting only 13' 3"away,barring 80 percent of the afternoon sun.
This matter is of the greatest importance to me,not only for my health,but
also for the preservation of the over 100 year old house and of the plantings along
the house and driveway which require full sun and good drainage. They
represent no small cost in dollars and labor.
2.)There is another concern about this project: The run-off in a downpour
from the applicant's and my roof,combined,would threaten my basement.
And in January, my driveway is sheer ice already, the shade from
his proposed building together with the increased run-off and snow from
both our roofs would let the melting snow seep more slowing into my foundation,
making the basement damp and musty.
3.)Futhermore,behind the applicant's house is a maple tree, the wrong
maple for a small yard,and way too close to their house and my house. It is
the kind of maple that will grow huge and has the nasty habit of losing it's huge
leaves after I had my gutters cleaned, already twice in the fall. Invariably,
it stops up my gutters,when it is already cold. And in a storm the water comes
down in streams onto my backsteps, rushes around the corner and into my
driveway. Combine that with the Hudgens's run- off and you get the picture. This
creates an unnecessary cost for me every year,ever since the applicants allowed
this seedling to grow into a tree. As this tree grows, it will hang over the
applicants roof,and possibly mine, fungus will thrive,moisture will linger,
carpenter ants and termites won't be far behind,all adding to the problems the
proximity of the applicants addition will create.
4.)Further on,a garage poses an added fire hazard;for it to be 1 foot from
my property line makes me uncomfortable.
5.)Besides, in their drawing the applicants state 11'7"for the width of my
side yard to "their"property line, while I measure 14'4"from my house wall to
the old rusty iron fence post which is a remnant of the old hog fence that existed
when we moved into my house in 1963. Of the many previous owners of 124 W.
Maple,NO ONE ever disputed this fence being the property line. The hog fence
most likely dates back to the 1880's when my house was built.
They also have omitted presenting a drawing of a side view of their proposed
20' wide addition. While they show a number for my side of the fence,
their drawing does not show a number for the distance from their house to the
fence,or "their"property line$?Does this mean they want to slice 2'9"
from the side of the entire yard?My yard is 50' wide,I have the deed.
All the above would cause me great discomfort,greatly diminish the value
of my property and the quality of living in it,while probably raising my property
taxes,due to the increased value of the applicant's house.
Nobody would call this a fair deal.
This house is my home. In the 36 years that I have lived in it I have striven
to make it an asset to the community, by keeping it in good taste
and in good repair. My garden was on the Granville garden tour in 1994
to help raise money for our new street lighting. I have thousands of dollars
and work hours in this garden. I myself wanted a garden shed dearly, but
did not want to offend the view and wanted to comply with the zoning laws.
The Hudgens have other options: I agree to a on-floor garage,the required
10 feet from my property line provided the building not take any sunlight away
from pre-existing structures on my property. No second floor.
Preconditions to any construction are: An undisputed property line, agreed to by
both parties;the Hudgens, myself and my heirs,arrived at by first class surveys,
if necessary of the whole block, since pins are scarce,by licensed, professional
surveyors at the expense of the applicants.
Our village setback ordinance of 10 feet is here for a reason, and well thought
out,and necessary, so nobody infringes on other people rights, and
encroaches on their property.
I do not infringe on others' rights, and I don't want others to infringe on
This request,to turn a required setback of 10 feet into a one foot setback,
flies into the face of the law and makes a mockery of it. Approving this request
would be setting a bad precedent, indeed!
Trusting in your knowledge,experience, fairness,and wisdom, I respectfully
ask you to deny the Hudgens the one foot variance and the construction
of a two-story high,20 foot wide building, as planned.
Edith A. Schorie