Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS This meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held April 21st, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Absent President Shultz Board Member Knapp Board Member Manchin Board Member Majic City Staff Present Director of Planning- Shae Strait Staff Assistant, Kirstin Poluck President Shultz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. President Schultz also took time to remind everyone that we are still needed new members to be added to the BZA Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 4th, 2021 President Shultz asked for everyone to read of the previous months minutes and look for corrections or additions. With no corrections or additions indicated, a motion was made by Board Member Manchin to approve the minutes. Board Member Majic seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR April 20th, 2022 Steven Six, of 118 May St, is requesting a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback for the principal home from 8 feet down to 5 feet along the northern property line to build an addition onto a single-family home. The property is zoned General Residential. The property is identified as Tax District 5, Map 1, Parcel 165. President Shultz asked if anyone was here to speak on behalf of the request. Mr. Six was present to speak on behalf of the request. He stated that he would like to add a half bathroom onto the house. Currently, they only have one restroom for the 4 people who are living in the home. The added restroom would not only benefit the occupants of the home in the way of convenience but Mr. Six also stated that he himself has some health issues that would benefit from the addition. The location of the addition would be on an existing stoop off of the laundry room where there is already an existing door. He stated he has a stone house and that cutting through that to add an addition would be costly and a considerable amount of work. He does not want to change the footprint of the house and with the addition to his suggested location it would not. Board Member Manchin asked if Mr. Six had already started the project? Mr. Six stated that he had started, but had only replaced the concrete on the stoop due to it beginning to sag. He removed the old stoop and put a new one in during the same time that he was redoing his side walk as it was more cost effective. There is plumbing that was put in place if the variance was approved so he would not have to bust up the new concrete to place it. However, if the variance was denied he could cut off the pipes and cover it up, no problem. Mr. Six also stated that the sewer line in question in the back yard is a city manhole. The neighbor also has a manhole in their yard. Mr. Six stated that his sewer line will connect to the closest line possible and the main sewer line that goes to the manhole. Mr. Six claimed that the utilities’ location in his yard were different from what staff had received from the utility department. Mr. Six presented the board with a photo of the stake in the corner of his yard from the survey. It was located 4 feet from the property line to the structure. Board Member Knapp wanted to know what was preventing Mr. Six from building the addition in the rear of the house. Mr. Six stated that the central air is in the back of the house along with the deck. Also, due to the house being stone it makes renovations much harder. This side door is already existing so it would be the easiest option. Mrs. Six also spoke on how she thought it would benefit them in the long run, but that the stone on the house does cause for issue with updates, so the addition to the side would be the best/ easiest option. President Schultz asked if there was anyone present against the request, there was no one. Board Member Majic motioned to close the public hearing; Board Member Knapp seconded the motion. Staff stated that the agency comment forms that were submitted to the planning department stated that the only substantial comment was from waste water and that was regarding how close this encroachment came to their lines. After our review the encroachment it would be approximately 12-15 feet from the stormwater line which does reside under the rear yard of 113 Fairfax Street. We received an email right before this meeting from the acting engineer Mr. Foley that is would not negatively affect the waste water line. The utility department did provide staff with a utility map for this area, it is different from Mr. Six’s understanding of the underground utilities. Staff spent a significant amount of time verifying the setbacks to the addition additions. We do regulate stoops, decks and porches differently than interior rooms. We want to make sure that homes have ingress and egress. We even have special rules for stoops so they can get closer to the property lines. We want to make sure people have good access in and out of their homes. An interior space like this gets regulated the same as any other interior space. In this district there is 8 feet. Mr. Six believes the steel rode that is in the corner near his property and the assumed property line that the addition will be 4 feet from the property line. We do not have a plat showing the exterior walls of the structure. Staff did thoroughly review the records and we could not find anything to clarify this for us. When staff looked at the adjacent property records, the county parcel record, and the subdivision records it indicated that the majority of the buses are located on 1113 Fairfax Street. We do not have a plat from a licensed surveyor so this we would be plus or minus one foot. However, with that the addition/ interior room would be somewhere from 1 foot or a few inches from the property line. Staff does not believe this meet a unique circumstance for the variance. Staff recommends denying the variance. If we were to approve this is could possibly set the precedents to other residents for a 1- foot setback. Board Member Majic asked if the petitioner had a current survey. They did not. Board Member Manchin stated that an approval would set a precedent for other residents. He does sympathize with Mr. Six but that the logical place for the addition is the back yard. President Schultz stated that about the agency report from the Fairmont Fire Department and it stated that the addition not hinder the operations of the department as long as an adjacent structure is not 10 feet from the proposed addition. Now we would have to tell the neighbors that even if it meets their side yard setbacks, we can’t allow them to do it because of how close it is to their property line. Board Member Knapp stated that the 5 ft setback is already shot due to the neighbors above ground pool. He doesn’t believe the addition will hinder the public. It would also help improve the quality of life of the petitioner, along with improving the community. And lastly the neighbor’s fence is encroaching on the property. Board Member Manchin stated that all members on this board are volunteers and if we would approve this it would essentially open a pandoras box. We have to think of what will happen down the road if we approve things like this situation. Planning Director Strait stated that he wanted to have everything so we did not have to recommend a denial. Unless the board finds evidence as to why this is a unique situation to the property in order to approve the requested variance. The county’s map is not accurate. We could consider 3 feet from the property line, but we cannot consider only one foot. Also, once there was a roof overhang that would be a definite issue. Board Member Manchin made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Board Member Knapp seconded the motion. Mrs. Six then showed a photo of the current stoop to the board members. She stated that the stoop is 4 feet from the bushes showing a measuring tap with the distance. Board Member Manchin stated that in the request you are going down from 8 feet down to 5 however, today you are showing 4 feet. Board Member Majic asked again if they had a current survey, Mr. Six stated that he had a survey done several years prior when he worked at Thrasher but they didn’t have to with them today. Board Member Manchin makes a motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Majic seconded the motion. Board Member Manchin motions to table to issue/request until we get a formal survey done. Board Member Knapp seconded that motion. All in favor. Disposition of Past Cases NONE New Business None Other Business Election of officers was next on the agenda. President Shultz stated that she was fine to continue to serve. Board Members Manchin and Majic both stated how they usually liked to change things at each term. Board Member Majic nominated Joe for President. President Shultz agreed to step down. Board Member Knapp nominated Board Member Majic to serve at Vice President. All were in favor. Adjournment President Shultz asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Majic motions to adjourn, Board Member Knapp seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.