Editorial Response
The editor of the Granville Press has altered his opinion regarding the approval of the solar panels. Attached are his comments from the first meeting for the Karaffa's solar panels were available on the Village's web site.
"Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, asked if he could be invited by the applicant to speak since he doesn’t have standing in this particular matter. Mr. Karaffa had no objection. Mr. Thornborough stated that he is terribly tormented by this situation because he has been vocally insistent that the AROD district ought to be kept pristine. He suggested that the Planning Commission ought to approve the application with a plea to Village Council to allow solar panels. He stated that they are relatively innocuous and solar panels are the wave of the future. Mr. Thornborough stated that there is no way that the solar panels can be approved by the way the current law reads and since no one has stood in objection to the installation he feels they should be approved. Mr. Ryan stated that they cannot do that given their current guidelines." (You may read the entire debate on the Village web site www.granville.oh.us under Planning Commission minutes for May 27, 2008.)
The editor is certainly permitted to change his mind regarding any subject.
- askquestions's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 415 reads
Let's give Jack a bit of a break
When I realize I am wrong, I correct my mistake and go on with life.
What do you do?
agendas change with the wind
I'm glad someone else picks up on this stuff. It's happening all too often. Village Council picks and chooses how they shall interpret the various laws / codes in town; Council member Barsky replacing windows on her property w/o a permit, then asking the old planning commission to retroactively approve them (sound familiar?). Thornborough has been on both sides of the development fence down on River Road. Developing without regard for greenspace or the ecology, but changing political directions when faced with a little competition; Karaffa's installing solar panels next to their skylight in the historic district; BZBA member Ashbaugh installing a generator on the side of his home without a permit...
Denison will now challenge a judge's decision disallowing their construction plans, and with the Karaffa's boondoggle decision, I'd say we're about to see an all glass enclosure attached to Cleveland Hall.
Someone here call Dale Knoebel arrogant for pushing back against an inconsistent (now proven) ruling.
Who are the arrogant ones around here? I'd say Dale T. is in the minority given the agenda-driven bias that I continue to witness lately.
Dale Knobel wants special treatment, not consistent treatment
Dale's approach is exactly the opposite of what you describe. He was not pushing back against an inconsistent ruling.
In fact, he does not want consistency. He believes that the university should be treated differently than other applicants; that the university should be allowed to do things that other applicants are not allowed to do.
For example, while others cannot have skylights facing the street, he wants the entirety of Cleveland Hall to "glow like a beacon" at night.
I am not sure how else to describe his actions other than as arrogance.
Paul
Why is there not a single Denison employee who speaks out?
Your comments about arrogance have me thinking.
Has anyone else wondered why there is not a single Denison employee who has spoken out publicly against the "starkly modern" additions to Cleveland Hall?
Back in the days shortly after the modern Burke Hall was built many Denison employees spoke out against the building. A Denison professor who was on village council at the time even helped write and enact the current architectural review overlay district to prevent another Burke Hall from ever occurring.
But today, with Dale Knobel in control of Denison, not one Denison employee speaks out.
Puzzling.
Why don't Denison employees speak out?
Perhaps Denison employees believe the administration will make up things and ruin your career if you don't toe the party line.
Wouldn't be prudent to "cross" the Dale
There are Denison faculty and staff strongly opposed to the Cleveland Hall additions.
However, after experiencing ten years of the Dale, the uniform assessment is speaking out against the additions publicly or in the wrong company would not be wise.
a little history on Denison
Our current zoning law was approved in 1977 after six years of work. At the time, Denison onjected explicitly to being covered by Granville's planning code. The law was delayed for months while the issues were worked out.
Denison wanted the lower campus to be zoned "agricultural." As such, no zoning rules would apply to the University whatsoever. (At the time, residents were worried that Denison planned more dorms on lower campus.)
The Village Council and the Planning Commission contained many Denison professors at the time. Yet the VC and PC were unanimous in the belief that Denison should be covered by zoning rules. The Denison professors said so publicly and voted so. Nobody feared punishment for doing a civic duty. It was about ideas, not blind loyalty. The law permitted the Village to excercise zoning authority over the university and, the Council believed, it was good policy to do so.
In 1977, Denison Education Professor Tom Gallant, then vice mayor and a wonderful person who is still with us, made the motion that the law be adopted. It was approved 7-0. Thirty years later, the law stopped Denison from adding a modernist addition to Cleveland Hall.
The question was fundamentally the same in 1977 and 2007: Is Denison covered by Granville zoning laws? What was diffrent today is that no one affiliated with Denison dared to publicly answer "yes."
------------------------------
A history of Granville's zoning laws is available at http://savegranville.com/files/granville_historic_preservation_history.d...