Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

March 15, 2010

 

 

A Regular Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Monday, March 15, 2010 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:                      Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer

 

Approval of Minutes - Motion by Keane, seconded by Martus, to approve the December 7, 2009 Regular Meeting minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as written.

 

Yea:     Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan

Nay:     None

Motion Carried.

 

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

 

No public comment.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

Variance – 200 S. Cherry - An application was submitted, which represented a request to modify the requirements of the Sign Ordinance by allowing the applicant to replace an existing sign within an existing sign frame.  Section 156.15.1 of the Sign Ordinance requires that any nonconforming sign shall either be eliminated or made to conform with the requirements of this Ordinance if such sign is to be altered in any way.  Therefore, maintaining the existing sign enclosure, with a new sign face, would require a variance of sixteen (16) square feet in area, three (3’) feet in height, and three (3’6”) feet six inches in setback from the nearest existing curb.

 

            A variance may be allowed by the Board of Appeals only in cases involving practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships when the evidence in the official record of the appeal supports all 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.

 

 

 

Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

March 15, 2010

 

Page Two

 

 

            (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 Chairperson opened the public hearing to the audience.  There was no public comment, and the Chairperson closed the public hearing to the public.

 

Rob Melancon, A & W Restaurant, 200 S. Cherry, stated that the variance is being requested because the sign face must be replaced. 

 

Mr. Keane stated that a memorandum from administration to the Planning Commission contained an item for consideration by the Planning Commission for a proposed amendment to the sign ordinance, specifically referencing Section 156.15.1, which deals with nonconforming existing signs.  Administration requested a verbiage change to that section of the sign ordinance to allow for some leniency in cases such as this, where the sign is not being changed in location or height, and only the faceplates are being changed to allow for a change in the name of the business.  No proposed verbiage has come before the Planning Commission at this time, but, with that taking some time and having to go to Council for approval, in following conversations with fellow Planning Commission members, it seemed that there was no reluctance to amend the ordinance to allow some flexibility in cases such as this. 

 

Mr. Daly said that he felt that this was a step in the right direction to deal with some of these problems.  He also stated that it was the Zoning Board of Appeals’ job to uphold the current ordinances, and not amend them.  He feels that the Planning Commission’s movement to change the ordinance is the way to go, but it doesn’t change the fact that the ordinance is what it is today while the Board considers it.  He questioned what the consequences would be if they approved the variance and then the City Council and the Planning Commission did not amend the ordinance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

March 15, 2010

 

Page Three

 

 

Variance – 200 S. Cherry – Motion by Daly, seconded by Keane, to table the variance request for a variance for 200 S. Cherry until such time that the Chairperson can discuss with the city manager what the city’s position would be vis-ŕ-vis this case and the proposed ordinance amendment that is being developed/considered by the Planning Commission.

 

Yea:     Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan

Nay:     None

Motion Carried.

 

Adjournment – Motion by Daly, seconded by O’Callaghan, to adjourn.

 

Yea:     Borkowski, Daly, Keane, Martus, O’Callaghan

Nay:     None

Motion Carried.

 

Adjourn:                      7:58 p.m.

 

 

 

______________________________

Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer