Minutes
A Special Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Monday, August 25, 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
Patrick O’Callaghan
Absent: David R. Martus
Others Present: Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer
Edward G. Henneke, City Attorney
MEETING
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
No public comment.
Approval of Minutes - Motion by Daly, seconded by Keane, to approve the July 21, 2008 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals as written.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Variance
–
Zoning Ordinance
Section 153.308 defines zoning type B3, Heavy Business Zone, as the area that
encompasses the properties in question along
Minutes
Page Two
Counsel’s written opinion demonstrates a) the property is a separate parcel, and b) a variance, as defined in the ordinance, would be inappropriate because “A use variance authorizes the property owner to establish a use of land that is otherwise prohibited in that zoning district.” That use of land, the sale of automobiles, is not prohibited in the B3 zoning, therefore, a variance is not required. It is clearly not the case for the property in question, and, furthermore, the property in question, in Counsel’s description, Parcel A, was granted a special use permit for the display of vehicles for sale by the Planning Commission on November 5, 2007.
Given those premises, the properties in question are, in fact, separate and distinct, and are divided by a platted, albeit unused roadway, and the properties are owned by a separate corporation or holding company who not coincidentally share an interest in the principle business, which is the retail sale of new and used vehicles, and the Planning Commission granted a special use permit to allow them to display vehicles for sale on the property, as it is correctly zoned B3, and the Zoning Board of Appeals is granted the authority to interpret the provisions of the ordinance in Section 153.1109, so as to carry out the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Keane suggested that the Board allow an amendment to the special use permit and recommend to administration, and/or the Planning Commission, to enter the amendment into record allowing the appellant to install the proposed sign in place of the existing sign for the defunct dry cleaning business, but only so far as the new sign conforms with the size, height, lighting and other restrictions stated in the zoning ordinance, and, as a result of those facts stated, he believes that the three requirements for application for variance are no longer relevant.
Mr. Daly stated that, as he understands it, the parcels are, in fact, separate; they have separate ownership, and each parcel is, in fact, entitled to a sign in accordance with the ordinance, as long as the sign conforms with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Keane stated that that almost nails it. There is a clause in the sign ordinance that speaks of adjacency. If these parcels were immediately adjacent to the primary dealership property, it would not qualify for a sign - it would be one use across multiple parcels. Because there is a dedicated road right-of-way separating the parcels then, in his opinion, the parcel qualifies.
Mr. Daly questioned whether there was any action required of the Zoning Board. Mr. Keane stated, only to recommend to the Planning Commission and administration to allow the original special use permit to be amended.
Minutes
Page Three
Variance –
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjournment – Motion by Borkowski, seconded by Daly, to adjourn.
Yea: Borkowski, Daly, Keane, O’Callaghan
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 7:50 p.m.
______________________________
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer