Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
A Special Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Robert Kehoe, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Robert Kehoe
George Kozan
Carmon Liversedge
David Martus
Patrick O’Callaghan
Absent: None
Others Present: Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer
Approval of Minutes – Motion by O’Callaghan, seconded by Liversedge, to approve the June 18, 2002 meeting minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals as written.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Agenda Approval – Motion by Kozan, seconded by Martus, to approve the agenda of the August 14, 2002 meeting.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
MEETING
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
Elva Cook, 315 Sunnyside, addressed the Board.
PUBLIC
HEARING:
Variance – 330 Holland Road – An application for 330 Holland Road was received requesting a variance of three (3’) foot to a required thirty (30’) foot front yard setback for a proposed setback of twenty-seven (27’) feet to construct an addition to an existing structure. The Zoning Schedule of Regulations requires a thirty (30’) foot front yard setback in the R-1 district.
The chairperson opened the hearing to the public.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Two
Richard Holman, 330 Holland Road, explained that he planned to build a wrap around porch on his home as well as replace the aluminum siding and eliminate the crumbling chimney. The plans drawn by the architect, contracted by Mr. Holman, included a porch that would encroach three feet into the required thirty foot front yard setback.
O’Callaghan asked if the new porch would extend farther out than the current porch. Mr. Holman responded that the current porch was four and one-half (4˝’) feet wide, while the proposed porch would be eight (8’) feet wide. Kozan stated that he had looked at the houses in the neighborhood and most of them had porches that were very similar to the style of porch Mr. Holman currently had. Liversedge asked Mr. Holman if he had considered forming the front access at the legal five feet limit and then concentrate the various social activities at the side area of the porch. He stated that the architect had looked at this project from several perspectives. Because of the pitch of the roof and some technical aspects, the architect recommended the eight foot width of the porch.
The chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Kozan said he thought Mr. Holman’s plan was great, but the problem he has is that he doesn’t feel that complying with the setback is unnecessarily burdensome, or that these circumstances are particular to that property, especially in that neighborhood. All the houses appear to have that same type of design of porch.
Variance – 330 Holland Road – Motion by Kozan, seconded by Liversedge, to deny the application for variance for 330 Holland Road on the basis that compliance with the setbacks would not be unnecessarily burdensome and the circumstances are not particular to that piece of property.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: Kehoe
Motion Carried.
Variance – 620 Main Street – An application for variance was received for 620 Main Street requesting a four (4’) foot variance to a required ten (10’) foot side yard setback for a proposed setback of six (6’) feet for an addition to an existing garage. Flushing Ordinance Section 153.105 states that where the accessory building or structure is structurally attached to a main building it shall be subject to, and shall conform to, all regulations applicable to main buildings. Appendix A requires structures in the R-1 zoning district to maintain a ten (10’) foot side yard setback.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Three
The chairperson opened the hearing to the public.
The petitioner, Carter Schwartz, stated that eight or nine years ago he had a new garage built which is attached to the house and is within six feet of the property line. The structure that he wants to build is over the current garage and would be twenty-four feet wide and twenty-two feet deep. This second story structure would be used as a studio. There will be a sink in the structure, but no sanitary or cooking facilities.
Liversedge questioned if a variance would be necessary if the addition were to be used for storage and not living facilities. He also questioned whether it was the intention of the petitioner to demolish the existing garage and reconstruct or to add on to what is currently there. Mr. Schwartz responded that he intended to add on to the current structure. Kehoe read from the Zoning Ordinance Appendix A Schedule of Regulations (d) which states, “In the event an attached garage is so provided, the minimum side yard contiguous to such garage may be six feet except where additional stories are provided over the garage, then the minimum side yard shall be ten feet. The effect of this will be to reduce the total side yard by a minimum of four feet in those cases providing for attached garages.” He interpreted this to mean that no matter for what purpose the additional story was used it would require a ten foot setback.
Kozan stated that in the past, the variances that they had approved for “old town Flushing” were for porches. These variances were granted when they did not make the structures any more nonconforming than the other houses on the street. Kozan questioned whether, in this case, they would want to make that judicious call based on the five criteria for granting a variance.
Vern Martin, contractor, asked if the east side wall of the garage was moved in four feet to give him a twenty foot wide garage they would be allowed to go toward the street eight feet and go up as many stories as they wanted without obtaining a variance. Liversedge said that thirty feet high would be the limit. O’Callaghan stated that he had a problem advising on this because it is not the position of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Kozan suggested that they might want to take a closer look at the homes in that neighborhood that had a similar situation. Mr. Martin said that they could find similar homes, but the additions were likely built without approval.
A recess was called at 8:45 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Four
O’Callaghan asked about the possibility of adjourning this request to the next meeting to give the petitioner the opportunity to examine this similarly situated “old town” to determine if there are other houses that have a second floor on the garage that do not meet the setback requirement. Kozan stated that he may be persuaded by living spaces in general that do not conform to side yard setbacks.
Variance – 620 Main Street – Motion by O’Callaghan, seconded by Kozan, to table the variance request for 620 Main Street to the September 17, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn – Motion by Kehoe, seconded by O’Callaghan, to adjourn.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 9:05 p.m.
______________________________
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer