BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
July 20, 1995
Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Lon Herman, Gilbert Krone, Eric Stewart
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner
Visitors: Kim Zeune (Zeune Construction & Development),Cindy Schumaker (Petroleum Ltd.), Ed Vance, Eloise DeZwarte, Sam Mackenzie-Crone, Arnold Shaheen (365 S. Main,
Pataskala), Andrew C. Turner (113 Shannon Lane), L. P. Case (102
Shannon Lane), Dorothy Garrett, Richard Salvage (73 Berline Ct.),
Cindy Scheiber), Rose Wingert (179 Victoria Drive), Carolyn and Larry Huey.
Minutes were not on the agenda.
Mr. Zeune and Ms. Schumaker, Marathon, Cherry Valley. Road
Tonight' s meeting is a remand hearing of their conditional
use permit request. A final decision was postponed from last
week' s meeting in order to give members more time to ponder the
criteria of the application. This meeting is not open for comments
from the public.
Mr. Bellman expressed his personal conclusions first. His
problems centered on traffic and the 1992 traffic study compared
to the 1995 study, "Trip Generation." Dr. Scarpitti and others
have expressed difficulties with traffic now, which would only be
exacerbated with another business in the area. Mr. Bellman feels
the new study (1) is not necessarily accurate in terms of num- bers. He pointed out areas of inconsistency and very wide range
in the report as far as cars per day and cars per rush hours.
2) The report is tailored generally, rather than being specifically
to Cherry Valley and Rt. 16. There is a too small sample
size. 3) Studies have not been taken to see whether deviation
exists to present a burden to Granville; this is an educated
guess, rather than scientific data.
4) We need to consider traffic in the future at this busy corner. (5) A convenience store with gas pumps is a different land use from sidered in the TES study. 6) In addition to a gas station, convenience store, and car wash, they are planning a drive- through fast-food window, a cluster of activity designed. to pull in business by car.
7) In addition to the traffic problems, Mr. Bellman had concerns about putting the Marathon concept so close to a resident area. The applicants are likeable people and have done a good job of presentation, but the location is wrong.
Surely there is another corner of Galway or Granville more appropriate for
their store. 8) The access is wrong; it s hard to make left hand
turns in and out of Wendy' s now. A much larger stacking
area is needed. Common sense says that the idea of traffic
turning in any direction so close to the busy intersection is
unacceptable. (9) The possibility of accidents increases with
more traffic. If the application is approved, it needs to have
restricted access from Galway only. 10) It would place a
strain on existing village streets. 11) Noise, particularly
from the car wash, would be a problem. Testimony places noise at 5
decibels, but I have not seen any specifications about how far
away the noise can be heard, and this is very close to a
residential area. Any approval should include noise specifications,
and violations should shut the car wash down. (12) Litter
and general nuisance will be problems.
Mr. Krone referred to the Wilcox traffic study with regard
to Wendy-s, and he considers the 1992 report more reliable. The
recommendation was to move Westgate farther up, but that 'means
moving a public street, which would force existing businesses to
accommodate Marathon. He suggested that BZBA recommend moving
Wendy- s access farther up the road, which would alleviate the
stacking problem, according to the Wilcox Report. BZBA should be
able to help the applicants by giving advice. Mr. Murphy, who
owns the drive, also has an interest in what happens to it, and
BZBA could place a condition on Wendy' s and Murphy s approval on moving the service road. He felt that BZBA has a legal obligation
to show Marathon how traffic can be controlled in a reasonable
way. The Wendy's traffic study said there would be no
stacking at Wendy-s, but that is shown to have been inaccurate.
Ms. Caravana reminded him that neither Wendy' s nor Mr. Murphy is
on the agenda here and that Granville Planning Commission would
be considering these items, should they arise She felt the BZBA
has to be very careful about what conditions are placed on Marathon.
Mr. Herman felt that these things could be addressed in a work session. Mr. Bellman explained that on Page 6 TES recommends
that the existing Wendy' s drive be limited to right-hand
turns and that Galway South should be constructed possible in order as soon as to provide a safe access to Wendy s and other businesses. TES recommended also that there should be no entrance
into Wendy-s from Cherry Valley heading north. It s
possible there might be another traffic light there at some time in the future.
Mr. Herman wanted to thank the applicants and others for giving us time to collect our thoughts. He expressed his concerns
with the application:
1) In the traffic study the engineer states that traffic flow will improve because of improvements made by the developers, but this is dubious.
