Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingFairmont, WV · August 25, 2022
Minutes
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
This special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held August 25th at 7:00 p.m. in the
Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Present Absent
Commissioner Shultz Commissioner Knapp
Commissioner Knapp
President Manchin
Commissioner Majic
President Manchin called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.
Board Member Shultz made a motion to excuse Board Member Knapp from the evenings
meeting. Board Member Majic seconded the motion.
City Staff Present
Director of Planning - Shae Strait
Staff Assistant - Kirstin Poluck
Assistant Planner - Carly O’Dell Jones
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 23rd, 2022
President Manchin asked for everyone to read over the previous months minutes and look for
corrections or additions. A motion was made by Board Member Majic to approve the minutes.
Board Member Shultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR August 25th ,2022
1. BZA 22-05 – The Disability Action Center (DAC), represented by Julie Sole,
Director, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Civic Use at 448
Leonard Avenue. The property is zoned General Residential. The property is
identified as Tax District 9, Map 89, Parcel 89.1
President Manchin asked if there is anyone here to speak on behalf of the request. Julie Sole
the Director of the Disability Action Center was there to speak. She stated that in the packet
was wonderful plans created by Pickering, as well as the specific plans for this parcel that was
created by OMNI to create what we're calling the DAC Wilfong Wellness Center. The Wellness
Center will have a gymnasium, possible therapy room, opportunities for other like-minded
providers to co locate there with us with the goal of improving the overall quality of life, health
and wellness of people with disabilities and other marginalized people in our community. It's a
wonderful thing to have such visibility now off of the connector for the center. It's also a great
thing to offer even those folks that, you know, maybe live at Unity Terrace, and otherwise
wouldn't be able to afford a traditional gym membership or due to any other type of stigma or
aversion to being able to have something like that right in their neighborhood. So, we think it
will only do good things and have a much better use, I think, of the properties instead of what
they currently have.
President Manchin then asked if there was anyone to speak against the request. Mr. Leonard
West spoke in opposition of the request.
Mr. West lives on Hall Street which is below the Disability Action Center. He wanted to know
where other buildings were going to go? And what kind of people would be there? He
understood that disability covers a wide gamut of things. These are not going to be people that
he would have to worry about sneaking off breaking in my house in the backyard or anything
like that. There's a couple derelict houses up there and he didn’t know if that is where the
building would go. If that is the case that would be nice. But that was the main thing as to
where that was proposed building and our gym or whatever it is you want to be.
President Manchin asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Shultz made a
motion to close the public hearing, commissioner Majic seconded the motion.
Planning Director Strait went over the staff report for the request. It is as follows:
“Staff has reviewed the submitted documents from the Disability Action Center for their
proposed civic use. Which is being stated as a Wellness Center along Leonard Avenue which is
directly across the street from their new primary facility on Leonard Avenue. This is a bit of a
unique case; I just want to note for those may be in attendance and those watching. This facility
is being proposed in two different municipalities. So, both the city of Fairmont and the city of
Pleasant Valley have jurisdiction over this for its approval. So, this is one of many steps for the
Disability Action Center that they will have to go through in order to seek this approval. We
classify their proposal as a Civic Use because of its public benefits and the way they intend to
operate the facility and the things that will be featured within the building and site itself. They
do intend to remove the two existing single-family homes which exist on two different parcels
that they have acquired at this point. So those structures are intended to be demolished, and
then in their place will be constructed this new facility and the current concepts that have been
provided by the engineers and architects hired by the Disability Action Center.
It shows the primary portion of the building to be constructed within the more uphill side of
Leonard Avenue, which was within Pleasant Valley and then the site and site features shall then
cross into the city of Fairmont jurisdiction. It's a bit complicated because our city boundaries
don't follow the property lines. So therefore, I'll give this example and the first ground floor
plan, the city boundary, does this and comes through at an angle. We can see that on the
zoning map as well. Where we can see that it does have dual jurisdiction here.
So, with that, we look at a number of factors when determining if Civic Use should be granted a
conditional use permit. That does include a list of things that are outlined within the zoning
code under Article eight for conditional uses. With that I'll try to summarize some of this to let
the public know what we've taken into consideration for the impacts that we believe this may
have. The board and staff must review this to see that the Disability Action Center has
demonstrated that the use is consistent with the policies and incentive the corresponding
purpose of the zoning district in which it lies.
Number two is that the use is physically and operationally compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and surrounding existing uses. Conditions may be imposed on a proposed
conditional use to ensure that this potential significant adverse impacts on the surrounding
uses will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. And then there's a list of several items
which may be considered.
Although this is not the limit of those things, which the board here is limited to considering, but
the location of site activities, and the general adverse impacts such as noise and glare, hours of
operation and deliveries, location of learning and delivery zones, light intensity and hours of full
illumination, placement of outdoor vending machines loitering, littering placement of trash
receptacles onsite parking configuration and facilities on site circulation, and privacy concerns
of adjacent use
The third point is that the Use can generally be accommodated on the site and consistent with
any architectural design standards set forth in the applicable district regulations code. Also, in
conformance with all dimensional site development, grading drainage performance and other
standards in the district in which it will be located. To the maximum extent feasible access
points to the property are located as far as possible in keeping with accepted engineering
practice from the road intersections and adequate sight distances are maintained for motorists
entering and leaving the property.
The use will be adequately served by public facilities and services. The public service facilities
and services may be considered in light with this standard including but not limited to water,
sewer, electric, school, street, fire and police protection and storm drainage. The Use provides
adequate off-street parking on the same property, and will be in compliance with standards set
forth in this code that any storage of hazardous materials that is ancillary to this permitted use
or conditional use must be met with following conditions and it goes into storage standards for
the health department and the fire department.
The next point is that unless addressed in use standards the use will be screened with fencing
or landscaping in excess of what is required for the district as appropriate, If the use may be
otherwise result in the adverse impact on the adjacent property benefiting from such
screening.
The conditional use decisions are made by the BZA in considering the proposed conditional
use, the board must determine whether all general requirements and special conditions that I
have just read off have been met. And the board may impose additional conditions and
safeguard as you all deem necessary.
We don't do conditional uses too often. To the board, I think it's only our second one even this
year. So, my review of the documents submitted most of the impervious surface and facilities
will be located on the upper side of the property. They seem to be indicating a large area of
vegetation and natural landscaping on the downhill side, both towards Hall Street, and then
downhill towards the houses that are lower on Leonard Avenue. Parking does seem minimal,
and there is only a limited number of proposed access points within the site plan already. It
looks like some of the features within the site plan are still conceptual. You can see where
there's elements within the first-floor design, right, where you don't see the radiuses or the so
forth for the parking areas. And so, we can clearly see this isn't the finalized design of this, but
it's the concept to give us a good idea of what's happening that is nearly completed.
They are putting ADA parking and other parking spaces immediately in front of the building.
Most of the other parking on the downhill side facing downward down Leonard Avenue. There
is no major intersection near here. The street is a dead end, which terminates into a large
multifamily residential complex and some other single-family homes and commercial uses that
are in Pleasant Valleys jurisdiction. This is the end of the Fairmont city limits for this area.
So, with that, we don't believe that the proposed entry and exit points for the parking lot will
pose any danger to the public. In this configuration, although a limitation may be requested.
There is a dual exit kind of shown in this preliminary site plan and that would be requested to
be reduced to just one rather than two at a point in the same parking lot. So, in other words,
this way they have one on the upper side and one on the lower side would be the only staff
request. But that will be addressed during the official building permit application and site plan
review.
Given the current hours of operation for the Disability Action Center and the demographics in
which they serve, we do not believe that this will have any significant negative impacts upon
the adjacent residential uses. The majority of the land in and around this area is residential use,
and its primarily single-family homes within the jurisdiction of the city of Fairmont.
I believe we should take extra due diligence to be considerate of the multifamily development
in the city of Pleasant Valley next door to us as well. But I do not believe it'll have a negative
impact upon the people living there either. And instead, it may actually even benefit the
neighborhood by allowing for potentially some of the residents nearby, especially with a high-
density housing development immediately adjacent to have these kinds of amenities and
opportunities there. If the people living in those units need such services from the DAC.
The DAC has long occupied another building within our corporate limits down on Benoni
Avenue. And during their time there, there were no issues, although they were a bit
topographically isolated, but there were no issues with traffic with adjacent property uses. And
they were seen as a benefit to the community. No official complaints coming into City Hall for
their occupation of that former bowling alley, they're at the corner of Kirkway Drive and
Benoni. So, with that, we imagined this will simply be a continuation of this previous services,
obviously with an improved facility and improved location for them. So, we believe to expect
similar outcomes as they had down on Benoni Avenue. With that, we will ensure we do have
adequate lighting standards. So, we will make sure that lighting in the parking lot is shielded
properly and or time control to be turned off so that it does not encroach upon the adjacent
properties or cause any glare or negative impacts. Because we can see from the diagram there
is immediately homes and stuff on the downhill side adjacent to this. So those things can be
controlled. And we actually do have limits about how much light can trespass over property
lines, and it's quite restrictive. So, I believe it's only about a single footcandle, that can cross
over your property, which is quite dense. So, we do protect adjacent property owners with
those standards.
In addition, we believe the proposed landscaping plan, as seen here, will then eliminate any
other concern for the other homes adjacent and downhill this staff could find within the
evidence provided no reason to consider that this would have any substantial negative impacts
upon the adjacent land uses and recommends for the approval of a conditional use permit
barring any other concern which may arise from the dialogue and course of you all as board
members and your discourse about this request.
This is one of those things where the board have very broad authority on. The Planning Director
wanted to be sure that everything was clear to members. This is under state and city law, both
that the board had broad authority to be able to request adjustments from the petitioner in any
way they deem necessary in order to prevent any negative impact on to the adjacent properties
in the neighborhood, to include a denial or the conditional use permit for something as simple
as a little bit extra landscaping adjustment with the parking, screening and so forth. So do keep
that in mind as you all review the information and make your considerations.
President Manchin asked to reopen the public hearing so that Ms. Sole can address some of the
concerns Mr. West voiced. Board Member Shultz seconded the motion to reopen the public
hearing. Ms. Sole went on to state the following:
“Typically, the folks that we serve are going to be individuals with disabilities, developmental
disabilities, maybe a learning disability or a cognitive disability, developmental in nature.
They can range in age from a child all the way up. We have no age cap. So, we have those in
their 70s. And we also serve their family members. It would be new for us to kind of open up
the Wellness Center to other marginalized populations. But it's important for us to do that,
because we don't just look at disability as our only clients that we want to serve. Even at our old
facility we served everyone including individuals without disabilities and the general public used
that facility and we anticipate that same model.
For instance, MCPARC has been extremely supportive of this project. We anticipate that we'd
have sports practices there because we all know how difficult it is to find gyms, right? But with
that being said, Special Olympians get the worst times, right, we're talking 9:30 or 10 o'clock by
the time high schools, middle schools, and other private leagues are done that our athletes, you
know, have a place to, to practice. So, the gym portion is very important to us.
And I think it's important to us to reach out to the folks at the housing complex that would
otherwise not be able to afford a gym membership. No one from Unity Terrace may ever come
there. But just like at the old center, and again, we are really kind of recreating but improving
upon everything that we did on Benoni. You know, we had $10 a month. And we had a lot of
seniors that came, we called it Feel Good Fitness. And we want to open that back up for folks
that aren't, aren't really able to go to traditional gym, and we have equipment that is hydraulic
in nature, easy on the joints, things like that. So, we see it serving not only people with
disabilities, but the general public as well.
Board Member Majic said that if there was someone causing trouble, staff is available to take
care of any issue.
Ms. Sole answered: Oh, yes. I mean, the center would always be staffed, our center is always
staffed. And really the two homes that we have purchased, that will be demolished to build
this. They probably had individuals maybe renting there, that would have been more of a
danger to the neighborhood shore than our center. Could or ever, ever would be.
President Manchin asked again if Mr. West had any other questions, he questioned whether
the new parking lot was going to cause water runoff into his yard.
President Manchin stated that the water runoff would be addressed by Stormwater, but if
there was an issue the water would be captured and disposed of properly. The Planning
Director also stated that there is a required Curb Cut and there would be other types of
substantial stormwater management that would capture and deflect the stormwater and retain
the stormwater.
Mr. West also had questions of the hours of operations to which Ms. Sole stated the following:
typical hours of our center is 9am to 4pm. I would say that any additional use of the facility, we
capped it, if it was a special rental or a special function that went on after hours. 9pm would be
like the latest we allow anyone to hold a meeting, or to have a practice at our own facility.
President Manchin asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Majic makes a
motion to close the public hearing, Commissioner Shultz seconded the motion. Motion Passed.
President Manchin then asked for a motion regarding the request. Commissioner Majic
motioned to approve the request as submitted. Commissioner Shultz seconded the motion. Roll
Call vote was done.
Vote: Majic, yes. Shultz, yes; Manchin, yes. The motion passed.
Disposition of Past Cases
None
New Business
None
Other Business
None
Adjournment
President Manchin asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Shultz motioned to adjourn;
Board Majic seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Agenda
AGENDA
THE FAIRMONT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8.25.22
Public Safety Building
7:00pm
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 23rd, 2022
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC HEARINGS for August 25th,2022
BZA 22-05 – The Disability Action Center (DAC), represented by Julie Sole, Director, is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Civic Use at 448 Leonard Avenue. The
property is zoned General Residential. The property is identified as Tax District 9, Map 89,
Parcel 89.1
V. DISPOSTION OF PAST CASES
None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURMENT
None
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
This special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held June 23rd, 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 Majic
Board Member Knapp
President Manchin
President Manchin called the meeting to order at 7:18p.m.
Board Member Shultz made a motion to excuse Board Member Majic 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
President Manchin asked for everyone to read of the previous months minutes and look for corrections
or additions. A motion was made by Board Member Knapp to approve the minutes. Board Member
Shultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR June 23rd,2022
BZA 22-02 -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 Manchin asked if there was anyone present to speak against the request, there was no one.
He then asked if there was anyone there in favor of the request. There was no one. The public hearing
was then closed.
Staff Stated that they had spoken with Mr. Six regarding the request and he wished to withdraw his
petition and if needed he would resubmit the request. President Manchin asked for a motion to
withdraw the request. Board Member Shultz made a motion to withdraw, Board Member Knapp
seconded the motion.
Vote: Knapp, yes. Shultz, yes; Manchin, yes. The motion passed.
BZA 22-04 – Heather Summers, of 513 Pittsburg Ave, is requesting a Variance to install a heat pump / AC
unit 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 5, Map 5, Parcel 28.
President Manchin asked if there was anyone available to speak in favor of the request. Patrick Knight
who is the contractor was present to speak on behalf of the request. He stated that there was only 12
feet measured between the houses and that is not enough. There is no room in the back. The left side is
the only viable option. The equipment chosen will minimize the footprint. The space requested is for 2
units. One unit will be replaced at a later time. If this home was located in a multi-family district this
would not be an issue.
Board Member Shultz questioned the space between the homes and wanted to know how many
windows where in the neighboring house. Mr. Knight stated that the house had 2 side windows. The
units are being placed for the attic space. President Manchin asked if there were any more questions.
There were none.
Staff commented that while he believes the petition does not meet the minimum requirements but is an
undue burden since it just applies to the single-family home district. It will not be a nuisance to the
community. Board Member Shultz asked if there were any agency comments to which Staff stated that
there were none needed, the screening requirements for the unit are still in place.
Board member Knapp makes a motion to close the public hearing, board member Shultz seconded the
motion. Board Member made a motion to approve the request. Board Member Shultz voiced concern
about encroaching on the neighbor but understood the space to place the limit was limited. Board
member Shultz then seconded the motion to approve the request given it is kept to the minimum
requirements. Board Member Knapp seconded the motion.
Vote: Knapp, yes. Shultz, yes; Manchin, yes. The motion passed.
Disposition of Past Cases
None
New Business
None
Other Business
None
Adjournment
President Manchin asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Knapp motioned to adjourn; Board
Shultz seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
PETITION # BZA 22-05
PREPARED 8/15/22
Introduction
The Disability Action Center, of 448 Leonard
Avenue, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for
446 Leonard Avenue at the edge of the City of
Fairmont and the City of Pleasant Valley. The
applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for
“Civic Use”.
Existing Conditions
Figure 2- Existing vacant homes at 444 and 446 Leonard Ave. 446 is
The property within Fairmont City limits is located at located within Fairmont City limits. Taken from the current DAC
446 Leonard Ave off of the Gateway Connector. The parking lot.
property is zoned General Residential. The most
current use was Detached, Single-Family Dwelling.
Also included in the plans is one lot within Pleasant
Valley city limits, 444 Leonard Ave. The vacant
homes on both lots are intended to be demolished
by the current owner. The entirety of the two
properties is approximately 32,800 SF.
Nearby zoning districts include General Residential
and the R-1 district in the City of Pleasant Valley.
Adjacent commercial land uses include primarily
single-family homes in Fairmont and commercial
Figure 3- Leonard Ave facing SW towards Unity Terrace.
businesses, apartments, and single-family homes in
Pleasant Valley.
Figure 1 – Existing vacant home at 444 Leonard Ave. This parcel is
located outside of Fairmont City limits. Taken from the current DAC Figure 4- Leonard Ave facing NE towards the Gateway Connector.
parking lot.
Page 1 of 4
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
PETITION # BZA 22-05
PREPARED 8/15/22
Proposed Conditions H. A civic building should promote public
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit spaces and access routes that are attractive
for the following: and accessible for all users.
I. A civic building should build upon and
• Conditional Use Permit Request. A Conditional improve community character by
Use Permit for a Civic Use in the General responding to and reinforcing locally
Residential District. distinctive patterns of development,
landscape, and culture.
Applicable Use Standards (The section above which is underlined shall occur
City of Fairmont Zoning Code Article 4.9 – Civic Uses at a later step prior to commencement of
has use standards for this Conditional Use. Those construction. These standards are not required to
standards are: be met during the Conditional Use Permit approval
but could be required if the board feels it is
1. A civic building is subject to major site plan necessary.)
review by the Planning Commission. As part of
major site plan review, the Planning 2. The following exterior facade materials are
Commission must evaluate a proposal for a civic prohibited on civic buildings:
building against the following design guidelines: A. Exterior insulating finish systems (EIFS).
A. A civic building should be located and B. Vinyl siding.
designed to provide a landmark appropriate C. Reflective wall surface material with a
to its importance and setting, aiding Visible Light Reflectance (VLR) of greater
legibility of the wider area. than 15%.
B. A civic building should physically define 3. Accessory Structures. Building(s) incidental to
public space and thoroughfares as places of the principal structure shall be behind a line a
shared use. minimum of twenty (20) feet from the front
C. A civic building should be designed to facade of the structure, and if more than one,
encourage public use and activity within and shall be arranged to create secondary gathering
nearby its site. spaces within the lot.
D. A civic building should communicate its 4. Parking. Parking shall be located towards the
importance and function through interior of the lot. Parking may not occur within
architectural cues and attractive signage. a front setback or corner side setback.
E. A civic building should be built with high 5. Setbacks. Front setbacks may be altered to
quality, durable materials. preserve views or significant trees.
F. A civic building should incorporate
sustainable building and landscape Zoning Code Requirements for Conditional
practices. Use Approvals
G. A civic building should be noteworthy in Any conditional use must demonstrate that:
itself and in relation to its surroundings, 1. The use is consistent with the policies and
contributing to an attractive setting for intent of the corresponding purpose for the
users, customers, and the wider public. zoning district in which it lies.
Page 2 of 4
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
PETITION # BZA 22-05
PREPARED 8/15/22
2. The use is physically and operationally 5. The use will be adequately served by public
compatible with the surrounding facilities and services. Public facilities and
neighborhood and surrounding existing uses. services that may be considered in light of
Conditions may be imposed on a proposed this standard include but are not limited to
Conditional Use to ensure that potential water, sewer, electric, schools, streets, fire
significant adverse impacts on surrounding and police protection, storm drainage.
uses will be reduced to the maximum extent 6. The use provides adequate off-street parking
feasible, including but not limited to, on the same property as the use in
conditions or measures addressing: compliance with standards set forth in this
a. Location on a site of activities that Code.
generate potential adverse impacts 7. Any storage of hazardous material that is
such as noise and glare; ancillary to a permitted use or a Conditional
b. Hours of operation and deliveries; Use must meet the following conditions:
c. Location of loading and delivery a. All storage shall be in compliance
zones; with all state, federal, and local
d. Light intensity and hours of full regulations, particularly Part 11
illumination; Health and Sanitation Code of the City
e. Placement of outdoor vending of Fairmont.
machines; b. Such material shall be listed and
f. Loitering; made known with the Office of the
g. Litter control; Chief of the City of Fairmont Fire
h. Placement of trash receptacles; Department.
i. On-site parking configuration and 8. Unless addressed in the Use Standards, the
facilities; use will be screened with fencing and/or
j. On-site circulation; landscaping in excess of what is required for
k. Privacy concerns of adjacent uses. the district as appropriate, if the use may
3. The use can generally be accommodated on otherwise result in an adverse impact on
the site consistent with any architectural and adjacent property benefiting from such
design standards set forth in the applicable screening.
district regulations of this Code, and in 9. Conditional Use decisions are made by the
conformance with all dimensional, site Board of Zoning Appeals. In considering the
development, grading / drainage, proposed Conditional Use the Board must
performance, and other standards for the determine whether all General
district in which it will be located. Requirements and Special Conditions have
4. To the maximum extent feasible, access been met.
points to the property are located as far as 10. The Board may impose additional conditions
possible, in keeping with accepted and safeguards deemed necessary.
engineering practice, from road intersections
and adequate sight distances’ are Staff Comments
maintained for motorists entering and The proposed use, Civic Use, is congruent with the
leaving the property proposed for the use. adjacent residential uses and is not perceived to
Page 3 of 4
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
PETITION # BZA 22-05
PREPARED 8/15/22
substantially impact the residential uses in a Attachments
negative manner. Please see the attached maps, application, elevation
drawings, and site plan.
Staff Recommendation. Based upon the
information within this report, the staff believes
that the request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Civic Use in a Residential District at this location
should be Approved.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan makes no mention of this
circumstance.
Findings of Fact
1. Disability Action Cetner, owner of Tetra Holding
Co. LLC, is the petitioner and owner
2. The property is zoned General Residential
3. The proposed use is a Civic Use
4. The property is addressed 444 and 446 Leonard
Ave
5. The property is identified as Tax District 5, Map
9, Parcel 89 and District 22, Map 9, Parcel 160
6. The existing buildings are proposed to be
removed and replaced with a new structure for
indoor physical activity
7. The property is approx. 0.64 acres in area
8. The property is located within two
municipalities, the other being Pleasant Valley
9. The previous uses were Single-Family Dwellings
Page 4 of 4
Districts
443
General Residential
447
449
446
ate
r o xim
App cation ing
Lo Build
ew
of N
441
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
BZA 22-05
Conditional Use Permit Request 0 10 20 40
446 Leonard Ave Feet
Get email alerts for Fairmont
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.