Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals. Um, please turn off all cell phones or other devices that may disrupt these proceedings. The board of zoning appeals conducts business in the following order. There will be um I'm just going to read this as is that all right? I've got planning to planning verbiage here. Uh elaborate like as the well instead of saying border zoning appeals it's literally planning commission. Yeah. Yeah. That just I'll just read it as okay. It's it's it's similar enough. I just want to let you know. I appreciate that. All right. Um there will be a general public comment portion when anyone who wishes to address the BZA, but only on matters that are not on the agenda. Um as with BZA, there is a 5minut time limit for speakers. All recognized speakers must approach the podium, state their name and address for the record, and speak clearly into the microphone. Uh, speakers are notified that relevant comments or comments of a personal nature or personal attacks may result in a speaker forfeiting their opportunity to participate in the general public comment portion. Um we will review, amend and approve minutes of the previous meeting as needed. Um we will then move to unfinished business from previous meetings. We will then move on to new business items on the agenda. I will introduce the item and um the planning representative will present staff report for each of the

cases. Um we will then ask each applicant or petitioner to make a presentation representative of the case and uh the board may ask questions of the applicant or representatives. At that time, we will then open a public hearing to hear testimony in support of or in opposition to the case. Rules regarding public testimony as are as follows. Anyone wishing to testify during the public hearing may do so once um once recognized. Each recognized speaker must approach the podium again, state their name and address for the record, and speak clearly into the microphone. All comments must be addressed to the board. Speakers are notified that irrelevant comments or comments of a personal nature or personal attacks may result in the speaker forfeiting their opportunity to participate in the public hearing. All speakers will be limited to 5 minutes. Um, if members of the board have any questions of the speaker, that time will not be counted toward the speakers total of 5 minutes. If there is a large number of speakers, including many who are part of groups or organizations, we may to avoid repetitive comments, elect to ask for a representative to speak on behalf of the case or applicant. Uh we may elect to recognize the applicant agent at the end of the public hearing to provide rebuttal or additional comments, which will be limited to an additional 5 minutes. If the members of the board have any questions of the applicant agent, that time will not be counted toward the applicant agents 5 minutes. After all testimony is heard, we will declare the public hearing closed and no further public comment will be permitted. At that time, no one in the audience may speak again unless a planning

commissioner or I'm sorry, a zoning board member asks a question. If someone is asked a question, they must come to the microphone and identify themselves. Um next the board will discuss and take action on each case. Um univil unruly and or disruptive behavior at any time during this meeting is prohibited and will result in removal from this public meeting. Um with respect to the board, um any decisions that this board renders are can or can be appealed to the circuit court of Monagalia County and any work done in that 30-day period is done at the applicant's sole financial risk. Just going to state that upfront and we'll state that again after determinations are made and variances etc are granted or not granted. Okay. So um we're going to call to order roll call. Miss Cook here. Mr. Miss Missel here. Mr. Benson present. Um we do have two absences. Despite those absences, we do have a quorum so we can proceed. Um, we are considering meeting minutes from our May 21st, 2025 regular meeting. Any comments, discussion, proposed to set minutes? No. I move to approve. All right. We have a motion to approve. Seconded. U motion by Mr. Miss F and seconded by Miss Cook. Um, how do we vote? I

I I So, we have approved or accepted the meeting minutes from the May 21st, 2025 meeting into the record. Um, we're going to move no business. We're going to move to new business. The first case is V25-030 Jessica Adams at 7:16 from McKinley. have request by Jessica Adams for variance relief from section 1335.04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding setbacks. It's referenced as city tax district 13 in the fifth war tax map 25 parcel 138 and the R1A single family residential district. Yep. I will begin staff report but wireless All [Music] right. So [Music] just ate we have in the packet supply as well as in the presentation in the room. This is showing the uh location of the variance the home as well as the radius to send out letters. This is a closer uh zoom in just to give a better understanding of what the property looks

like in uh uh as it is close to today. Attached is a uh picture of the site plan that was submitted for the building permit. That is as well as found in the packet showing the proposed shed on the top right in red um with 1 ft uh set back from the side uh property lines as well as the rest of the home and other structures on the property. The applicant wishes to construct an accessory structure shed at the property referenced above shown there. This structure will be a standard 8x10 storage shed. Related sections of the code and correspondence with neighbors can be found below in the packet. Um the board members have uh copies of what these attachments look like. Uh would you like me to read them or is it sufficient in the packet? No. In summary, the applicant wishes to construct an accessory structure shed within the rear and side setback of the property. The applicant is requesting 4 ft of setback variance allowance for an accessory structure. Uh staff have no objections to this applicant's request for variance relief. Um please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these. This attachment can be found below the conditions. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief from section 133108 of the city's planning and zoning code, the this accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions. And there's only one condition on this variance being any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant uh shall seek variance relief from the board of zoning appeals. And that concludes my staff report to move myself over here. Before we invite the applicant to come forward

for accessory structures, Mr. Thompson, can you can you just speak to, you know, I'm noting the dimensions 8 8t by 10 and then 10t height. I I'm not saying that that this is going to exceed any maximum height restrictions, but can you for accessory structures, is there a maximum height? Is it 18t? Mhm. Is that correct? All right. Do we have a representative for this case? Yeah, I'm here. Would you like to speak to your application? So, just name and address. Jessica Adams, 716 McKinley Avenue. And so, you're proposing Yes, I'm proposing an 8x10 shed in the corner of my property. Um, and it's probably only 1 ft away from the property line. Right. Is are you is it going to be on a a slab or just or like elevated on cinder blocks at all? I think we're just going to put gravel down. just gravel and then right on the ground surface. All right. Any other questions? So, it's just a storage shed then. Okay. No, no. No. Questions? It's pretty straightforward. We may have other questions for you. Okay. But not at this time. Thank you very much. Um, no questions. It's pretty straightforward. I mean, I just, um,

yeah, let's go ahead and open up. No other questions. No, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing for this case. Um again this is case V25-030 716 McKinley F. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to support of 714 Jason Black 714 if you look at the structure I'm the closest one there's I am the the what did you say a foot 4T right and then the other yours is quite close. Yeah. Then the other lady is Charlotte. She's in the hospital. She just went in the hospital today. Actually, I speak for her, too. I cut her grass and all the things. It's going to do You're in a hip roof roof. Um that's hip roofed, right? To the like if you're looking at the front of Adams to the right to the right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is my structure. That's where she wants to build. This is Charlotte. It's not affected. Okay. If anything, there'll be a barrier or maybe a little bit of a barrier cuz yours is quite close. Yeah. So that if if there's anybody that's going to be affected, it would be me or Charlotte and it's not going to hurt either one of us. All right, that work. Sure. Thank you. And could you just state your name one more time and address? Jason Black, 714 Avenue. Just for the record, right? Thank you very much. Um, anyone else wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case? And again, this is B25-030. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. Uh, discussion.

I mean, it's my only I mean, I thought that the the um the 12T height was a little unusual, but it's not it's not in excess of what's allowed at 18t. Um consideration is the the you know the the one foot to the corner of the property. We do have correspondence. I mean, we just had someone weigh in um stating he's, you know, his structure is definitely the closest to the proposed accessory structure, stating his clear lack of opposition to what's proposed. We do have there's correspondence and I can read it into the record. Um is it for this? Oh, this is actually that's for a different case. But we do have referenced in the packet there's a a text um you know a neighbor sounding off or in in response to the question you have any objections to me building a storage shed in this corner of my property and the text uh thread responds no not at all. Um, I think that's the first text thread that we've had for reference in a packet. Yeah, that's personal I've seen. Um, so I mean it's it's it's fairly straightforward. Um, with the granting the variance for the setback, the 4ft setback um do we have discussion on you want to just make a set the setback's going to be one foot, right? It's a 4 foot. It's a 4ft variance

from the 5T setback. So it is I mean it's it is it's right there. Um what about the findings of fact? I know there's one that was blank. I don't know if we want to move some of our other ones around because we do have there's especially for the one about the special nature of the property itself. Well, there was the AC unit. So, your AC unit is like right adjacent to the structure and practically speaking, I mean there's nowhere else to really site. She'd have to I mean she could sight it. Can you speak to where your AC unit is right now? Well, no, Miss Adams. Yeah. Is it? So, it's not You can use this if you like as well. It's like right here. Right. That's where I thought. Yeah. AC unit like that. Right. But she can't sight it here. Yeah, that's like the only place. I mean, the other possibility would be to Can you speak to like Can you characterize or describe your the deck? Um, it's raised up off the ground maybe

like 3 or 4 feet. And we actually thought about that, too. Um, just signing it right adjacent to the deck, the shed, but that which would be right here. Um, but there's that's how we get there's like an access to the crawl space under that right there. Oh, really? Okay. Like right there. Cuz then if you were to scoot it up right adjacent to the deck, then you'd only then you'd only need like it looks like maybe a 1T variance and you wouldn't need one for the rear. You'd only need a sideyard set back of about a foot. because we need access to the cross, you know, it wouldn't work. But I mean that that's a special condition of the property itself that kind of makes this variance required cuz you can't put it on the other side. No. Where she would need less of a setback variance, right? No. But if you put it here, apart from the crawl space issue, and even you're kind of maybe potentially hinging on the functionality of the deck anyway, right? Um, but if you put it here, then there's no there's no rear. You already set back required. That takes care of that. If you put it there and then only about one one foot, I don't know. But you can't change the crawl space. No. No. Um, and a I mean a shed is not something it's not an unreasonable development of the property and it is movable actually because it's sitting on gravel, right? It's gravel. If something were to change with it with the deck, if you decided, you know, the deck reaches the end of its use life and you decided we're not going to go with a deck. Deck's coming down. Yeah. And then they shift the the shed right

into that footprint. All right. Um Well, okay. So were there any conditions for the from planning? Yeah. [Music] Well, yeah. The the condition is Yeah. Let's let's make a motion on the final. Do you want to make a motion on the fact? Seconded. Okay. So, we have a motion by Miss Cook to on the findings of fact. seconded by Mr. Missfeld. Um, how do we vote on the findings of fact? I I I do you want to speak to the condition? I I can speak to it. Um, there's only one condition upon the variance uh being that any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall seek variance really from the board of zoning appeals. basically just meaning if there's any edit or change to the site plan and it would be in violation of another code that they would not be receiving variance from tonight um then they would have to come back or become compliant if a change is to occur. Mhm. Okay. Thank you Mr. Thompson. So I am going to make a motion to grant the requested variance for B25-030 subject to the um condition that Mr. Mr. Thompson just referenced um to grant the variant that was requested. So we have a motion to grant the variance for case V-030 seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I I So we have granted your experience

request subject to that sole condition. Um please keep in mind that the decision that we just rendered can be appealed to the circuit court of Ming Gay County and any work that you undertake during that 30-day appeals window you do at your sole financial risk. You will receive written notification from planning set generally within a week. Thank you very much for coming down this evening. Next case is V25-042 uh Cole Bozac um 204 Kingwood Street request by Cole Bozich and I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Bzik um on behalf of Ryan Mloud for variance relief from section 1335 003 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding minimum lot provisions city tax district 10 second ward tax map 29 parcel 438 in the R1A single family residential district. [Music] So, in the packet on the screen, uh, similar to the last one, this is showing the, uh, parcels in question here, as well as just kind of the neighborhood around. This next image is a bit of a closer look to give a better visual that shows the um, a plat kind of map of the parcels showing what they look like, the residents parcel on the top as well as the apartment parcel on the bottom. um showing the property lines, uh dimensions, things like that. A little hard to see up here, but in the packet it's a little easier to read the dimensions on it. According to the applicant's agent, Miss Mosik, at some point in time, the garage

apartment associated with 350 Cobin Street was sold to another private property owner, creating two parcels and generating two tax tickets from the Monalia County Assessor's Office. According to the Mongolian County Clerk's Office electronic records, 204 Kingwood Avenue has been recognized as its own parcel of land since at least 2008 2009. Uh by deep reference, uh the plat map provided by Miss Bus, which was up there, uh is dated December 20th of 2016. Note, the plat map was not stamped signed by the planning commission. Uh upon further review, the current owner appears to have acquired the property being 204 Kingwood uh in July of 2020 after had it had already been separated from the parent parcel of land being 350 coven. The planning commission at this time has reviewed their new subdivision request and has approved it with conditions, one of which is receiving variance for the reference sections of the code. Related sections of code can be found in the packet. Um, in summary, the proposed minor subdivision would create two non-conforming parcels of land as it pertains to the law provisions. Furthermore, there are instances where the minimum setback and encroachment requirements may not be met with the proposed subdivision in an R in a R1A single family district. Uh the variances that they were asking for for parcel 437 which is 350 coin. The variances for that parcel are 9 ft or excuse me 19'6 in of rear setback relief as well as approximately 400 ft of minimum lot size relief for parcel 438 which is 204 Kingwood Street. They're asking for approximately 2,410 ft of minimum lot size relief. Uh 8.2 2 ft regarding minimum lock frontage about 34% of lock coverage relief 2T regarding minimum side setback relief 20 ft regarding minimum rear setback relief and 2T 6 in regarding awnings eaves setback relief. Please see the attached

application to review the findings of fact listed as staff had no uh comments or modifications to these. This attachment can be found below the conditions. Staff do not object to the applicant's request to address the long-standing issue of a property being subdivided and sold without review/ approval by the city of Morgantown. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief, the new lots shall be subject to the following conditions being I believe just one just one condition uh of any other modifications or changes to the site plan that shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall seek variance relief from the board of zoning appeals. And that will conclude my staff report. Do we have a representative for this case? And one of them is on virtually. Yeah, Ryan uh should be online. Yeah. Yeah, that's me here. So Ryan, would you like to go and just speak to Could you just state your your name and a reference address for the record? Yep. My name is Ryan and I'm the current owner of 204 King Street and yeah, we purchased the property in 120 um and have owned it ever since since we have since moved away. We live there since moved away, turned it into a rental and now we're in the process of selling that house cuz we moved out of state and the new buyers attorney has found this issue that where the subdivision was never approved in the city of Morgantown and so we're just trying to go through the proper channels to get this u approved um so that we are able to sell the property um and we're just yeah going through the motions of putting in

the application we got approved from subdivision now putting in the application for the the various variances Thank you. Any questions? No. Would you like to Is this the time or do you want me to do it when I'm talking in Florida? Um, are you one of the property owners to be clear? Real estate agent. I until last I see September I was the neighbor who owned the house next door on the left and the owner to the right is also here. So I think the adjoining of 350 yeah I think we'll have the we'll have you sir speak on behalf or for 350 Ken and then your comments are probably most appropriate in the context of the public hearing. Good evening. My name is Achilles Wartz. I'm the uh adjoining neighbor joining owner of 350 Coven Avenue. Um and we bought my wife and I bought 350 Kovven Avenue in uh October of 2016, right? Um at that time both 350 Coven Avenue and 204 Kingwood were owned by the same individual. Um Tony Kitsm Miller. He sold us the main house and he kept the carriage house until he sold it to Ryan and and Mark Mloud in 2020. Um, we were under the impression that the subdivision was already done at that time. Um, he's the one that should be arguing for this, which who can you speak I mean, so can you speak to when

the lot when that subdivision happened? We we don't know. Um, but we believe that it was subdivided sometime around 2009. Um we again we bought in 2016 and that subdivision had already occurred but there was a that my understanding is Mr. Kitsm Miller did not did not have a new survey done when he subdivided and there were errors in the property lines that have now been corrected. Um your your staff report mentioned that there was no signed copy of this um this survey, but that has been found and has been filed and recorded with the city. Um so um the corrective deeds were filed by our attorney um shortly after we bought in 20 in just that uh we bought in 2016 and late in the year by 2017 in January um those corrective deeds and corrective quick claim deeds were were reported with the city. Um the only thing that apparently was not recorded was this survey which was referred to by those those corrective deeds and the city did not fully um that city records did not fully reflect what we thought had had been changed. Um, so our understanding was that our property was our property, the carriage house was someone else's, and we carried forward with that belief until uh we learned that there was some sort of uh discrepancy. Um, the car's house, by the way, has existed since at least the 1920s in exactly the same form. Right. I have photos from the West Virginia Historic Society that show it in that exact same position and in that exact same use for about the last 100 years. So the to the best of your knowledge,

the deeds represent reality with respect to the subdivision that has occurred. Correct. As of 2017, those deeds did reflect that. Um, and there's a survey that wasn't necessarily recorded, but it's it existed. It was it's in support of the corrections to each of the deeds. It was ordered by our attorney when when those discrepancies were discovered in 2016 and apparently not recorded by the city, although they also thought the corrected deeds weren't recorded and then they found them recently. So we we do have stamped original copies of the survey which again we've now recorded as of uh as of the July the 9th I would say. So I would say it's a little late for any of us to be unwinding any of this house. Right. But my that gives me peace of mind because the deeds are in order. Yes. And there's a survey. Yes. Including reference for each of the subdivided properties. And if that if the answer to that question were no, then we would including easements that that give right away to both properties with that division. Trying to square the C these circles with respect to the variances. If that deed work had not been completed and reported you agree. Yes. Okay. All right. Uh thank you. Thank you. We may have other questions for you. Of course

for the public hearing. Okay. Um thank you everyone. We're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in support of an or opposition to case B25-042 204 King uh Kingwood. How's your opportunity? I can't say much more than I'm sorry. Jen Hagerty. Um, I am the real estate agent for the Mlouds and I was did own the house to the to the left 214 212 until last year which we had an easement between the two properties so that um the wall that abuts basically is very clear that both properties can use it. So we've provided that to the city as well. Um, again, it's been like the separated since at least 2009. I sold it to the Mlouds in 2019. We didn't have an issue at that point, but it was also CO. So, they're I'm sure things got overlooked at that time. Now, they're trying to sell it again. And we've been held up. The poor guy who's trying to buy it is probably paying fees on his interest rate as Miss Cook would understand. um because we're two months out of the timeline for closing on the property in order to get this variant. So if you we would appreciate if there was no further delay encumberances. Yep. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions of any of the parties? Um insight from you? No. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in support of in opposition to

going to go ahead and close the public hearing then? Thank you. What do you think? [Music] I'm glad the deed work was done. This is just just recognizing how everyone else has been treating this property for a long time. I mean it it would it wouldn't even be practical in any respect to go back on it now anyways as you were to unwind unwind it's way too late for any of that right Yep. But the deep work's been done and the surveys have been done and all right. So no further discussion. No. Okay. So let's look at the bindings of facts. [Music] I'm going to accept the findings back if there I mean we are some of the variances the aerial variances I I just want to state for the record are not insignificant um uh [Music] What do you think? I mean, yeah, the aerial variance is not insignificant. All right. Um, Mr. Thompson, can you Oh, conditions on this uh just so we can reference that make a

motion. So the condition on this variance is any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall see variance brief from the board of zoning appeals as previously mentioned on the last variance. This basically just means if uh there are any changes or new updates from you know from this meeting forward that don't apply to these variances uh then they would have to either make it compliant or seek a further variance relief. So, Mr. Thompson, in regard to that, I I guess my question might be um in granting a variance of such large um space, how does that affect going forward with other variances? Uh attached specifically to this property or as a as in general? I guess as as in general because what I guess what I'm asking is if you grant a variance to them does that open it up like you know to to like other properties making a request of that size or Yes. and having it that extreme broad. Uh well, at least as far as what the ruling on this variance would do, would it only apply for this property and it would just depend on the board's logic and reasoning as to why they they deem approving it is is appropriate or denying it is appropriate depending on how the board votes. Um it all the variances are kind of parcel by parcel. though would just depend on uh the board's interpretation of of the ruling. I mean, adjacent properties aren't they're not in the same situation cuz it's not it wasn't like an attachment to a house previously that's been separated. I mean, there's like I mean, there's a couple houses like that in South Park, right? But not very many,

right? South Park, Green Mountain. There are other carriage barn Yeah. scenarios in this. But that's about the only situation that's going to be able to that's as unique as as this as if it's another carriage house. I mean, somebody next door or somewhere else in a more typical property isn't isn't going to have all of these peculiarities, right? I mean, I don't I don't think it's not like something the neighbors are going to be able to point to in their own variance cuz they don't live in carriage houses. And in terms of the the garage and apartment, it's not as if given the configuration of that lot, which is was subdivided, which is I've um it's not as if the property owner air is going to be looking to just given the you know the configuration of that lot there aren't going to be it's not likely there'll be future variance requests for like an accessory instruction for example just given with respect to that property anyway I'll I'll uh I'll second the motion to

accept the the findings of fact. Okay. So, we have a motion to accept the findings of fact. I think Heidi already motioned for it. Right. By Miss Cook, seconded by Mr. this felt for this case the AR25-042. Um, yeah, I just want 2,400. So, why is that bothering you so much? That's because it's that's 2,000 square ft. It's And the other one, of course, is a 34%. Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, otherwise this it would basically have to go back to that adjacent property owner eventually. That's the only person who would have any use for it, right? That's the only other possibility. And then it's just going to be and all they're going to want to do with it is rent it in the first place. You know, I mean, this this increases like the housing available. That's one way to look at it. Housing stock. Yeah. I mean, what what else what else could you use this property for if these variances aren't approved, right? All right. I mean, this would probably unleash a whole lot of other dominoes with past property owners, right? Okay. Well, all right. I move to grant the variance request for this case V. Did we vote on the findings? Oh, we didn't actually take the vote. Okay. So, I'm sorry. How do we vote on the findings of fact? I I I can make a move. Now, I can make the motion for the

variance. So I move to grant the variance the requested variance for the aerial variances for V25-042 for 204 Kingwood Street subject to the soul condition referenced by Mr. Thompson seconded. So we have a motion to grant um seconded by Mr. Missfeld. How do we vote? I I I um so we have granted your requested variance for your case. Um I think we missed something. Did Did you say was the uh condition? I did. Okay. Yeah. I just said subject to the sole condition of reference by Mr. Thompson um for this case. Um you will receive written notification from planning typically within a week. Um the decision we just rendered is can be appealed to the circuit court of Monagalia County. Um and any work that you undertake during this 30-day appeals window you do at your sole financial risk. Thank you for coming down this evening. Okay. Next case is V25-054 Carl Bergamini 336 Malbury Street request by Carl Bergamini for variance relief from section 1333.03 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding minimum lot provisions. City Tax District 15, fourth ward, tax map 7,

parcel 167 in the R1, single family residential district. Mr. Thompson. [Music] So, as seen in the packet as well as on the presentation, here's uh the uh properties in reference, their location, as well as the range of where we kind of send out these letters. Here's a close uh view of the property. Um just kind of showing it more zoomed in to see, you know, topography and and other factors on the property. Uh here is it's better shown in the packet. Um the what was presented to the kind of planning commission on uh how the property will look like now as well as on u the frontage on Mberry Street. Uh an indicator of the current law frontage. Uh it says 65. Again, it's hard to see a little bit up there. So, the applicant wishes to consolidate parts of her adjacent parcels at the property referenced above. This consolidation has already been looked at and approved by the planning commission contingent on the board of zoning appeals ruling regarding the minimum lot frontage. The lot frontage is currently 65 ft on Malbury Street where the homeowner's place of residence currently is. Uh once again indicated on that um uh site plan uh on there as well as in the packet. Um, in summary, the applicant wishes to consolidate portions of their adjacent lots. The applicant is requesting 5 ft of variance relief from their minimum lot frontage requirements. Please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications. This attachment can be found below the conditions. Staff have no objections to the applicant's request for variance relief. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief from section 133303 of the city's planning and zoning code, the lot shall be subject to the following conditions. There is one condition on this variance

request being any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall seek variance relief from the board of zoning appeals which has previously been discussed. If there's any changes or uh submissions uh regarding this property in any matter that isn't compliant to the city's uh ordinance, they will seek variance relief or make it compliant uh going forward. And that concludes my staff report. Thank you very much. Um do we have a representative for V2-054? Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Carl Green. I'm uh Ms. Hayes architect and we've been working together just to look at the parcel consolidations. Um, one thing I did want to point out is um the frontage requirements um of 70 ft is actually not widely, you know, or any sort of uh existing of what's there now. I think uh 1260, this is just by kind of did a quick GIS uh survey. 1260 has a 60 ft frontage. Mhm. 1256 Oxford has a 65. 1248 has a 65. Um 340 um 65 341 60 and 325 Malbury 55 ft. So essentially this is, you know, we're making the lots larger so that we can, you know, potentially put an accessory structure on it. Um, and we're kind of coming up against this sort of requirement here. So this is sort of just a map here showing, you know, in the adjacent to the blue property all the parcels that are really of the same kind of caliber and condition, right? with that 65 ft on average. Yeah. Set back.

Do you want to say anything? Go. Yeah, by all means. Come, come, come. Hi, I'm Sharon Hayes and I'm the property owner of My Home is at 336 Malberry Street. And my understanding is that all of these lots were subdivided back in the ' 40s when Dupont had their supervisors on the bigger corner lots and the worker bees were in the in the middle lots and I happened my husband and I happened to buy one of the worker B lots. Um, and I also understand that but for the fact that it's um 65 ft as opposed to 70 ft, it we wouldn't be we wouldn't be here and we're we're seeking the variance on the on the fact that it's it's not um compliant with existing uh code in order to combine it in order to combine it with the adjacent lock. Right. Um there is a lot of precedent in the neighborhood for combining lots, right? Um the two lots on either end of Oxford and overlooking Oxford. The the residences facing right are all one involves three lots and another the other involves two lots. um with it on the other end of outside of the blue. Um the Aspazito I think have two lots. You know, there's if you walk through the neighborhood, there's there's many many many uh properties where lots have been combined. So, it's it's not unusual. It's not outside of the precedent in the neighborhood. Right.

And with that, I would just ask that you grant it. Um, we we have tried to um in working with the staff at the planning uh commission, we've tried to um make sure that we're being very cognizant of um you know, we don't want to have a three-way. Um, so that's one of the reasons for dividing the lots the way they are, so that we would prevent um the ability to drive through, right? Um, the there would be a lot of of plantings and trying to improve the the the visual appearance of the of the area. Mhm. Um I've was joking with him before. I like to bring Cooper's Rock into Sunrest and so that's, you know, it's what I want to do. If you have any further questions, we will do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions of anyone? No. Okay. We're going to go ahead and open the public hearing for V25-054. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to, now is your chance to do so. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. Just your name and your Herman Moses 1264 Oxford Place. I lived there 55 years on the corner of Oxford and Malbury. Mhm. Pretty familiar with

the street which is uh approximately seven dwellings on the street facing the street and two on the end uh facing um Kenmore Street. So, it's a very neighborly street and it, as Sharon had mentioned, it was laid out in the 40s as single family dwellings and almost all of the lots in the area are single families. There may be some occasions that people have bought lots and so forth and combined them, but almost all of them are for single family. And uh it's what I read here is the major change here is on Oxford Place. Oxford Place will be losing a single family dwelling. That's a major decision that you have to make because I'm in favor of it staying as a single family dwelling for the neighborhood for it's only a oneb block street and uh I think most of the neighbors that are on the street are very familiar with it and like the street etc etc and we would like to see it remain as a single family dwelling. That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else?

My name is Glenn Walker and I live at 1248 Oxford Place. Me and my wife have been there for a while and we know everyone on the street. Improvements are good. Construction is good, but where construction operates to the reverse of the existing land owners, then you have a situation. Across the street from me is a big open field with a partial driveway. So, I walk out my front door and I look at a driveway. if this variance would continue and I cannot understand why you would have a land adjustment or variance without some anticipation of putting something on it. And I believe that's how you get up these stairs because you make application downstairs. But I'm here to tell you, I do not want to walk out my front door and look at somebody's driveway. That would defeat the purpose. There's only six houses on that street. Can you imagine the negative effect it will have on the market values of those houses?

And here we're asking for a variance for property line adjustment. What comes next? In order to come up those stairs, I had to start downstairs and give the city a proposal in order to get a permit. And this particular piece of property with the present owner is a big T. A house was torn down in order to make a driveway. I do not want to come out my front door and look at somebody's driveway because that's not the reason the people invested in that neighborhood. I could get emotional, but I refuse to do that. But I do know how getting a permit operates. You start downstairs and they tell you who, what, when, and where. Then you come up those stairs and you get a variance. So what is hidden that we can't see? a driveway, a picnic area, another house just to get the setback provision. You all make that decision. But I guarantee you what we see is not what we're going to get.

it. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case? Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing [Music] [Music] with regard to a new if there's Hypothetically, a subdivision aside from the requested 5 foot variance, would the parcel meet minimum requirements? Uh yes. So for when it comes to considerations of uh like lot provision size um in reference to square footage, size of the lot, uh structures on the lot, um coverage in that amount and uh setbacks of existing uh structures on the on the lot. Uh everything else to our review is compliant. Uh it would just be that 5 ft in the front. that wouldn't be based on the um the uh submitted uh plan to the planning commission. Um uh all other uh law provision requirements of that district uh have been met to my understanding. Thank you.

discussion. [Music] And I mean, m Mr. Thompson, can you speak to I mean, the the the applicant the the plan is to consolidate, not to subdivide. I was just asking my question to maybe address some of the concerns voiced in the course of the public hearing. Yeah. So why if the applicant is looking to Can you speak to why the because it this is being referenced as a front front lot setback if the is the along this property line is that even qualify as a front. If if the applicant's consolidating the two parcels, should we really even be referencing this as as the frontage of it? Yeah. So, is that because it's if you look at the um attached the the final kind of supporting dock for it, uh the one that show up there um that red line is going to be the new property line and uh it's taking the uh it's kind of easier to see in this picture. That's what the lots uh look like currently. There is the uh 336 which is uh the res

u her current residence uh and then work with the uh property on Oxford and they are taking that and uh going to subdivide it combine it into this which is uh based on the red line there. Those will be the the current property lines. So they'll be um visually seen on there. So, the only way to access the street from that property would still be out through uh Malberry Street and the applicant would be able to speak more to that if I've said anything that is incorrect, but that is to my understanding. Are we able to clarify a couple of things about why we set those property lines? Yeah, nice to hear. Yeah, you I mean we'll just take this as not a technical rebuttal but just sure an expatiation on earlier points. Sure. Uh I mean I think our initial thought had been just to combine the two parcels. Um but because of the way that the zoning code works and creating through lots, we had to, you know, propose giving some of that um frontage along Oxford to 1249, which means you can't put a driveway readily to there through there or something to that effect. So, you know, we we ran into the challenge of being able to uh in a future put an accessory structure on its own parcel without a primary structure. So, that was sort of the the problem we ran up against and this is why we came to this set of conclusions. and anything that would happen moving forward is really going to respect the existing frontages along Oxford um you know as they are now 1249 match that up. So that's sort of why we

kind of came up with the dimensions that we did to kind of get the parcel, you know, joined as such. And and if you think about it, you know, we're taking density out. And yes, it would be great to put another single family home there, but there are instances where consolidation and putting one larger home on multiple parcels is sort of the norm in this neighborhood. Right. Mr. Johnson, can you speak to if I mean the plan is to combine to consolidate the parcels if just hypothetically if we grant the the five foot variance and the property owner then elects to subdivide will and there's a transfer and the new property owner elected to to develop another single family dwelling. That's why I was asking the question, does the does does this other lot meet all the minimum requirements? would down the road a new property owner have to request the 5 foot which would then effectively definitely be a front yard setback. So uh as this would be let's say she would sell the property cuz that in the scenario of a new property owner becomes the owner and they want to build a single family residence on Oxford Place. Is that kind of what you're asking? Yeah. Uh the avenue of which they'd be able to do that because uh after this it'll be two lots instead of three and you couldn't have a single family uh dwelling or any dwelling on uh a lot in this district with another one. So what

they uh the avenue they would have to go down would just subdivide it into back to two lots instead of one and then they wouldn't need to get the request u because this would only be tied to the Malberry Street address not to whatever a future consolidation could be if they subdivide it further right and if the new law that would be designed by maybe a future owner wouldn't be compliant then they would have to get whatever that would be um on there because I mean I'd like to see what it sounds like you are interested in pursuing is the lower density which is in keeping with what the zoning districts right but I'm trying to I guess it's not really doesn't come under I shouldn't be anticipating too much Um, I don't know. Are you trying to We're often asked to alleviate hardship and what is a reasonable use of property? Is there a hardship that you're trying to alleviate at all? Can you maybe speak to that? Yeah. a a special condition or attribute of the property itself. The hardship would be what I want to build or what I want the way I want to use the lot. Mhm. I wouldn't be able to do. But it's not right. Okay. But your your plan is almost nonuse of your lot. You're just consolidating and not building out structures. It's you are trying to

We were planning for the possibility. I could leave it as as the next starrass or I could put an accessory structure there, right? But you can't do it on its own parcel without the primary. So we somehow have to attach it somewhere, right? So that's the hardship. Mhm. That's Yeah, I think that's what we said in our package. Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Do we have discussion on Thank you very much for the uh the findings of fact. They're very detailed. Excuse me. Um, we've kind of closed the public hearing, but did you want to offer rebuttal or Yes. All right. Go ahead. Approach and just can you restate your name and address and offering rebuttal? The present owner has been uh very uh investment mining as far as our community is concerned. But let me ask you, why would I need a adjustment to property that I already own? Left and to the right. There's only two houses on the other side of the street from me. Mhm.

And she owns three months. Why is it necessary for there to be an adjustment to the setback? Why is that necessary? Consolidation. I can understand it if you're going to sell a property in the future, but right now we just got a load of gravel in front of front of our house and to make an adjustment to the property line. That sounds to be like a real good deal. to the seller, right? And we consider these variances, they're unique to the property. So that's why we're doing our due diligence now to try to determine if the requested 5 foot variance is reasonable or not in accordance with the findings of fact that have been provided to us in our deliberations. Well, again, uh I understand you, you know, you all's concern and understand you being in an authority position, but for a land owner to say, "Wait a minute. There was a house here. There's no house there. Oh, there was a lot there. Oh, oh, there's another house there." Mhm. But I'm sorry. I I feel that as an individual and an investor that I do appreciate the rules and regulations, right?

And one of the things that I have learned over the years is what we call a rule of law. You don't change the law to fit the defendant. But I can tell you right now that there's probably 100 150 or 60 ft in front of my house and nobody's lives there. So what's the game plan is to adjust the property line. Come on. is going to get a variant so you can say, "Hey, you can build this and you can build that." Been down this road before and I do know that downstairs they ask they ask you for documentation, they don't give it to you. So, you come come up stairs to get a variance. And we have 1 2 3 4 five people in that blunt. The last group of people to bl buy by buy a house probably sp had to spend 7 or 800,000. Do you think they want to look at somebody's driveway? I don't think so. I don't think so. [Music] Thank you. I have a question. We've we've kind of closed the public hearing. Do can you just ask the question there and we'll try to address it from what's the question? I read this and it uh sounds like all

the activity is on Oxford Place. Isn't that right? the property on Oxford has and from what I understand from discussions the it's currently a single family dwelling in the district. Isn't that true? Currently, it would be a uh empty parcel in a single family uh residential district. Within that district, there's no dwelling at that property, but it is a single family dwelling district with a vacant parcel. That was their findings of fact that they filled out um by the by the applicant. But the uh yeah that currently as shown there uh that top parcel uh in reference to you uh commenting about the Oxford side it is uh currently an empty lot in a single family residential dwelling district. So what you have here is changing it, losing the single family dwelling parcel in this with outreach. You're really turning they're changing the Malbury Street frontage to a rear frontage on Oxford. That's you can see that on the map there and in that you're losing the single family dwelling property for a house. Mhm. Isn't that true? It sounds as if that parcel would still be developable as a single family. No. So what is being presented is that there are three parcels and they're going to take one of them and consolidate most of it into another parcel. So there will be

three parcels um that will go to two parcels and in a uh single family residential dwelling district you can only have one principal use per parcel. Right. Right. So you're leing that Oxford Place single as well. That's just what we just said. But you would lose a vacant property. current. I would argue that the consolidation from two to a single parcel was more consistent and compatible with the current characteristics of the neighborhood in terms of density. No, I don't hear anyone complaining about density. Never on the screen or in the area. All right, we're going to we've closed the public hearing. No additional questions. So, so as a fact, it states that the they want to build an accessory structure on 1257 and the only way to do that to combine with their primary residence because the code doesn't allow constructing an accessory structure on a standalone parcel. Is that not subject to a variance or conditional use itself? So if uh I will go back to that one too because it's on the adjacent parcel. Yeah. If they were to build an accessory structure on that adjacent parcel uh it it wouldn't be permitted. It would be an additional you know variance cuz it's an accessory not a principal. It's not allowed. You have to get it right. But but you would be asking that instead of this they would be back here for it cuz it's just not permitted. It just wouldn't be setbacks or anything. But if we were to do that, there's no way to understand where that should be,

right? That was our problem to begin with. I mean my I mean my kind of concern here is we're talking about a lot of hypotheticals and a lot of things outside of the scope of what we're supposed to actually be paying attention to which is just which is just this one request from a variance that's really this the entire scope of our focus right and um and I'm kind of convinced by what we saw earlier that this would not be remotely out of the 5T with the rest of the neighborhood. It's not out of it's not inconsistent with the other on the other parcels in the neighborhood. It's there's a handful right there. It's not unreasonable. It's not I understand the rest of it. I I mean I would have those constraints too, but that's not that's kind of that's outside our purview. It is outside our purview and I shouldn't have done as much of you're right about the anticipating possible scenarios that may play out. That's not our that's not our responsibility really. Yeah, I think the heart of the matter is and that's really more of a planning right scope thing to review and they've done that to some extent. These concerns could have been lodged there as well, you know. Mhm.

My response is the five the requested five foot variance request is not it's it's not inconsistent with the other setbacks in the other parcels and the neighborhood. No, that's kind of it's always and it's it it's it's compatible and consistent with how this neighborhood was initially set set up and we can't I mean we can't be denying frontage variances based on the expectation that some other development is coming down the line. So in terms of the findings of fact, can the applicant speak to the only way we can do this is to combine with our primary residence at 336 Oxford Place. Morgantown zoning code does not permit the construction of accessory structure on a standalone parcel without a primary structure. So you can't can you speak to regardless of whether you consolidate or not I mean your intention is you want that accessory structure. Can you speak to why you can't build that on the you know adjacent to the standing structure. Well, just speak to that. So, okay, you're meeting 1249. Yeah.

So, 1249 is a guest cottage for um my client. 336 is her primary residence. Mhm. She wants to have the flexibility. That may not be always her guest pockets, right? But whatever she's doing, that use is going to be associated with her health and her wellness and her personal use of that space, right? An extension of her garden, which is, you know, quite quite fantastic. Um, and you know, I think that's why we decided to combine those two. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to try to 1249, which is not her primary residence, right? Um, and really, you can't build any kind of accessory structure on a standalone apartment. I mean, if we wanted to put the shed that we had in our last discussion, you can't put anything on that parcel without combining it. That's really this is the number you come up against. So it really makes use of that property for anything associated with her primary res. That's what I think right and we don't necessarily have a plan. We're we're kind of starting out and this is very early in the process. So, I don't have designs. Everything's going to be unveiled. Um, you know, we don't have something, you know, we're kind of working together to figure out what this wants to be. Mhm. Design really besides kind of figure out what can we do.

[Music] Heat. Heat. And then Mr. Thompson, can you speak to has this gone before planning at all yet or no? The planning commission or the planning department? Planning commission. Uh yes. So the this has gone uh in front of the planning commission and they've conditioned on their approval of it that they've they come here and receive a variance for the uh 5T frontage um set back. Um but it has gone to the planning commission and the planning commission approved it with conditions in in regards to the new uh law lines. Right. I don't I mean, again, I'm going to go back to my initial responses. The the 5 foot, it's not inconsistent, incompatible with the aerial characteristics of the neighborhood. On the other hand, I don't know if you've demonstrated how our granting your requested varants is going to help us. Not that we're there to relieve you of hardship, but you haven't really demonst you haven't you haven't spoken compellingly to demonstrate the level of the hardship

that you're looking to, you know, help your client with. Well, there's supposed to be a a special condition or attribute of the property itself that's not just unique to the owner. So, you should you should be able to find the unique hard the unique special condition or the attribute, but looking at the the property itself, not at not at the owner or how they want to use it. I guess the hardship really comes down to it comes down to they can't build the accessory structure with the car properly configured how it's configured currently is and then reconciling that to the hardship was made by allowing by having the allowing these to be combined the parcels to be combined in the first place and that's right that's true and then again unwinding what's already been blocked. But there's also a little bit about thousand interest on the property owner against the need to protect the property. Yeah. I mean the accessory building that's not unreasonable use of the property, but it's really not. Yeah. People always have good reasons for wanting to do one thing or the other, but it's really there's really variances are really supposed to alleviate special conditions or weird things about the property itself that make application of the zoning code to that property itself like an overly burdensome. And it it really shouldn't there really shouldn't it really doesn't matter about the particular control of self and what militates against that is it ironically is the five foot quest kind of flies in the face of the unique characteristic that we're looking for. Well, I think they do. There is a special condition, but it was created by

the parcels being combined and and frankly the and but the variance itself is not I don't think it I don't think there's an adverse impact to the neighborhood because the rest of the neighborhood is like this already. That's where I go. There's not a lot of harm. I can't see any harm to the public or harm to adjacent neighbors in any of what we're doing. Yeah. cuz it's not as if, and I'm maybe I'm misreading some of the statements that were made in the course of the public comment period. Um, seems like they're heading in two different directions. I what I'm hearing from you is you're requesting this out of a good faith attempt to develop the property in such a way that it's not going to be what you're proposing is not at all inconsistent or incompatible with the the characteristics of the neighborhood at all. And in that regard, my inclination is to move to accept the findings of fact and grant the variance because what you're proposing is not in it's it does not fly in the face of the current characteristics of the neighborhood. And I think I mean I I hear the the the statements made by those who live in the neighborhood, but I don't think what you're proposing is out of character with the character of the neighborhood. Agreed. Agreed. Yeah. So, I don't know. What do you think? Yeah, I agree. I move to accept the finding and I second that motion to accept the