2) Mr. Herman felt that the statement that the village had time to develop
access guidelines to make road improvements and did not act is
not viable. Alternative access was rejected by the applicant
because of excess cost and loss of business. (3) Volume of
traffic will be increased; a land use of convenience store and
gas pumps will increase traffic dramatically. 4) Traffic study
is based on averages, not local data, and does not represent peak
activity. I' m sure the applicants desire not -average' traffic
but -a lot of- traffic activity and will do all they can to
increase traffic, creating burdens for the village. Gas
stations generate more traffic volume than this study suggests.
5) Wintertime salt on roads increases car wash traffic and
stacking. 6) A review of the applicant' s study is more
favorable to the applicant and focuses on the developer’s plans.
7) The applicant has not proven that undue burden will not occur
under Criteria C. 8) As neighbors and businesses have
testified, the application does not meet Criteria D. Dr.
Scarpitti has difficulty even now responding to emergencies, and
Mrs. Roberts has spoken out against Marathon as a neighbor.
Mr. Stewart- s concern is also with the entrance and exit at
Wendy's. Both Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Samuelson have said that additional
lanes would alleviate but not solve the problem, which
would remain at a less than acceptable level. It would also
create an undue burden on facilities.
Ms. Caravana felt that (1) under criteria D this is a changing
area, but long-term residents as well as some newcomers in
Erinwood were not aware that a gas station could be in their
neighborhood. Such a business would be particularly noxious
because of noise, litter, pollution, and lighting early in the
morning and late at night, making it a highly visible site. 2)
Most permitted land uses would have more restricted hours of
operation. Longer hours create a greater nuisance for neighbors.
3) There are conflicting recommendations made by the engineers
with respect to the entrance drive. In addition to making Cherry
Valley Road five lanes and moving Westgate north, TES still
recommended prohibiting left-hand turns at the Wendy- s intersection
and prohibiting any more accesses south of Galway. The
application before the BZBA flies in the face of these earlier
4) There are other accesses available to the applicant; access from Galway is unacceptable to the applicant largely because it is less convenient. Convenience, location, and traffic are the very reasons the applicant likes the location. If they cannot run their business with a service perhaps the nature of the access, business creates the problem. Maybe the applicant can review the access road with Wendy-s and return with a more acceptable design.
Mr. Krone stated his concerns: (1) since TES did the study, they should at least show why they varied from the requirements of the study as far as left-hand turns and doubling up on use of the drive. They were not as forthright in comments which said left turns can continue to be made into Marathon.
2) Mr. Wilcox in the impact study relied on the "use 846" number in the 1980-90
Trip Generation study that supposedly was reasonably certain, but
now we know that there are variations in the figures. (3) There
were also variables that were not addressed in using the "use 846
number, i. e.,the size of the convenience market and what items
were sold in the Trip Generation 1980-90 study. Mr. Wilcox has
an obligation to be as certain as he can in talking about
specifications and percentages. It would have helped Mr. Krone
to have seen raw data analyses on this specific site, which Mr.
Wilcox could have gotten from Mr. Zeune and then produced
reliable figures. 4) There was an attempt by Mr. Wilcox and TES
to make some changes in the figures used at the last meeting.
which creates a lack of credibility in the original study. 5)
The original application did not include a drive-through; the
applicant said the drive-through would not increase traffic
because people are there anyway. Assuming there was some
reasonable way they could come to that conclusion, they should
have come up with some rationale. Their real goal is to increase
traffic in order to increase business. The drive-through
shows a lack of _____ on the part of the engineer.
6) There' s already a problem with Wendy' s driveway; Marathon
would exacerbate the situation. The applicant has the right to
use the property, but we have the obligation to make analysis· to
show how the property can be used in a way that does not create a
problem. We need specific data.
A suggestion by Ms. Caravana was to limit the hours of operation.
Mr. Bellman stated that whatever business goes into that
location should be a non-traffic-intense one. Perhaps another
design for traffic flow with access onto Galway could be more
acceptable. A more effective visual barrier is needed to address
the highly lit site. Ms. Caravana thought these were Planning
Commission issues, but with a brightly lit site, late hours,
etc.,many problems remain with respect to impact on residences.
Mr. Herman thought another work session could be planned.
Ms. Caravana thought that the BZBA had addressed all of
their concerns and given suggestions to the applicant and that
specific criteria could be applied and a vote taken. Mr. Bellman
thought a Finding of Fact should be prepared for the record.
Mr. Bellman moved to disapprove the application and to
provide a Finding of Fact for the record. Mr. Herman seconded
the motion, AND THE MOTION TO DISAPPROVE WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 00 P. m.
Next Meeting: August 24, 1995