Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/12/05

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 12, 2005
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss (Vice Chair), Tom Mitchell, Constance Barsky, Carl Wilkenfeld, Tym Tyler
 Members Absent:  Tim Riffle (Chair),
Visitors Present:    Carl Strauss, Dr. and Mrs. Mark & Lia Law, Gil Krone, Omar Whisman, Lee & Kathy Cecil, Dick Rogovin, Jeff Carr, Gordon & Ellen Wilken, Jim Ogelin, Jim Silone, Ed Lowry, Kent :Pitcher, Marilyn Pitcher, Kay Carvar, Carol Kenyon, Kenneth A. Kemper,
 Also Present: Molly Roberts, Acting Village Manager; Jim Gorry, Assistant Law Director
The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments:  none
Minutes of November 28:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Granville Golf Course Co., Trinity Court - Preliminary Plat

 Mr. Strayer had stated that the Law Director said our decision was wrong and must be reversed.
 Thirty-seven neighbors on Wexford and Trinity presented a petition for GPC to reaffirm its earlier decision.
 Carl Strauss presented letter to Village Council for the record, concerning drainage and runoff. 
 Richard Rogovin sent a letter explaining why the Homeowners' Association feels the earlier GPC decision was appropriate. 
 Mr. Gorry, Assistant Law Director, said the Law Director has determined that both state law and our subdivision regulations do not prevent approving the lot split before you.  You are only dealing with a lot split; other issues can be addressed when a plat is presented to you.  Under Ohio Revised Code {ORC} there is no issue here, and approval is a formality.  No discussion is in order.  Our concern is that since there is no discretion, any delay may open up the village to lawsuits
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered, then, why this application is before us, and Mr. Gorry said ORC 711011 defines subdivision to include (1) any division of the existing parcel, any part of which is less than 5 acres.  It also includes the plating such that roads are being opened.  (2) It also provides that splitting a lot in conjunction with granting sewer and utilities, etc, is also a subdivision. What is being requested is not a subdivision.  It has been the policy of the administration to request approval of these things by the GPC, and other municipalities have done this.  In fact, things like this can be handled administratively, but it has been the past role of the administration to run these by the GPC.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said he has never seen a situation where we were told how to vote, and Mr. Gorry said it may be that at least during his time here he does not recall a lot split where no lot was being created less than 5 acres.  This is the first one.  It is routine in communities with larger tracts of land.
 Mr. Mitchell looked at the definitions given us and saw that it conforms with not being a subdivision with one possible exception in regard to (1) the storm drainage affecting something off-site. (2) If we have no jurisdiction, he does not know how we can vote opposite of how we voted last time, but can we rescind our last vote because it is not our jurisdiction.
 Mr. Gorry said the reason this is here is that the Licking County Auditor will not approve the deed without municipal approval even though it is not a subdivision.  All communities he knows of simply approve a lot split, and you can rescind it and we will treat it administratively.
  Mr. Burriss said if we rescind, how can people address the situation?  If it is not under our jurisdiction, then what vehicle do they have to address this?
 Ms. Barsky said that given the situation requesting a lot split, the neighborhood has no opportunity to prevent a lot split, and Mr. Gorry said Yes, lot splits cannot possibly cause injury to neighbors. 
 Mr. Mitchell said Granville has no ordinance about creating this situation, and Mr. Gorry said this does not fall under the 20-acre ordinance.  We cannot prevent splits because that is in direct conflict with ORC statute. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said it is clear that the Law Director is asking us to rescind and take us out of the loop.
 Richard Rovogin thanked the group for coming out on a cold night. The Assistant Law Director suggests a conflict between state law and your ordinances.  The conflict is under 1113.02B and he would like to suggest that because litigation may result, you should (1) ask the Law Director for a written legal opinion to which we can respond.  (2) Then call another meeting.  As he reads 1113.02B it limits what you can do.  The action you took at last meeting was entirely appropriate under Granville Zoning Code.  (3) Another problem is that an application was made by Park National Bank, and a request for restrictions was made by a different party, the Golf Course.  A request for reconsideration ought to be made by the applicant. 
 Mr. Gorry said the application calls for "subdivision without plat," but this is not a subdivision.  These are small lot splits where one of the lots is less than 5 acres.  With small lots you can do that without plat.  We are not dealing with a subdivision.
 Gil Krone, a contiguous neighbor, notes that since the application states "subdivision without plat," they were all prepared to discuss that issue.    A PUD seems to be the original issue because there is a special requirement under village ordinance 1171 that specifies whenever you have PUD to be employed, the entire 94 acres has to be presented in the form of a preliminary development plan along with the application.  A plat needs to be submitted.   Technically this was supposed to be a PUD matter and it is zoned PUD.  GPC should request this of the owner, but the owner is not here.  It should not even be considered because there is no presentation given by the owner.   He suggests that with the confusion with respect to 1113 subdivision without plat, the owner should resubmit the application under the PUD along with the required development plan under 1171.
 Mr. Gorry said yes, if you look at the application, it says subdivision without plat but that is an error.  This is a straightforward lot split of 36.7 acres.  We are reconsidering the original vote by which it was denied.
 Mr. Rogovin said that would be an erroneous application and the applicant is not here to explain what he said and refile.  Mr. Gorry said the Law Director is concerned about potential liability because we don't have the legal power to deny.
Even though the application is incorrect, it is still before the GPC. 
 Ms. Barsky requests an appropriate application.  We insist that when individuals are incorrect, they must come back with a proper application. Mr. Gorry said that would be appropriate.  If you rescind, he can go to the Planning Director. This applies to municipalities if it is less than 5 acres.  It does not approve any development. 
 Mr. Mitchell asked about the zoning, and Mr. Gorry said the zoning is perfectly appropriate as long as it's consistent with law.  If you rescind this, it is still before you.
 Mr. Rogovin said if you rescind, the Law Director says it is still before you but the applicant will simply go to the village with an application.  With an application marked subdivision without plat, you have to reply to it that way.  He does not understand what the Law Director is saying about liability.  If you act to deny this, the village is liable because you handled it as a subdivision without plat because that is what it says on the application.  He does not see a liability issue.
 The representative for Bob Kent, Jeffrey P. Carr, Project Manager and engineer, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  (1) Is the lot split within the bounds of what is legally allowed by the Village?  Yes.  (2) If it is a legal split, where are the grounds for denial?  We can fix this application and come back again, but can I get some idea why it was denied?  It meets the ordinances. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said a lot of what is said is not agreed upon.  In this meeting there is a question as to who is the applicant.  Mr. Carr did not disagree, but he is hearing that everything is good to go here.
 Ms. Barsky wondered why he did not pursue this directly with the County Auditor and was told the Auditor does not do lot split because he has to go through the village.
 Mr. Burriss said before any building permit can be issued or construction, there is a long process to go through.  There are areas where public comment will be taken.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld said they need to find a way to get into the subdivision, and Mr. Gorry said access issues will be addressed by this commission. 
 Mr. Burriss said if we do not rescind, it will go around us so where does our authority come from to deal with a plat? Mr. Gorry answered any development that creates a single lot with less than 5 acres must go through you.  With 5.1 acres we do not have to approve lot splits but everything else about roads because the occasion of any connected roads constitutes a subdivision.
 Jim Harmon asked whether anyone other than the owner of the property allowed to request a lot split and was told, the owner or his representative, an agent.  This is not done by someone with an interest in the property.
 Mr. Tyler noted we have an upper portion and a lower portion, and people do not want upper portion traffic going through the lower portion.  Are we giving the developer permission to go through the property?  Can we talk about access?  Mr. Gorry said there are two access routes on the preliminary plat.  It's a permanent ROW, but the engineer said that is a gas and oil easement, and the access is on Trinity.
