At a council hearing on an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, the Village of Granville Council voted to overturn the commission's April 28, 2025 denial of application 2024-171 to replace the roof at 226 East Broadway.

The reversal centers on whether the proposed exposed-fastener metal roof is "stylistically compatible" under the village design-review criteria. Connie, an attorney representing the applicant, told the council the village code lacks clear definitions for what constitutes a like-for-like roof replacement and "color is not a requirement" in the code. She argued that similar metal roofs exist in the village and that staff guidance prior to installation created uncertainty for the property owner.

The appeal record shows the roof had been installed after the owner obtained a building permit from Licking County. Planning staff and the Planning Commission treated the installation as requiring design-review, and the commission voted to deny the application. At the appeal hearing, council members and staff discussed the four statutory criteria the commission must apply in the village district and whether the record supported the commission's determination.

Council deliberations applied the four review criteria individually: stylistic compatibility with other structures in the village district; contribution to improvement and upgrading of historical character; contribution to the continued vitality of the district; and protection and enhancement of physical surroundings where past generations lived. Council members were split on the first two criteria but unanimous in finding that the roof contributed to the district's continued vitality and protected physical surroundings. After deliberation, a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's denial carried on roll call.

Council members emphasized that the appeal highlighted a need to clarify the village code. Several members said the code should offer clearer guidance so applicants and staff can avoid inconsistent interpretations in future reviews. The council also noted the procedural options available after its decision: the Planning Commission or other parties may seek further review in municipal court, and the council must issue a written order on the appeal within the time required by the code.

The council's decision restores the applicant's ability to proceed subject to any conditions in the written order to follow and does not itself rewrite the village code. Several council members and staff said they would pursue clearer, more prescriptive guidance for future roof replacements to reduce subjectivity in design reviews.