Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lighting Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies Bank of America lighting variance after staff cites standards and self‑created hardship
Summary
The Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals denied a petition from Bank of America to allow lighting levels that exceed the city's foot‑candle limit at a drive‑through ATM, after planning staff recommended denial and board members raised concerns the issue was self‑created.
The Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 27 denied a variance requested by Bank of America that would have allowed light levels to exceed the city's limit along the west and north property lines at a drive‑through ATM.
Planning staff told the board the proposed illumination along the property lines ranges from 0.6 to 3.7 foot‑candles, above the city's 0.3 foot‑candle maximum at the property line, and recommended a negative consideration of the variance. The petitioner said higher light levels were needed for safety and to meet Bank of America's internal lighting program.
Alex, a lighting consultant with GMR working for Bank of America, told the board his firm's exterior lighting program surveys bank sites annually and that Bank of America requires a 1.0 foot‑candle minimum measured at 3 feet within 60 feet of an ATM in states without a regulatory standard. "This case, the property line is actually within that 60 feet, so that's why there is spillover onto that property line," Alex said, explaining why the design produces some light beyond the lot line.
A member of planning staff noted the measured spillover and told the board the range exceeds the ordinance limit: "Planning staff has identified that where the foot candle limits exceed what is allowed along the west and the north property lines. And the range is from 0.6 to 3.7 foot candles, and the maximum is 0.3." The staff report characterized the condition as a hardship created by the petitioner and recommended denial.
Board members questioned whether the bank or its contractors should have anticipated the requirement during installation and whether the extra lighting would materially benefit public safety. The petitioner said corporate security aims to bring older sites into a consistent standard and that retrofits sometimes create tradeoffs when ATMs and existing canopies are close to the property line.
After discussion, a motion to approve the variance failed. The board chair told the petitioner the petition was not approved and invited the applicant to consult further with planning staff about revisions or a revised submission to meet the 0.3 foot‑candle standard.
Planning staff recommended the BZA attorney draft findings of fact supporting the denial; the board did not adopt an alternate condition at the meeting.
The denial means the petitioner must either redesign the lighting to meet the city's 0.3 foot‑candle limit at the property line, pursue a different configuration, or return with a revised application.