 Gil Krone asked if they were considering Newark-Granville or Milner for access.  You would not need an extension of Trinity, just a requirement under Granville subdivision codes as one issue to be resolved in building a road.  Mr. Carr said the Law Director said that would be a good access. Village Council has deemed Trinity a collector road. 
 Mr. Krone said the developer is not going to use a roadway that exists onto Milner but rather seeks entrance to a subdivision developed in 1983 under Granville Township regulations which were based on rural classifications demanding 11/2-2 acres and a reserve of 10 acres.  They are going to wind up with ½ acre lots costing $500,000 or more. 
 Mr. Gorry said if GPC will agree to rescind its vote, he will pledge that the administration will take no action and leave the matter pending and he will submit a written memo of what is going on here and what the legal issues are.  If you deny, there is no reason to take this beyond the commission.  There's nothing wrong with keeping this matter before the commission until we resolve the issues.  If it goes beyond, that is something the Law Director says he doesn't want to happen.  If this is a PUD, we need GPC and Village Council approval.  Both PUD and subdivisions are completely covered by GPC zoning subdivision regulation and it is referendable.
 Omar Whisman said that when Bob Kent builds Bryn Du, he had a turn-around at the top of the hill.  He had to have an access road in addition to the entrance road, and there are gates at the top and bottom and they can get in a case of emergency.   Mr. Tyler noted that would come before us eventually under a preliminary plan. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld would feel more comfortable getting the written report before we vote, but Mr. Gorry said you may not be able to.  If it goes to V.C. the Law Director will ask it to be remanded to you. 
 Mr. Mitchell said there will be two parcels to deal with and it appears the developer has found a loophole and I don't know that we have any way around it.  He would suggest rescinding the vote.
 Mr. Carr said the GPC did not deny it because it was incomplete--it was an emotional decision.  If it meets the intent, then it meets the intent.  They can fix the application.
 Mark Law quoted the Finding of Fact from the last meeting, and it is copied on the last page under Finding of Fact.
Mr. Gorry said you were under the impression you were dealing with a subdivision.  This is before you tonight because the Law Director specifically directed that this be on the agenda with the request that the denial be rescinded. 
Ms. Barsky replied then it is clear that they have not reversed their decision on the subdivision.  It's based on the fact that the Law Director asked for it and this is to avoid legal issues.  She asked whether this would prejudice anything in the future, and Mr. Gorry said No.  He will cover that in the memo analyzing the issues.  If an issue comes up, GPC will consider it.  He wants to make sure all issues are resolved.  The code does allow clerical amendments, and he would not make them refile. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether we can rescind with the understanding that it will come back to us, and Mr. Gorry said Yes, the ordinances provide that this is still before you if you vacate your prior decision.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked, Will it come back to us without the X? Can we vote the way we want to? Mr. Gorry said we make a request that you can abide by the request or not.  We hope you will give serious consideration to legal issues.
 Mr. Rogovin said the Law Director is the director of the village, but we have heard nothing from the Park National Bank about what it thinks.    How can the Law Director say this is a mistake?  It's a pure legal issue.
 Mr. Mitchell noted it would be much better for everybody concerned if they would come in with a development plan with access to Newark-Granville or rather a full plan for those 94 acres.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO RESCIND OUR VOTE FROM APPLICATION 05-178 ON THE CONDITION THAT, PER THE LAW DIRECTOR'S SUGGESTION, WE WILL GET A WRITTEN MEMO ON THE ISSUES FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE.  MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. (Burriss, Mitchell, Tyler voted Aye, and Wilkenfeld voted Nay)


Finding of Fact (from the previous meeting):   The Planning Commission found that the application for lot split did not meet with the relevant section of the Granville Zoning Code or the Ohio Revised Code.  The Planning Commission found that since the application did not include relevant studies and plans for the future build-out of the proposed 36.715 acre parcel that the application was incomplete and must be objected to.


Adjournment: 8:25.p.m.

Next Meetings:   January 9 and 25
Respectfully submitted,


Betty Hullinger

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.