Item 34 - Public Hearing - Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Construction of a 23’-4” Tall Accessory Building (2221 N Heliotrope Drive)

Home Browse Search

the surrounding neighborhood before the Planning Commission hears this matter. If the Commission goes forward tonight, I would regretfully oppose the CUP because the record seems to be materially incomplete. As a result, there is possibly significantly inaccurate information in the Planning Department findings, specifically finding no. 5, on which you must base your decision. Please note that I am not alleging any deliberate wrongdoing either by the Owner/Applicants or by the Planning Department. I appreciate the request for height has been reduced to just over 21 feet. I have no objection to the immediate construction of a pavilion of 15 feet height. Here is my objection. The Planning Department has made the following finding: "5. The pavilion shall remain a structure for private use and enjoyment by the private property owners, thereby preserving the community character. The pavilion shall not be designed or be intended for public access or members of the general public." First, I have heard, but have not verified, that the property owners/applicants now reside primarily in West Floral Park rather than at 2221 North Heliotrope. Further, I have heard, but have not verified, that the 2221 North Heliotrope Drive property will be used primarily as a community resource and cultural center. Finally, there are frequently large numbers of visitors on the property who may be using the pavilion. During past years. the owners have hosted several events inviting large groups of people to the premises just as many neighbors on our street have done. Of course, even assuming any or all of these things are true, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the property in this way. Whether or not the owners live on this property and whether or not they use their property as a community gathering place should not be dispositive to their application. The owners can live on or off this property or allow anyone else to live on this property. This is their property to use or not use as they see fit. And the oversize pavilion may be a great idea. However, if any of these things are true, then the Planning Department is probably wrong when it states in finding 5 that "the use of the pavilion will be very limited and therefore will preserve the community character. " (("t)he pavilion shall remain a structure for private use and enjoyment by the private property owners, thereby preserving the community character. The pavilion shall not be designed or be intended for public access or members of the general public.") Rather, it seems more likely that the use of the pavilion may be very extensive and therefore could have a significant, but as yet unevaluated impact on the "community character." While the extent of likely use of the pavilion may fall short of actual "public access and use," it does appear it could likely have significantly more use by more visitors at 2221 than it would in many other single family residences in the neighborhood. (Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with this or think it is my business.) However, I also don't think that the likely amount of intended use of the oversize pavilion is what a reasonable person would consider simply continued "private quiet enjoyment by the current owners" as presented by the Planning Department. Rather, it's been requested by the current owners, who may no longer reside primarily in this property, for use not only by themselves but also by a multitude of students and/or other visitors to the property as part of the property's possible intended use as a (non)residential community cultural center. Assuming the owners will be inviting many visitors to the property who will be using the pavilion frequently, a large pavilion will be needed. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this proposed use. It just does not sound anything like the proposed limited use that the Planning Department has described in its finding of fact 5. In fact, frequent use by many people provides a plausible explanation for why such a large structure was requested.... when there is little other information justifying this variance request in the record. Although it is not necessary to justify the request for variance as long as there is no negative impact on the community, in this case, if there is an artistic, religious, spiritual, logistical, or cultural reason for the 3