ME 2017-01_1904 N Heliotrope Resolution

Home Browse Search

size, scale, and "box -shape" of the Residence, while a standard three (3) foot wall would be incongruous with its Italian Renaissance architectural style. The Applicant echoed these sentiments at the hearing, explaining that given the Property's comer location the wall would enable use of the front yard in a safe and private manner not otherwise available. The Applicant's design consultant was also present at the hearing, and provided evidence as to the design and stylistic features considered in the proposal. The consultant testified that the wall height was necessary to maintain consistency with the scale of the Residence, and that its design mirrors and complements notable features of the Residence. D. Written Comments and Public Testimony Significant oral and written public comments were received in this matter, the majority of which were submitted by Floral Park residents. Most of these comments expressed opposition to the Application, but several supported it. Such opposition consisted of common themes, including concerns that the wall: will block views of the Residence from the public right-of-way; detract from its historical significance; diminish the beauty of the Floral Park neighborhood; create a "compound -like" look and feel; infringe upon the "park -like," "friendly," and "community" feel of Floral Park; reduce visibility for vehicles turning to and from Heliotrope Drive; be a target for graffiti; and cause a reduction in property values for the neighborhood. Most of these comments objected to the construction of any wall on the Property, and did not specifically address the added two (2) feet in wall height sought by the Application. There was an overriding concern that approving the Application would establish precedent for future proposals, ultimately diminishing the aesthetics, historical significance, and feel of Floral Park. Comments supporting the Application noted the uniqueness of the homes in Floral Park, which lack any unifying design or development style, and that the neighborhood currently includes several properties with fences, walls, and/or landscaping taller than three (3) feet. Supporters expressed that the wall's design was historically sensitive, complementary to the architecture and visual appeal of the Residence, and that a shorter wall would detract from the Residence's styling. Commenters also noted that the Property is a corner lot and therefore is more exposed than others in the neighborhood, and that new architectural features have been added to other homes in the area over the years with success. E. Issues Regarding Notice The Zoning Administrator notes that several commenters expressed concern with the sufficiency of the public hearing notice and the time of the hearing. As to the former, the staff report describes the notice provided for the public hearing, and the Zoning Administrator concludes such notice complied with — and in fact exceeded — Code requirements. Concerning the date and time of the hearing, the hearing was held on a Wednesday at 10:30 a.m., consistent with the regular meeting schedule for zoning administrator matters. Individuals unable to physically attend the hearing were free to submit written comments, and many did so.