Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
A Special Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Patrick O'Callaghan, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Edward Borkowski
John H. Daly
Kevin J. Keane
David R. Martus
Patrick O’Callaghan
Absent: None
Others Present: Dennis J. Bow, City Manager
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer
Approval of Minutes - Motion by Martus, seconded by Keane, to approve the April 24, 2007 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as written.
Yea: Borkowski, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Abstain: Daly
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Agenda Approval - Motion by Daly, seconded by Martus, to approve the May 21, 2007 agenda.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
No public comment.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Variance – 201 N. McKinley Road - A request for a variance from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance proposing to use three (3) existing signboards at the Flushing Christian Outreach Center, which would allow the display of the name of the center, as well as services offered, was received.
The Planning Commission approved the Special Use Permit and site plan for the Flushing Christian Outreach Center on December 4, 2006, with several provisions. One of these provisions was that signage must conform to the Sign Ordinance, or that a variance be requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The provisions of Section 156.05.1 of the Flushing Sign Ordinance allow one (1) wall sign, not to exceed one foot in area. The three (3) signs measure 22” H x 33” W, 37” H x 28” W, and 59” W x 29” H.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Two
Per 156.19.8, a variance may be allowed by the Board of Appeals when the record supports all of the following affirmative findings:
1. That the alleged hardship or practical difficulty, or both, are exceptional or peculiar to the property of the person requesting the variance, and result from conditions which do not generally exist throughout the city.
2. That the alleged hardships and practical difficulties, or both, which would result from a failure to grant the variance, include substantially more than mere inconvenience, or mere inability to obtain a higher financial return.
3. That allowing the variance will result in substantial justice being done, considering the public benefits intended to be secured by this chapter, the individual hardships that will be suffered by a failure of the Board to grant a variance, and the rights of others whose property would be affected by the allowance of the variance, and will not be contrary to the public purpose and general intent and purpose of this chapter.
Every finding of fact shall be supported in the record of the proceeding of the Board.
The Chairperson opened the public hearing to the audience.
Mr. Don Stevens, President of the Board of the Christian Outreach Center, stated that pictures of the signs requested were given to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and he asked that these signs be approved.
There were no other comments and the Chairperson closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Keane stated that this matter comes to the Board from the Planning Commission with numerous contingencies. One of the contingencies was to appeal to the Board of Appeals for a signage variance. The proposed signage is outside the sign ordinance, and there has been marked concern from some of the neighbors about the operation of the outreach center. Mr. Daly asked Mr. Keane what the impact would be if this request were denied. Mr. Keane replied that, to his understanding, there would be negligible impact if the request were denied. He also stated that the original signage has been removed. Mr. Martus asked if the requested signs are the same size as the signs that were up; the City Manager stated that the new signs would reduce the degree of nonconformity. Mr. Daly stated that the previous signs were pre-existing, nonconforming signs and, typically, transfer of property is where nonconformity is brought into conformance. In his opinion, it either conforms or it doesn’t conform, there are no degrees of conformance. The sign ordinance only allows a one square foot sign.
Mr. Daly felt that the three tests to grant a variance are not met with this request.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Three
Variance – 201 N. McKinley Road – Motion by Daly, seconded by Keane, to deny the request for variance for 201 N. McKinley Road because the three tests to grant a variance have not been met.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Mr. Daly stated that the job of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to enforce the ordinance as written. The City Council is the only body that can change the ordinance. The City Manager stated that the Sign Ordinance is way overdue for amendment.
Referral to Planning Commission – Motion by Daly, seconded by O’Callaghan, to refer to the Planning Commission the recommendation that the Sign Ordinance be reviewed and amended, specifically as it refers to signs in residential areas.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Variance – 1124 E. Main Street - A request for a variance from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance proposing to erect a temporary sign at the entrance to the Flushing Valley Country Club, was received.
A permit was denied because temporary signs are not allowed in a residential district.
Per 156.19.8, a variance may be allowed by the Board of Appeals when the record supports all of the following affirmative findings:
1. That the alleged hardship or practical difficulty, or both, are exceptional or peculiar to the property of the person requesting the variance, and result from conditions which do not generally exist throughout the city.
2. That the alleged hardships and practical difficulties, or both, which would result from a failure to grant the variance, include substantially more than mere inconvenience, or mere inability to obtain a higher financial return.
3. That allowing the variance will result in substantial justice being done, considering the public benefits intended to be secured by this chapter, the individual hardships that will be suffered by a failure of the Board to grant a variance, and the rights of others whose property would be affected by the allowance of the variance, and will not be contrary to the public purpose and general intent and purpose of this chapter.
Every finding of fact shall be supported in the record of the proceeding of the Board.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Four
The Chairperson opened the public hearing to the audience.
There was no public comment and the Chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Abstention – Motion by Keane, seconded by Martus, to permit Mr. O’Callaghan to abstain from voting on the variance for 1124 E. Main Street, as he is a member of the Flushing Valley Golf and Country Club.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Variance – 1124 E. Main Street – Motion by Keane, seconded by Borkowski, to deny the variance for a temporary sign for the Flushing Valley Golf and Country Club, because it does not meet the three tests and, without permit, they are in violation of the Sign Ordinance.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus
Abstain: O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjournment – Motion by Keane, seconded by O’Callaghan, to adjourn.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 8:04 p.m.
______________________________
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer