Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS This meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held May 5th, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Absent Board Member Shultz Board Member Manchin Board Member Knapp Board Member Majic Vice President Majic called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Vice President Majic made a motion to excuse Board Member Manchin from the evenings meeting. Board Member Knapp seconded the motion. City Staff Present Director of Planning - Shae Strait Staff Assistant - Kirstin Poluck APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 21st, 2021 Vice President Majic asked for everyone to read of the previous months minutes and look for corrections or additions. There were two misspellings of Board Member Shultz name, those were fixed. A motion was made by Board Member Shultz to approve the minutes. Board Member Knapp seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR May 5th, 2022 Robert Moffett, of 26 Fairway Lane, is requesting a Variance to install a natural gas backup generator to extend beyond the 5-foot setback rule of the side yard property line. The property is zoned General Residential. The property is identified as Tax District 4, Map 5, Parcel 96. Vice President Majic asked if there was anyone here to speak in favor of the request. Robert Moffett, owner of the property was there to speak on behalf. He stated they wanted to place a gas backup generator on the side of the house rather than in the back yard. The gas line they had installed at the recommendation of the generator company goes to the side of the home. If the generator was placed in the rear of the home additional plumbing would have to be done. They were unaware of the required setbacks for the generator. The generator being placed in the back yard will be in direct view from their neighbor’s back deck. Mr. Moffett believes it will be aesthetically pleasing to locate it where they have proposed. Board Member Shultz wanted to know if there were any other restrictions to putting the generator in the back yard other than it being in view of the neighbors. Mr. Moffett stated that there was not, other that it being an inconvenience Vice President Majic asked if there was anyone else in favor who would like to speak. Aletta Moffett, who is also the owner of the property also spoke. She stated that they assumed when they put the gas line in, they would be able to put the generator on the side of house where the electric meter is located as well. If the generator was to be in the back yard it would be set out in the living space. Also, in order to get to the electric panel, it will have to go the width of the house. It makes more sense beside the house at the proposed location. Vice President Majic asked if there was any one here to speak against the request. There was no one. Vice President Majic then asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Knapp made a motion to close the public hearing, Board Member Shultz seconded the motion. Staff stated that according to the Fairmont Fire Department and the Building Code the generator is regulated by the manufacture. It appears one could be safely installed in the requested space. However, staff believes this variance request does not meet the requirement for a variance. This variance didn’t arise from special conditions which pertain to the property and is of the petitioner’s making. This is more of an issue of convenience. In review of Article 5.9, the five (5) feet requirement only applies to single-family residential uses, (single-family dwelling units). Staff’s opinion is that if the board wanted to approve this request, they would have to find the 5-foot setback rule is an unnecessary hardship on all the single-family dwelling units and that a reduced setback would be a more reasonable standard. A reduced setback would be a more reasonable standard that would be set by the board. That could be three feet or whatever the manufactures specifications were. Vice President Majic asked how close the generator would be once it was installed. Director Strait stated it was 2.7 feet away from the property line. Director Strait stated that the intended clearance from the manufacture is to allow air to get to the unit and distance if there was a mechanical error it would not damage the home or other adjacent structures. That is why those setbacks are in place. Board Member Shultz voiced concern that unless there were different manufacturing clearance from the Generac standards, its 36 inches from the front of the unit and it needs to be cleared. That puts the clearance zone over the property line and that would impact if the neighbors out up a fence. There aren’t window or doors located on the side of the house where the generator is being proposed. It would not damage the home or other homes if an accident occurred. Board Member Shultz was concerned about clearance being over the property line. Director Strait stated that all mechanical equipment has to be screened. Vice President Majic asked if there were any questions. Board Member Knapp questioned where this was located in the zoning code, because he also believed this made the most sense as to a location for the generator. Director Strait stated that all mechanical equipment must be screened, with the current setback they would not be able to meet the required setback within their own property. Board Member Knapp asked where this information was located at. Vice President Majic stated that all the clear zoning information is located on the City of Fairmont website. Board Member Knapp stated that he believes that the placement the petitioner requested is the best option. He does see both sides this of the argument. There is another option the petitioners could get the neighbors permission. Director Strait stated that the board doesn’t have to come to a conclusion, but just that the request is an unnecessary hardship for single-family homes. Vice President Majic stated that if the board did decide to grant the variance, the board could put a caveat in the approval that the petitioner has to get their neighbors permission. Vice President Majic also stated that if this requested in multi-family they wouldn’t even have had to come before the board. Board Member Knapp questioned the ground clearance needed for a fence, to which director Strait stated the city does not have a minimum ground clearance in the zoning code. Board Member Knapp made a motion to approve the variance for a 2.7 foot setback rather than a 5 foot setback based on the following: Article 5.9 is an unnecessary hardship based on the fact that if this were zoned any other classified dwelling unit type, they would not be having an issue in approving the request; Permitting for a lesser setback, such as those required by the manufacturers, would be a reasonable setback requirement and reasonable use of the land; screening requirements should continue to be met; and until a potential text change is adopted by the city, the board should be willing to hear on a case-by-case basis petitions to reduce this requirements setback to permit for a reasonable use of land. Board Member Shultz reiterated again that was concerned about a voided warranty and the property being taken from the neighbor. They would need to be screening to approve permits and the neighbors would also have to give approval. Board Member Shultz seconded the motion. There was no further discussion of the motion. Vote: Knapp, Yes; Shultz, Yes; Majic, Yes. The motion passed. Disposition of Past Cases None New Business None Other Business None Adjournment Vice President Majic asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Knapp motioned to adjourn; Board Shultz seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.