Board declines variance for front-yard ground-mounted solar at 40 Aspen Point Drive
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Adjustment declined to approve a variance that would have allowed a ground-mounted solar array in the front yard of 40 Aspen Point Drive, after staff recommended denial and neighbors and the city public advocate opposed the request.
The Board of Adjustment voted to deny a request to install a ground-mounted solar array in the front yard of 40 Aspen Point Drive after hearing staff recommendation, homeowner testimony and public opposition.
Staff told the board the Sun Solar application would violate two code provisions: Section 400.080(d)(4), which sets a 25-foot front-yard setback, and Section 400.930(b)(1), which allows ground-mounted solar only in rear yards. Staff said the proposed array would sit about 10 feet, 9 inches from the property line, could create sight-distance problems on the corner lot and that the applicant had not shown the hardship the code requires; staff recommended denial. "It's kind of a triple dipper situation there," the staff presenter said, noting the setback, location and sight-distance concerns.
Homeowner Tim Graham told the board his backyard and roof are too small to accommodate panels and that the side yard was the only feasible location. "My backyard is not big enough, and also I don't have enough room on my roof currently to install solar," Graham said, and added that Sun Solar had proposed planting shrubbery to screen the array but company representatives were delayed and did not appear.
Arnie C. Dinoff, identified as the city public advocate, urged the board to follow prior rulings and the city's code, saying roof mounting should be preferred and the variance did not meet the hardship standard. "I believe that all solar panels in the city should be mounted on the roof of the dwelling," Dinoff said, citing a prior denial on Cielo Drive and Chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri when pressing the board for consistency.
The chair moved to approve the variance; after appointing an alternate as a voting member for the item and recording a second, the board closed voting and the chair announced, "Your motion failed," which left the variance unapproved. A petition signed by 10 neighbors opposing front-yard panels was entered into the record during the hearing.
Because the board did not grant the variance, the homeowner's proposal to place the array within the front-yard setback will not proceed as presented. The meeting record shows no alternate motion to approve a modified design was adopted; the item concluded with the failed motion.
