Planning commission denies conditional use for Granville Street construction storage after downtown businesses raise access and noise concerns

Sunbury City planning commissioners voted unanimously to deny a conditional use application for 82 East Granville Street, rejecting a proposal to operate a construction company’s office and storage in a C2 downtown commercial parcel.

The commission’s action followed hours of public comment from nearby business owners and residents who said the applicant’s plan risked turning a long‑used shared alley into a construction yard that would impede deliveries, trash service and emergency vehicle access and harm outdoor dining on adjacent restaurant patios. Attorney Aaron Fenberger, representing Branch Pizza and Firehouse Tavern, told the commission the application “plays a little fast and loose” with the term “multi‑use office building” and warned it would become a noisy, diesel‑fume‑ridden storage area next to a patio.

“We’re voicing our opposition tonight because the plan calls for what we see as a construction yard in our backyard,” Fenberger said during public comment. Jody Teal, who represents a nearby tavern, said the proposal—and a companion variance to allow a privacy fence—would prevent three downtown businesses from continuing to use the shared rear space they have relied on for decades.

Applicant Kurt Vogel said his company is a locally rooted construction and remodeling business that would use the building mainly as a headquarters with limited indoor storage and occasional pickup‑truck parking. He told the commission he does not intend to run vehicle repair operations at the site and that larger equipment could be kept at an off‑site yard. “This is just an opportunity for us to have a headquarters building where our employees can gather for meetings,” Vogel said.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on specific operations: number of employees (the applicant said about 10 W‑2 employees), overnight vehicle parking, the potential presence of a skid steer, and whether storage would be outdoors. Staff flagged a central legal question: whether the proposed use fits the zoning code’s definition of a “storage building with associated office” in a C2 downtown district and whether the indoor storage would effectively constitute a warehouse or industrial activity not intended in that zone.

After deliberation, a commissioner moved to approve the conditional use (the mover was not specified in the public record) and a second was recorded by Mr. Long. Roll‑call voting produced four “no” votes (Mayor St. John: No; Mr. Long: No; Mr. Palma: No; Mrs. Stark: No), and the motion failed. The commission’s stated rationale cited failure to meet the general standards required for conditional uses in the downtown C2 district, including compatibility and impacts on adjacent uses.

Next steps: The denial closes the applicant’s request for this conditional use in its current form. The record includes a pending variance request the applicant intends to pursue before the Board of Zoning Appeals for an on‑site fence; several public commenters urged the commission to consider that variance when evaluating compatibility. The applicant may revise the proposal and reapply or pursue alternate locations or configurations that limit indoor storage, outdoor storage and heavy vehicle access.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the public hearing record and commission deliberations. The commission’s minutes and the staff report list exhibits and plans submitted by the applicant.