BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Present: Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Ashlin Caravana
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors: Mark Gearhart,Ed Cohn,Carolyn Kibler,Regina and Mark Ceneviva
Minutes for February 25,1999:
Page 2,add after No. 6: ,especially while addressing the BoarcLEs concerns it not be done
in such a way that the number of proposed parking spaces is reduced.
Page 3, add at end of last sentencean,d, will advise the Board if its assistance withthe
Evans Foundation is needed.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. STEWART
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of March 4,1999:
MR. ESSMAN MOVED THAT MINUTES BE APPROVED AS PROVIDED. MR. STEWART
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Mark and Regina Ceneviva,977 NewarkG-ranville Road
The applicants wish to build a 24E/x30AE twos-tory garage toward the back of the
property beyond the tree because there is not enough room to add onto the existing garage. There
would be a 5/E setback from east property line,rather than the required 14AE. The existing garage
will be demolished and driveway extended to the garage. The applicant will replace the asphalt
with a cement driveway.
Mr. Sharkey asked what the building would be for,and the answer was they need room for
both cars and need storage space above,accessed by interior stairway,and one and a half stories
would not provide quite enough space for storage. There will be no plumbing. The next door
neighbor is agreeable to the project,and there have been no other objections.
The distance now from the property line is 8/ E,also within the minimum setback,and Mr.
Sharkey is not comfortable with such a large structure even closer to the property line. He would
1»prefer a ESktory garage. He asked whether Mr. Ceneviva could shift the east wall to maintain
the BLE distance and move west wall 3AE farther into the yard. The tree might have to be trimmed a
bit. Mr. Ceneviva willlook into this adjustment and into the distance ofthe neighboring barn from
Mrs. Ceneviva stated that they will want to add firewood storage and a grill and the 3AE
encroachment would crowd the yard,in addition to wanting a play space for the children close to
Mr. Sharkey added that the Board is careful about setting precedents; a lot of people have
been denied variances for even longer distances from property lines. Mr. Herman added that we are
trying to work out things that make sense. He wondered what the applicant has done to avoid
needing a variance. Mr. Sharkey said in order for the Board to grant variances,there must be no
other option 11+,/
A r -
The applicants requested a vote at this time with conditions.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT
BE MODIFIED IN A MANNER TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED NEW GARAGE IS
NO CLOSER FROM THE EASTWARD BOUNDARY THAN THE EXISTING GARAGE.
OTHER DIMENSIONS WOULD BE AS PROPOSED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the application:
a)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or
structure( s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. Currently there exists a garage within the required setback minimum;therefore,there is a
precedent for situating the garage in the same way.
b)That a literal interpretation ofthe provisions ofthis Zoning Ordinance would deprive
the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the
provisions ofthis Ordinance. Based on our review ofthe site as well as adjoining properties and
garages in the area,they too do not conform with the setback requirements or property lines so they
enjoy those rights already.
c)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
The desire for a two-car garage is common in the community,and the ability to build one in the
j amount of land there is reasonable and does not result from actions ofthe applicant.
d)That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that
is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Adjoining properties also fall within areas ofthe setback.
e)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect safety and the health, general welfare ofthe persons residing or working within the vicinity ofthe proposed variance. No adverse effects are foreseen.
Bank First National,222 East Broadway
Mike Gearhart explained the bank's plan for a drive- through behind the bank. The former
bank closed the drive4hrough and installed an ATM and took out an island. The Bank First
National wants to reinstall the drive- through to accommodate handicapped people,those who do
not want to leave children and pets in the car while they are banking,and to increase safety. There
would be two lanes and a combination drive- through with vacuum tubes and an ATM.
The applicant was asked about a traffic study and he replied they took a survey for a week
and learned that:
29%were people who would always go to the drive- through
49%would sometimes use a drive- through
32%would never use a drive- through
27%oftransactions were by people who walked through the front door
68%at some level would either use a drive- through or walk in
He added that having a drive-through would add parking spaces in front. The ATM would require
a 60" x54"structure and in back of it a 4'6"high device for the vacuum tubes.
Mr. Herman appreciated applicant's desire to provide us with information about projected
traffic,but the methodology is flawed and fears that thereDea lot more traffic back there.
Drivet-hroughs require formal traffic studies for conditional uses. Increased traffic on Prospect p 1*
impacts the fire department and pedestrian safety. A new owner ofthe corner station might also
want a drive- through,so this one would set a.dangerous-precedent. We need to ensure that no
undue burden is caused on people or services. The applicant has to anticipate additional traffic if
they want their bank to grow.
Mr. Gearhart said they want to provide more customer convenience and safety,and they
anticipate a 5%increase in business per year. A walku-p device is more vulnerable to crime than a drive- through. Neighbors have no objection to the plan.
Bernard Lukco offered that the former bank abandoned the drive- through because there
was no ATM and the service was not used much. There was no teller there and people just walked
into the bank. He added that a traffic study is necessary but a pedestrian study is also necessary. A lot of students and others just walk to the bank.
Mr. Sharkey's concern was with pedestrian safety.
Carolyn Kibler,manager of bank,said since the driveway is narrow,the bushes would have to be trimmed for better visibility. When they reverse the traffic patterns,people would exit where it would be safer. She would hate for her bank to be the first where someone gets hurt in that alley and so they feel responsible to make it safer.
Mr. Stewart would feel better with full knowledge ofwhat we are getting into,especially regarding the Fire Department s needs.
Mr. Herman wants to see exactly what is proposed,i.e.,bushes,islands,the aesthetics,
volume,and safety. Traffic engineers can help with the requirements.
Ed Cohn thinks a traffic study is fine. He is a little concerned we are talking about two
different directions to focus on with the traffic study. He does not think traffic would be
incrementwi very much.
Mr. Sharkey also wants to see a clean,clear drawing and elevations. He agrees it would be
safer to have a drive- through but requests a traffic study.
Mr.Essman agrees with the pedestrian safety issue and feels it is possible that witha _7 4-*_,#
drive- through,it might cut down on traffic using the alley as a turn-around..
The applicants request the Board to table the application pending further study.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE
FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
The Application Process
Zoning Inspector. Bernard Lukco from the Planning Commission,stated that he and
others from GPC have designed a method to clarify the process for applicants and to avoid
problems down the road. Without a Zoning Inspector,everyone assumes that applicants will
proceed according to plan. But since this is often not the case,they have recommended hiring a Zoning Inspector as a solution to the problems mounting with nonc-ompliance and construction or work without a permit.
Mr. Herman added that the person should be computer literate for spreadsheets and data bases and
some knowledge of zoning regulations. Mr. Stewart added that the person would report to Ms. Wimberger.
Mr. STEWART MOVED THAT THE GRANV[LLE PLANNING COMMISSION ( GPC)AND
THE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS ( BZBA)HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL DISPUTES REGARDING ZONING PERMIT COMPLIANCE.
GENERALLY,THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT THE HOMEOWNER AND/ OR
CONTRACTOR HAVE NOT ADHERED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PERMIT. WHILE
IN TYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE VILLAGE PLANNER,WHO ALSO ACTS AS THE ZONING INSPECTOR,WOULD HAVE MONITORED PROGRESS ON THESE PROJECTS, WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT ALLOWED FOR THS[ TYPE OF FUNCTION. THEREFORE THE BZBA REQUESTS THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL GIVE THE VILLAGE MANAGER AUTHORITY TO HIRE A PARTT-IME ZONING INSPECTOR TO ASSIST THE VILLAGE AND VILLAGE PLANNER TO ALLEVIATE FUTURE PERMIT PROBLEMS. MR.HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Fees. The subcommittee also took a look at current fees and broke them down into a
different format- 4hose for the GPC and those for BZBA. Mr. Herman said there needs to be a
relationship between fees and what they are supposed to do. The fees are for administrative costs.
Ms. Wimberger will try to get fee schedules from other towns.
Sample Packet to be given applicants would include:
a checklist of what is required
an information sheet explaining the checklist
samples of good applications
a permit application
zoning/ architectural permit with date and phone number
The subcommittee will next set to work on a commercial packet. Mr. Sharke 6„064 Mr.
Hermanibe liaison with GPC and the Village on these matter. t€00»CAdjournment:
Next Meeting: April 22, 1999
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS