Minutes
A Special Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Tuesday, November 13, 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
David R. Martus
Patrick O’Callaghan
Absent: Kevin J. Keane
Others Present: Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer
Approval of Minutes - Motion by Martus, seconded by Borkowski, to approve the June 18, 2007 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals as written.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Agenda Approval - Motion by Daly, seconded by Martus, to approve the November 13, 2007 agenda.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
MEETING
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
Elva Cook, 1459 Flushing Road, addressed the Zoning Board of Appeals.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Variance
–
After the city manager met with the applicant, it was determined the new application indicated that the sign has been moved back from the road, but the area and height of the sign still did not conform to the requirements of the sign ordinance. The description in Millennia Housing’s application was not clear, as it pertains to the variance request.
The sign itself is approximately twenty-two (22’) feet in area, if you incorporate the “tree logo” as part of the sign surface area. A logo was determined to be a part of a sign surface computation when a decision was made regarding the Walgreen logo on the corner of their building. In that case, Walgreen requested that their mortar and pestle logo not be determined to be a part of the sign for their structure.
Minutes
Page Two
The second issue, as indicated on their sign drawing, references the height above the ground surface, whether they build it at-grade or on a mound, which extends four (4’8”) feet eight inches above the ground to the top of the logo, and approximately five (5’2”) feet two inches above the ground at the top of the supporting piers. In this instance, Section 156.04.3, Computation of Height, was referenced for this determination.
In accordance with 156.19.8, a variance may be allowed when the appeal supports all of the following affirmative findings:
(1) That the alleged hardships or practical difficulties, or both, are exceptional and peculiar to the property of the person requesting the variance, and result from conditions which do not exist generally throughout the City.
(2) That the alleged hardships and practical difficulties, or both, which will result from a failure to grant the variance, include substantially more than mere inconvenience, or mere inability to attain 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.
Mr. Jim
Dixon, representing Millennia Housing Development – stated that they are
finishing up a major renovation of 1520 Cedarwood (
The variance required is for a height variance. The sign itself is 2˝ feet by 8 feet; it exceeds the allowed twenty square feet only by the circle on top of the sign. The entire sign exceeds the twenty square feet by approximately one and one-half square feet. The second variance involves the overall height; the piers are four foot eight inches high. The building inspector informed Mr. Dixon that the entire sign could not exceed four feet. Millennia Housing’s plan is to erect an eight inch high mound of mulch for planting. The sign will also be lit by a concealed light below the sign. The purpose of this sign is to direct individuals to the correct driveway.
The Chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Mr. Daly stated that he looked at the application and said he found that it was an interesting argument that says the logo is not part of the sign. He feels that the logo is part of the sign. He feels that the Sign Ordinance is specific and that, if the Board grants a variance to accommodate someone, you open the door for multiple standards.
Minutes
Page Three
Mr. Daly stated that this request did not meet the three standards that must be met. He felt that there were no practical difficulties, which are exceptional or peculiar to the property; there are no hardships and practical difficulties, which would result if the variance were not granted; and that allowing the variance would not result in substantial justice being done.
Mr. Borkowski felt that a precedent had been set when Walgreen’s was denied a variance when their sign exceeded the allowed square footage.
Mr. O’Callaghan stated that he echoed the thoughts of Mr. Daly. He likes the idea of the sign, but has heard nothing that would allow the variance.
Variance – 1520 Cedarwood Drive – Motion by Daly, seconded by Borkowski, to deny the variance requested for 1520 Cedarwood Drive on the basis that there is no exceptional hardship or practical difficulty and there would be no hardship or practical difficulty that would result from the variance, and that there is no injustice in enforcing the current zoning ordinance.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjournment – Motion by Borkowski, seconded by Martus, to adjourn.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 7:50 p.m.
______________________________
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer