Appeal 24-07 narrative)une2t,2O24
Gerald & Karon Story we reside at 5281 Teton. We are appealing the approval of the planning
commission regarding solar variance *2024-07
Project: Solar Variance Request Planning case 2024-07
We respectfully would like to address the Staff summary report recommendations and the
Planning Commission and the City Council5251 Teton lane where the solar system is proposed
could have a conforming roof top system that wouldn't require a variance.
The findings from the staff state this will not alter the essential character of the locality
without viewing the property in question. The solar system they propose is twice as big as the
roof system, which is in direct sunlight and could be done without a variance' Heat cables
could be installed in valleys on the roof to melt snow. Also there are no leaves on trees from
Oct.to April and tree branches without leaves do not block the sun'
The essential characteristics of the locality in contrast to what the solar company is saying is
inaccurate because of the size of the proposed solar panel structure' lt will be visible from our
home & property as it will be 24ft in the air and 40+wide'
Therefore no variance should be approved, because the panels can be installed on the roof'
tho Board'8 recom mendaton of a zoning variance for Gary & Karen
We would like to appeal
for thls sppoal . Flrst, based on the Dohs68' Proposad variance
Dohso . Wo havo two roaaong
Solar, a varlance ehould be granted 'wh6n thero are
roquest a8 repregonted by TruNorth
practlcal dlfilcultles comdylng wlth the zonlng ordinanco ." Practlcal dlflloultlso arE deomed to
lnclude inadequate acco88 to sunllght for solar onergY systems . Here, Mr. & Mre' Dohse have
sufrlcient accs8s to sunllght on thelr rcof, and therefore do not have prac'tical dfficulties in
comptylng wlth the zonlng ru166. Although TruNorth srguos that the Dohee's roof ls not ProP€rlY
deslgned, there l8 no dlsputo that roof-mou ntsd eolar panels alone would cause structural
i8su68. Tho structural issuos do not rl6e to the leve I of "credlbls ovidonc8 that such sy8toms
cannot feasibly be attachod to a bulldlng dua to structu ral llmitatloN of tho bulldlng'Thor€foro
the Board inconoc{Y raepmmended lhe variance to CitY Council on ths8e grounds Second,
TruNorth Solar argues that the varlanco wlll not alter the €ssontlal charactor of th€locality. Here'
the ground-mounted solar wlll clearly be vlslble from our home do8plto tho Dohs6's
represantafona to the contrary, end a mere stend of tr6€8 wlll not fullY obstruc't the vlerr'
Moreover, due to the propo6ed dacomsnt on the hill, it wlll be vislble to others and will
It doclded
absolutely alt€r the essontlal cha racter of tho locallty.Therefore the board 6rrod whon
to recommo nd thl3 vallanco to CltY Councll. Based on theee errore
appoal the Board's decislon'
Asz-Q */*', 'SlaryhraK 4 g 9 a-,L, car,1
, wE would reepoctfuilY