Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
A Special Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Monday, July 21, 2008 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
Election
of Officers:
Chairperson – Motion by Daly, seconded by Martus, to appoint Patrick O’Callaghan as Chairperson.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Vice Chairperson – Motion by Daly, seconded by Borkowski, to appoint Kevin Keane as Vice Chairperson.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Approval of Minutes - Motion by Martus, seconded by Borkowski, to approve the November 13, 2007 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals as written.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Martus, O’Callaghan
Abstain: Keane
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Agenda Approval - Motion by Keane, seconded by Daly, to approve the July 21, 2008 agenda.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
MEETING
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
No public comment.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Two
Meeting Schedule – Motion by Daly, seconded by Keane, to set meeting dates for Tuesday, September 23, 2008 and Monday, December 15, 2008.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Variance – 1468 E. Pierson Road – The attached application was received from Delehanty Pontiac after their original sign permit application was rejected.
Delehanty Pontiac would like to change the sign panels of the existing sign located at the former “Village Cleaners”, a property adjacent to their dealership, which they recently acquired. The requested sign, proposed for use by future businesses that may occupy the premises, would also contain the Delehanty Pontiac logo.
Flushing Sign Ordinance, Section 156.09(13) prohibits signs advertising an activity, business, product, or service not presently offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located, or advertises any business not located on the premises, with the exception that a business may erect permanent signage no more than thirty (30) days prior to an initial opening. As such, the Delehanty Pontiac logo would be classified as advertisement and, thus, prohibited.
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.
The City Manager – provided a history of this site. When the special use permit was issued by the Planning Commission, signs were not an issue. He reviewed the sign ordinance with the Board. He cited Section 156.05.9(1) of the Sign Ordinance:
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Three
(1)
One (1)
freestanding sign per lot or premises, which may be internally or externally
illuminated, with more than one hundred (100’) feet of street frontage. Such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15’)
feet in height and forty-eight (48) square feet in area, and shall be set back
so that the face of the sign is at least twenty (20’) feet from the nearest
existing or future curb line, or in the absence of curbs, twenty (20’) feet
from the nearest edge of pavement. It
may not, however, be in the public right-of-way, as set forth in Section
156.07. Permit is required.
In the building inspector’s denial of the sign permit, he referred to Section 156.09(13):
(13) Signs which advertise an activity,
business, product, or service not presently offered or conducted on the
premises upon which the sign is located, or advertises any business not located
on the premises, with the exception that a business may erect permanent signage
no more than thirty (30) days prior to an initial opening. Permit is required.
The City Manager said that the next problem that the Building Inspector ran into was the site – there is a road between the two (2) sites. Both sites are used for the same purpose. There is an interpretation issue, which may have to be solved. The special use permit was issued for the two lots, but the City Manager felt that it was an extension of the special use permit they had for the general lot.
Also to be taken into consideration is Section 156.15.1 of the Sign Ordinance, which states, “Any nonconforming sign shall either be eliminated or made to conform with the requirements of this chapter if such sign is to be altered in any way.”
Mr. Delehanty – stated that he is requesting a variance so that he can use the existing sign, which says “Village Cleaners.” It has been two or three years since the buildings have been vacated and he felt that it would be to his advantage to get inventory out by the road where people could see them. He stated that it would be to his benefit to have the sign say “Delehanty Pontiac” instead of “Village Cleaners” so that people would know that they are his cars. He doesn’t want to change the structure of the sign, only replace the panels.
Mr. Daly asked if the area between the two parcels was dedicated right-of-way. The City Manager responded affirmatively.
Mr. Borkowski asked why the two lots would be considered the same piece of property as the dealership. The City Manager responded that, administratively looking at it, it is considered all one use. The ordinance allows one (1) freestanding sign per lot or premises. Mr. Keane stated that it could be argued that it is a separate premise, because it is separated by the road right-of-way. The City Manager stated that that is where the interpretation would come down.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Four
Mr. O’Callaghan asked if there are two lots separated by a road then, arguably, each lot could have a sign. The City Manager responded – if it were a separate special use permit. The City Manager stated that the variances they would need are: (1) more than one freestanding sign per premise, and (2) a variance from the allowable total square footage for freestanding signs.
Mr. Daly stated that, assuming that for discussion sake there are no issues related to the sign, then you go back to what they are requesting is in accordance with the ordinance – do they meet the requirements for a variance. He looked at the three requirements, which have to be met. The first being, are there difficulties or hardships that are exceptional to the property; maybe the platted road right-of-way qualifies for that. Number two, that the alleged hardships and practical difficulties 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; Mr. Daly felt that the request doesn’t meet this test. Test number three, that allowing the variance will result in substantial justice being done considering the public benefits intended to be secured, 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 the Chapter; Mr. Daly felt was also not met.
Mr. Keane stated that, as a representative of the Planning Commission, that the special use permit was granted as an extension of the original special use permit, but that, in his mind, this is a separate premise. Mr. Keane felt that Mr. Delehanty could not change the sign, because he is doing business under this original permit, or he could seek a separate special use permit for this site, thereby entitling him to an additional freestanding sign. However, any change in the signage requires it to conform to the requirements of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Daly stated that he had some concerns whether this property should be treated as two platted parcels with a road right-of-way between them. He felt that a legal opinion should be solicited. Mr. O’Callaghan asked how this being treated as separate parcels helps Mr. Delehanty. He felt that you could make the case that there is a platted right-of-way, then would be two separate stores. If this were the case, Mr. Daly felt that Delehanty’s had a much stronger case with the Planning Commission.
Mr. O’Callaghan asked the City Manager, if the Zoning Board of Appeals denies this variance request, could Delehanty’s come back and ask for an interpretation? The City Manager responded that, according to the ordinance, another application could not be resubmitted for one (1) year.
Mr. Delehanty stated that the parcel in question was owned by a separate corporation other than Delehanty Pontiac. Even though the variance application, as submitted, says Delehanty Pontiac, the parcel is separately owned.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Five
Variance – 1468 E. Pierson Road – Motion by Daly, seconded by Keane, to postpone action on the variance request for 1468 E. Pierson Road until a legal opinion is obtained from the City Attorney regarding whether the property in question is treated as one (1) lot, or more than one lot.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, 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: 8:22 p.m.
______________________________
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer