Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on December 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. President Joe Manchin, Jr. called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Absent President Joe Manchin, Jr. Vice President John Six Board Member Deasy Board Member Michael Ragan Board Member Aron Majic City Staff Present City Manager, Robin Gomez Planning Dept. Secretary, Maria Cipolla APPROVAL OF MINUTES President Manchin asked for a motion to approve the minutes from November 3, 2016. Board Member Majic motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Maria Cipolla: I have a letter from our City Planner, Sandra Scaffidi explaining her absence here tonight. It read as follows: Board members, I want to apologize for not being in attendance tonight as I had an unexpected family event. I wanted to thank you for your continued dedication to the City of Fairmont. I appreciate that you take time out of your schedules to help develop the future of this City. I also want to remind you that because you sit on this Board, you may have applicants approach you from time to time asking questions or who may wish to prejudice your opinion one way or another on a particular project. I ask that if this was to happen, please ask the applicant to direct their questions to the Planning Department. One of the great benefits of this commission is that it is made up of citizen residents and while I understand we live in a small town and sometimes paths cross with applicants, we need to ensure that the Board remains neutral and provides an unprejudiced opinion regarding potential projects and hearings. Also, you may have received an email from me through Survey Monkey. This is our last ditch effort to gain opinions from our stakeholders for the Comprehensive Plan. I ask that you please take the time to answer honestly. I do value your opinions. Again, thank you for a great year of service. I look forward to working with you all in 2017! Happy Holidays! Sandra Page 1 of 11  PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR December 1, 2016 1. Mud Mason, LLC is requesting a conditional permit pursuant to use Fairmont City Code 3.1.5.D to provide for an existing building to be reused for automobile repair, sales and service (Car Wash). The property is located at 1224 Country Club Road in a Main Corridor Commercial zoning district. The property consists of Marion County Tax Parcel 03-10-1. President Manchin: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this request? Kenton Brand: I am the owner of Mud Mason, LLC. All we are trying to do is put a car wash back where there was one before. President Manchin: It there anyone here to speak against this proposal? There were none. President Manchin: Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Board Member Six motioned to close the public hearing. Board Member Majic seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 President Manchin asked for the staff report. Maria Cipolla read Sandra Scaffidi’ staff report: There is an existing structure that housed a defunct carwash currently on the location. For a conditional use permit, the applicant must demonstrate that they meet all of the general requirements in Section 4.16 as well as Section 4.3.2 which indicates the conditions that the automotive repair, sales, and service businesses in the Main Corridor Commercial district must be subject to. My suggestion is to request the applicant identify the driveway access to the building through paint striping on the parking lot to provide safe, controlled vehicular access to the site to meet the requirement of City Code 4.3.2.G regarding controlled driveway access. I recommend the Board approve the conditional use permit for this site. No questions, comments, or discussion needed by the Board. President Manchin asked for a motion Board Member Deasy motioned to approve the request. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 2. Tahoe Management Five, LLC is requesting a variance from Fairmont City Code 4.11.1 regarding the hours of operation for a convenience store/ automobile fueling station which currently are limited to 6am to 11pm. The applicant wishes to expand the hours of operation from 6am to 12am on Sunday, 5am to 12am Monday through Wednesday, 5am to 2am Thursday and Friday and from 6am to 2am on Saturday. The property is located at 301 Locust Avenue in a Main Corridor Commercial zoning district. The property consists of Marion County Tax Map 27, Parcels 49 and 50. President Manchin: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this variance request? Danny Bainbridge: We have talked with a lot of the folks that are major employers at Fairmont Regional Medical Center and Fairmont State University. Their employees will be coming in at early hours for procedures as well as the people having the procedures. We have letters of request asking us to do this for them. It would help several hundred people. The facility and the hours of operation has been designed to have a well-lit atmosphere. It is the new style Exxon facility. The new facility is going to be Westside Market. It is going to be more than just a coffee stop. It is going to be a Page 2 of 11 convenient store. It will be convenient to the residents in that area for the apartments and townhouse in that area. In addition, we will be bringing it to an up-scale level of security. We have already contacted Marion County Police Reserves. We have tentatively put them on notice that we want to utilize their services during evening and nighttime hours. They have agreed to this. There will be a presence there of the Marion County Police Reserve to make sure the people feel safe and secure whether they are walking on the street in that area or using the facilities in the evening during afterhours. We want them to have a feeling that they are protected regardless. That is why Tahoe Management took the extra step of actually contacting the Police Reserve. We are going to have an arrangement with them that one or more of their gentlemen will be onsite 7 days a week. This is an improvement of the area. We people want to feel comfortable in a well-lit, well-controlled, well-management, and well-staffed facility. That is the reason for the changes and the improvements to the way they are going to do their operation. As well as having the services to the people when they need it; when they want it. We have talked to the folks in the area. Some of them have changed their minds as to what they thought the facility was going to be like; a dark area, not a lot well taken care of. The individuals that we talked to indicated that they are now in favor of the facility in the manner that we have designed at this point. That is a good thing. Getting the community involved and getting back to knocking on the doors of people who live there; letting them feel comfortable that we are going to take care of them as well. We have done that. Maria Cipolla: The letters of support are in your packets from the hospital and Fairmont State University. President Manchin: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this request? There were none. President Manchin: Is there anyone here to speak against this request? James Russell: I live on Watson Avenue. I live directly behind the area for the new Mart in the large stone house. I am an attorney in Morgantown. I am familiar with how the Board of Zoning Appeals works. I understand the burden that has been placed upon the applicant. As I calculate, math is not the best, I’m a lawyer not a mathematician, they are asking for approximately 21 hours of variance in the week. They already have 117 hours of allowed opening time. This represents 15 to 18% increase. I like the plans the way they were proposed. I was in full support of the way the market was designed; the lighting, the building, the way it was proposed to the committee. But, the amount of hours they are asking for seems to be only marginally related to the local neighborhood. You are talking about opening four extra hours on the busiest party nights on the week. Opening until 2:00 a.m. seems to have less to do with the college and the hospital than it does to do with beer traffic. That concerns me. I like the security they are talking about. I like the lighting they are talking about. But we already in the Watson Avenue area, now that we have had a shooting in recent times, we already have an element that we do not need in that area. I have people walking from the current location, on the opposite side of Locust Avenue, into my neighborhood doing drug deals in front of my house. I don’t need that. I don’t need the extra traffic from that at 2:00 a.m. three or four days a week. As I understand it, the way the Planning Commission is set up and Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there were specific findings made by the City Council for this zoning district for the hours operation allowed. I don’t see how this is going to further that. This location is about five blocks from the hospital and the university. It is only marginally closer than the Go Mart on Fairmont Avenue and the convenience stores on Country Club Road. I don’t see how this is going to be the one that is going to service better for the university. I understand they support this project. My house backs the new building. All of the landscaping is gone. I am going to be looking at it now with almost no barrier. The fact that the lighting is supposed to be down is the only saving grace for me. If there is extra security, I will welcome that. That will be a great help in the area. But around my house, as many of you probably know, are rental units. There are about four of us in this neighborhood that are actual residential owners. The rest of them are all rental units. We already have a lot of foot traffic around this area with college students and alike party every Thursday through Sunday. We really don’t need any more. It is going to drive down the value of those properties or force those people into rental status. I would hate to see that happen. I have a house built in 1910. It has a lot of historical woodwork and factors. I would hate to see it devalued any more. It is the last remnant of what was the old coal barons in that neighborhood. I would like to see it remain a residential house. I think asking for 21 extra hours in a week is excessive. Surely, they can limit it to less than that. Page 3 of 11 President Manchin: Is there anyone else to speak against this request? Maria Cipolla: I received a phone today from one of the local residents, Mr. Tom Reese. He would like the following statement read on the record. President Manchin: Mr. Reese was unable to attend the meeting but took the time to call the Planning Department and I will read what he said to Maria Cipolla: Dear Board Members, I spoke with Mr. Tom Reese from Watson Avenue. He told me he wasn’t sure if he could make tonight’s meeting but he wants his opinion of the request for extended hours on record. He told me he gets up at 5:00 a.m. every morning so he does not have a problem with them opening at 5:00 a.m. He did request that we only allow them to be open until midnight Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday at the latest. Mr. Reese said the pumps will be located under his bedroom window and many people will come through late at night with their car radio turned up as they pump their gas. Please take this situation under consideration when you make your decision on this request tonight. Tom Reese. With that, if there are no other individuals here to speak for or against, I will entertain a motion to close the discussion to the public. Board Member Majic motion to close the public hearing Board Member Six seconded the motion Motion carried 5-0 President Manchin: Is there a staff report? Maria Cipolla: The applicant’s previous petition before the Board of Zoning Appeals to extend the hours of operation were denied. My concerns are related to the safety and security of the convenience store. The convenience store is located in a residential area, more so than other recently approved applications. Although lighting is an added security feature, it must not interfere with the quality of life of the residents and existing businesses (some of which include adult residential facilities). The applicants are including a fence along the rear yard to provide some measure of privacy to the residents. I recommend a compromise and permit hours of operation to be 5:00 a.m. ‘til midnight. President Manchin: Right now it is zoned 6:00 a.m. till 11:00 p.m.? Maria Cipolla: Yes. President Manchin: There are no convenient stores that close at 11:00 p.m. That is not today’s society. How are the Go Mart and soon-to-be Sheetz 24 hours? There is a residential area right there. What is the current zoning for those establishments? Maria Cipolla: They are Main Corridor Commercial, as well. President Manchin: So it is 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They had to get a variance too? Maria Cipolla: Yes. Robin Gomez: You just have to take into account the area. There is Neighborhood Mixed Use there and a little more of a setback on Fairmont Avenue. The McDonald’s was the first one that was granted the 24 hours. Directly behind them is the Fairmont Credit Union. The closest resident to them is a little further away then what is before you tonight. The same with the Sheetz. The typography is a little bit different. The Dunkin Donuts is a smaller structure. There is no Page 4 of 11 sales of beer or wine. There is no pumping of gas. It is just people going through the drive-thru. You have to take into account the usage of the business. That is part of the City’s concern with allowing to be open till 2:00 a.m. In Ms. Scaffidi’ report, it is for seven days a week; to be open from 5:00 a.m. till midnight. Danny Bainbridge: Can I ask a question? President Manchin: Do I have a motion to reopen the public hearing Board Member Six motion to reopen the public hearing. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 President Manchin: You have five minutes. Danny Bainbridge: I just wanted to request that you reread Mr. Reese’s recommendation. President Manchin reread Mr. Reese’s recommendation. Danny Bainbridge: We would not have an objection and agree to Mr. Reese’s recommendation. I think it is a good compromise. I think it is fair and just. As you said, in today’s market, it is 5 a.m. till 1 a.m. on two nights and midnight on the rest. It works. I don’t see a problem with this and agreeing to so we can try to get along with our neighbors. President Manchin: I know compromise is such unpopular word nowadays but I love to see when people are actually talking to each other. It is very refreshing in today’s atmosphere. Maria Cipolla: Can we ask Mr. Russell’s opinion on record to this comprise. It would nice to see if he agrees. President Manchin: Mr. Russell, would you mind coming forward about the letter I just read and them agreeing to Mr. Reese. James Russell: That letter is consistent with conversations I have had with Mr. Reese as well. I am not opposed to them opening up to service the hospital and college as well. My only concern is I have a six month old granddaughter that keeps me open at night already. I would like to sleep some nights. My bedroom window looks down on this location. I think this is a fair compromise. I don’t want to prevent them from getting the prime business at midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. I understand that is prime business times on the weekends, but I prefer not to have it too late. I think 2:00 a.m. is getting us closer to being like Morgantown which I don’t think is what we want. Anyway, I am in favor of what Mr. Reese has proposed as a compromised. President Manchin: Thank you, sir. I will entertain a motion to close it to the public. Board Member Majic motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 Board Members discussed the new compromise. President Manchin read Police Chief, Steve Shines’ agency comment on this request. Police Chief, Steve Shines comment read: There is a criminal element that tends to congregate near the store for convenience that could hamper police operations. However, management has been cooperative with us regarding these investigations. An upgraded security system, which employees not just management, could review and allow us to photograph images from, could offset this criminal element. Page 5 of 11 President Manchin: Do I have a motion for this variance request? Board Member Majic: I move to allow they have Sunday through Thursday 5:00 a.m. to midnight and Fridays and Saturday from 5:00 a.m. till 1:00 a.m. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 3. Doughnut Joe’s LLC is requesting a variance from Fairmont City Code 4.31 which states that the permitted hours of operation for a restaurant is from 6am to 1am. The applicant wishes to expand their hours of operation to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The property is located at 1005 Fairmont Avenue in a Main Corridor Commercial zoning district. The property consists of Marion County Tax Map 15, part of parcel 7, part of parcel 8, and parcel 9. President Manchin: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this variance request? Joe DeFazio, Jr.: The reason I have applied for the variance is to compete with the McDonald’s and the coming Sheetz’s late night business. I have discussed my plans with the neighbor directly behind us. The plan is to have the lobby open from 5:00 a.m. till 11:00 p.m. and have the drive-thru open from 11:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. The lights are contained entirely on the property. They will not be shining down on the houses. The speaker tower has been placed on the Fairmont side of the building so it won’t be too loud for the neighbors. Board Member Majic: Do you have any intension of building a privacy wall? Joe DeFazio, Jr.: No, I do not. President Manchin: Is there anyone here to speak against this variance request? There were none. President Manchin: Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Board Member Six: I motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 President Manchin asked for the staff report. Maria Cipolla: It is my recommendation that the variance for 24 hour operation be granted with the condition that the applicant install a 6 foot tall privacy fence between the residential neighbors to the northwest (not affecting the existing hedge) and ensure that their lighting plan follows the standards in the City Code. President Manchin: Did this come strictly from the City Planner or did neighbors contact her requesting a fence? Maria Cipolla: We have not had any requests, complaints, or concerns, from the neighbors at all. President Manchin: Is that something down the road after you have been open 3-6 months, you get a couple of calls saying the lighting is killing us, would that be something that you would look into [the fencing]? Because she is not saying erect a fence across the whole property. She is just saying where there is an opening, in the Northwest end of the property, if that becomes an issue, a six foot privacy fence could fix it. Joe DeFazio, Jr.: Yes, if that is an issue I could probably do that. Robin Gomez: The report stated a fence not a wall. President Manchin: A wooden fence. Page 6 of 11 Robin Gomez: As was stated on an earlier item, the staff report stated that the business is located in a Main Corridor Commercial district where restaurants are a use permitted by right. There is currently a 24 hour drive-thru diagonally across the street from them. Sometime in 2017, there will be a Sheetz directly across the street from them will be a 24 hour use as well. President Manchin: With that, I will entertain a motion for this variance request. Board Member Deasy: make a motion to grant the variance request as stated. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 DISPOSITION OF PAST CASES 1. Joe Pitrolo is requesting a variance from the Fairmont City Code Section 4.25.3.B (Multi-Family Residences; Townhouses; Duplexes) to permit an existing building to transform into a duplex with the parking located in the front yard of the building instead of in the side or rear yard; and from Section 4.9.4 (Minimum Lot Area for Multiple Family Residences) which requires the minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling to include 7,000 square feet while the current parcel is 5,357 square feet. The subject property is located at 1536 Pennsylvania Avenue and is located in a Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. The property consists of Marion County Tax Parcel 03-43-81. President Manchin: This item was tabled at our last meeting on November 3, 2016. Is there anyone here to speak in favor this request? Joe Pitrolo: I have some handouts here. One is my Occupancy Certificate for the upper apartment. I also have some pictures of the parking lot with cars parked and one showing a truck parked in the back down below. One of the objections last time brought up by Sandy was whether there is adequate parking. I measured the parking lot to check it. By my estimation, I have two parking spots on one side of the lot and two parking spot on the other side. In addition, I showed the truck in the back parked off the main road that we have a right-of-way to. That is where my worker has been parking primarily. That is where we could have an extra parking spot for the back. When I talk to the neighbors, it seem like the biggest issue is the past landlord did a horrible job. She had a person move in there for one month and then left the state. She never check on them. They had ten animals in there. The place was condemned. She never had an occupancy certificate. I have one. I have a renter upstairs. I haven’t had any problems. From a safety stand point, parking is adequate. The apartment up top is 937 square feet that is finished. The basement is 937 square feet. I will not be changing the structure or the character of the property at all. I am just making it more valuable by completing the basement. It obviously will make the price of property more valuable and hopefully increase the value of the properties around it. The biggest concern is having another apartment in the basement is the parking and a lot of people around. Typically, with two small apartments on top of each other, you will have a couple and an elderly-single lady. All the traffic and property is on Route 19. We are not going into the neighborhood or using private driveways. We will be using the front. I can put one parking space in the back for a tenant. I’m changing the character of the neighborhood. I’m not bringing in tons of people. I’m being prudent. Ryan Majic: How many bedrooms is your upstairs apartment? Joe Pitrolo: Two bedrooms, a living room, and a kitchen. Maria Cipolla: Are you requesting to do the exact same thing down below [in the lower apartment]? Joe Pitrolo: Pretty much. The basement will be one bedroom and maybe one small bedroom. The one part of the apartment as a very low ceiling so I would just put a kitchen there. President Manchin: Is there anyone here to speak against this request? Page 7 of 11 Robert Karl: I am going to keep my comments short. You have my comments on the record from the last meeting. I live directly behind the property. Our home is worth approximately $250,000.00 sitting there. It dropped down in value when we were thinking of selling due to past problems with the rental property. We have no problem with a one unit apartment without backing onto the street. It is already there. We can’t do anything about it. Putting in an apartment downstairs will make it into a three-ringed circus. We do not want that because of past problems. It does not work. It does not fit the code. President Manchin: Is there anyone else here to speak against this request? Joe Urse: I live right next door. Basically, with the layout of the land, I just don’t see where there is enough room to have an apartment downstairs. I own the driveway that goes through. I know you can’t control what other people are going to do; pulling in your private drive; pulling up to your house. I just that is not going to work. If I have to, I’ll put a private drive sign up in my driveway. I don’t have a problem with a single-family unit with the rental up top. I don’t feel the property is big enough to support an upstairs and a downstairs apartment. There is no yard with it. John Six: I have a question for you, Mr. Urse, if you don’t mind. Your driveway is the one that goes behind the building. Joe Urse: Yes. John Six: Do you know if there is any right-of-way on that driveway to access the back of this building? Joe Urse: At the last meeting I wasn’t sure if I owned it. But the City Manager said it was a private drive. I haven’t checked into it myself. Robin Gomez: It is Mr. Urse’s property. Therefore, there is no right-of-way to allow access unless Mr. Urse chooses to allow the access to the adjacent property. So the adjacent property from the applicant does not have legal access on the back of the property on off Rock Dr. unless Mr. Urse was to grant that. Joe Pitrolo: First off, let me say, the parking lot in the front is 60x28. It is a huge parking lot. In fact, you can pull in the parking lot, turn around, and back your car in. The parking spot where the truck is parked, you can get to it from Rock Dr. You don’t have to go on his driveway. President Manchin: Was the basement ever an apartment? Joe Pitrolo: It was just storage. President Manchin: O.K. So it has never been an apartment. You had the issues with the upper unit. John Six: If this request was approved, how do you plan for the person to access that basement? Joe Pitrolo: They would have to walk around or park were the truck in the picture is parked. I could put a single pad there. They could park I the front and just walk twenty feet around the back. The entrance to the back apartment is in the back. I have a lot of yard space. Robin Gomez: To answer your question, currently the way the lot is laid out, any vehicular traffic would have to park in the front of the property and walk around the side. In order for Mr. Pitrolo to install parking space, he would have to apply for the permit to install a paved driveway off of Rock Dr. Because Rock Drive is very narrow, there is no parking allowed on the street, I believe. Page 8 of 11 Joe Pitrolo: The other issue, the square footage has to be 7,000 square feet is an arbitrary number. I ‘m not putting in an addition. I can go ahead and finish the basement anyway and instead of making it a two-bedroom house, I can make it a five bedroom house. I can rent it out to ten people. I can do that. Aron Majic: But you couldn’t. You have to have a parking space for each bedroom. Joe Pitrolo: There are four spaces, so you could have four bedrooms. There is probably room for at least six spaces. It used to be an office building. My intention is to improve the property and increase the value. If the property value goes up, it goes up for the neighbors. I think everything is being judged on this past person. She was a horrific landlord. President Manchin: Do you own other rental properties? I’m just curious because with this property a lot of red flag would have gone up before I purchased it. I would have checked with the City and asked them questions. This is just me but I may have just walked away from it since I couldn’t really do what I want to do. When we get to Sandra’s staff report this time, she is coming at you harder. She is talking about ceiling height now and a whole array; the parking lot out front with the State right-of-way off the main road. You still have neighbors who are not on board. I have always taken that very seriously. We have to listen and make the best decision we can based on the facts given to us but listening to the constituents as well. I am just telling you. Joe Pitrolo: It is a good investment. I didn’t pay a lot for it. It does fine for me the way it is. I would just like to expand. Sandra has never been inside [to know the ceiling height]. Maria Cipolla: Code Enforcement has been inside. Joe Pitrolo: They told us we would have to put the kitchen there [where the low ceiling is] because of the ceiling height. These are not things that should apply to a variance. Maybe they should apply to building code. They are going to come and tell me about the ceiling height. I would just have to adjust it. That is not something that can’t be done. We are talking about the variance. Is it safe number one? My contention is that the adequate parking is safe. You can put at least four cars there. Which is one per room. Does it change or alter the neighborhood? My contention is ‘no, it doesn’t because the all the cars and activity is on Route 19. They won’t be going into their neighborhood. Now they may have maybe a resident that lives below. I’m not adding another duplex right beside it. I am just finishing out the existing structure. I got an inspection and got it approved. The person before me did not do that. Gia Deasy: I live around rentals. I do applaud the fact that you had it inspected. I don’t think that is the issue. I think you are following those rules and it is really appreciated. The issue still is, I don’t think anyone on this Board is saying that you are not a good landlord or are not improving the property, the issue is still boils down to the frontage for parking and the square footage of the building. That is where our hands are kind of tied. Joe Pitrolo: So you are saying there is not enough parking? President Manchin: And the 7,000 square feet. You are about 1600 square feet short of that as well. Joe Pitrolo: That 7,000 is an arbitrary number. That is why you get a variance. I am just basically finishing out the basement. As far as the footage, you need a 9x18 space. I have 59x30 area. Robin Gomez: It is less than that. That is including part of the right-of-way that is not his property. Maria Cipolla: Plus, you can’t back out onto the road. Robin Gomez: You have them backing out onto US Route 19. Aron Majic: Doesn’t Article 4.25.2.3.b require the parking be located in the side or rear of the property? Page 9 of 11 Robin Gomez: Correct but, this does not have a side or rear parking. That is part of the variance. He can have three parking spaces in the front according to the dimension that Sandra measured and is stated in her report. He does have to comply with the parking requirements. Joe Pitrolo: I can do a one bedroom apartment in the basement and a two bedroom upstairs. I am trying to improve the property; improve the neighborhood. I don’t know why there is resistance. They are basing everything on the last lady who was crazy. You say three space. Can you show me where they are at? Robin Gomez: We are just basing it on the square footage. It is your property excluding the right-of-way. That is how it is determined. President Manchin: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Majic motioned to close. Board Member Six seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 President Manchin asked for Sandra Scaffidi’s staff report. Maria Cipolla: I have reevaluated the request for a variance to permit a duplex at 1536 Pennsylvania Avenue. We took measurements of the property as requested by the Board. I remain steadfast in my opinion that the parcel does not adequately provide the available space necessary in a duplex to allow tenants to safely and securely live in this building as it is currently designed and situated on the parcel. I would, however, be willing to reconsider the matter if Mr. Pitrolo provided drawings from a qualified, licensed, architect illustrating how the parking situation could be resolved while meeting our code for parking, landscaping, ROW, and setbacks. I believe the applicant will be required to have stamped drawings from the licensed contractors for the rehabilitation of the building because it is a commercial property. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show how his project will meet our codes. It is not the City’s responsibility to design parking lots. Should Mr. Pitrolo provide updated drawings, I welcome him to reapply for this variance. Based on the information we have in hand, I recommend denying the current variance request to allow this property to serve as a duplex. I will recommend granting the variance (from City Code section 4.25.3.B) to allow parking in the front of the dwelling for the current 2 bedroom unit once the applicant provides an adequate site design. This option does not negate the obligation of the owner to meet all the current requirements as mandated by our code. The applicant must provide the Planning Department a drawing of the parking lot design prior to construction to receive approval. The applicant may need to apply for additional variances including City Code Section 5.4.1.D which limits the front yard parking to no more than 40% of the front yard. Joe Pitrolo: Can you explain to me how the 40% rule works? Maria Cipolla: Forty percent of your front yard needs to be yard, not paved, front property. Joe Pitrolo: So if my parking lot is more than 40%, I’ll have to put grass on it? Maria Cipolla: Yes, sir. That is why you would have to apply for a variance if you need more than that. That is why she [Sandra Scaffidi] is saying there is three parking spaces. Joe Pitrolo: I can leave some of it open and just not park there. Maria Cipolla: It needs to be grass. Joe Pitrolo: It was approved for an occupancy certificate. I think my parking lot is more than 40% the way it is now. Page 10 of 11 Maria Cipolla: It is. President Manchin: Please always know that there is recourse after this. You can always take it to the Circuit Judge and plea your case. President Manchin: I will entertain any motion at this point. Board Member Deasy: I think it is so troublesome to try and turn commercial property into residential property. That is the struggle. Commercial is the original intent of that property. Board Member Majic: Due to the fact that he cannot meet either of the required items such as, the square footage and the parking, I make a motion to deny the request as submitted. Board Member Deasy seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT President Manchin asks for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Six motion to adjourn. Board Member Ragan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Page 11 of 11