findings of fact. Um Mr. Thompson, can you speak to before we even vote on the accepting or not accepting the findings of fact, can you speak to conditions forensic in this case? There is of one condition on this variance being any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall seek variance relief from the board of zoning appeals. As previously stated, if uh there are any changes uh to the site plan or any submissions relative to this property, they have to be compliant with zoning ordinance. If they are not, they will either return to the board of zoning appeals and make a request or they will make uh a compliant to the current ordinance and that is the uh only condition uh upon this variance. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for B25-054 seconded. How do we vote? I I I Okay. So, we've accepted the findings of fact for V25-054. Do we have a motion to grant the requested 5 foot variance request? I'll move to grant with um planning commission condition. Sorry, condition. I second. Okay. So, we have a motion to grant the variance by Mr. Miss Fel second of Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I I um granted your request. You will receive written notification from planning. um generally within a week. But please keep in mind that the

decision we just rendered is subject to appeal in the Mona Circuit Court and any work that you undertake in that 30-day appeal window if you do it at your soul financial risk. Thank you very much. All right. Next case is B25-060 Page Store and Todd Moors 495 Falling Run Road by Page Store and Todd Moors for variance relief from section 1 335.04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding setback requirements. City tax district 12 third ward tax map 20 par also 44 in the R1A single family residential district Mr. Thompson. Yep. As shown on the presentation as well in the packets. Here's uh similar to the other cases uh a kind of aerial view of the property uh as well as the uh distance that letters were sent out using. Uh here's a further zoomed in look at the property. um to provide a better visual. The third attachment on here is a survey that the applicant has submitted um showing different properties uh current property lines, layout etc. as well as uh on here is an additional uh image which will make a little bit more sense once I read through the rest of the report. But this is showing that front of that property. Uh if you go back to the previous submitted uh kind of parcel view out uh there on the side uh on the front of the property that is uh the picture there if you're standing on the ground looking in towards the property that is that is kind of what it looks like. So uh the applicant wishes to construct a

single family residence at the referenced address. Uh this would be a smaller sized home which the applicant desires to be placed near the center of the property. Uh the lot itself has multiple hills and steeper graded areas. Uh this would be an example of one of those uh ones and during their uh portion they could speak to other parts of the property that that have uh you know grade considerations um uh which the applicant stated would cause issues for the construction uh to move this development in a manner to be compliant with setback requirements. Um, in relation to that, in summary, the applicant is wishing for an additional 8 ft to their maximum front setback as well as relief from providing two off- streetet uh parking spaces on the property. Um, please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these. This attachment can be found below uh the conditions listed in the packet. Uh, staff have no objections to the applicant's request for variance relief. If the board of zoning appeals does grant the uh excuse me the applicant variance relief from the section 133504 city's planning and zoning code uh the law shall be subject to the following conditions uh which is the similar condition to the other ones but I will I I'll still read it. Uh any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall seek additional variance relief from the board of zoning appeals. And that will conclude my staff report. Thank you very much. Do we have a representative for this case? Hello, my name is Todd Moors. My address is 200 Thatcher Lane, New West Virginia. Thank you. Um, so as Mr. Thompson stated, you can see um there. Go back to the That one or the original? Uh, that one. Yeah. Okay. Um, would you like to point? There you go. Mhm. Um, you can see that

the following room road that bicts the the line of the lot. So, the lot line is basically in the middle of the following road. And if you if I could show you, I meant to get this picture on the but didn't show up. No, that's fine. This is the corner of the lot of my right. Okay. And this is that that show. Mhm. Uh and so when you the 8T, the 8T and the 20T, you start from the line, right? You're too far. Oh, yeah. You even get off the road. Yep. Um so that's our hardship basically. Uh make it, you know, as easy as possible for everybody. Um and so what we'd like to do is get a variance for and uh you know that the home would start some feet back from that bank, right? Because if you we don't want to set it too close to the edge. Um and uh if you look here there is also this is a a rather steep grade here. Okay. So there on that there is a small area to build a house right in there. And so it it will fit there but it won't fit within that variance. Yeah. Um and then uh the the the parking situation, you can see what how that would be a problem, too. Um so, um that's what we're requesting. So, what is the plan for parking? You're saying is there a drive or can you speak to there is no drive? No. Um so, I'll show you this this that the the entrance to the lot is these stairs here. That's the entrance. There was a home there. Oh, right on the bank. We demolish it. And and we're requesting that the home sit basically where the the previous home did. Okay.

And um now, uh we possibly could get enough area in here in this area here for a parking spot. it wouldn't it wouldn't meet the like requirements, you know, but um and then um past this past this uh stairs, we could do the same on the edge of the street. It wouldn't it wouldn't meet the parallel to the Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yeah. parallel to the line. Yeah. Um and so you know some sometime in the past you know somebody built the road and built it on on our lot and you know I mean so uh you know um that's that was our plan for that's my plan for parking you know but um hopefully that would work out. All right you Mhm. You have any other questions for me? I don't think so. No point. These are I mean this is this is like a textbook one. It's you've got a weird property line in the middle of a road, weird topography. Mhm. Yep. This is this is what a variances are for. Mhm. These little I mean apart from the Yeah. I mean what's more the pro the parking I guess is more problem is the more problematic aspect. Yeah. Can you reapproach just for sake of the microphone? Thanks. That is a dead end. Oh, is it? It is. All right. on this past the stairs there is um uh the falling run green space I is that the

name of it I'm sorry I don't know about thereish is the the road just a circle back in yeah across the road is Mub's uh building yeah oh yeah okay right if you this uh yeah this this is basically the end of the road and then this is This is like a a walking area like your green space. Oh yeah, it's like a trail right there. Yeah, a trail. So, um so we were hoping that since it is a dead end road, we could kind of get those parking spaces in there, you know, without it wouldn't cause any trouble for anybody passing, right? You know, yeah. I don't I mean of the two issues the parking issue is the of the two is the more problematic and even that's not problematic because again it's the the contours and the layout of the parcel determines where the parking yeah is going to see if it was a through street I can see that the parking would be more concerning in my opinion it's not because it's a dead end but you know that's just my opinion And that's again, but that's specific to this parcel. That one way is specific to this. Yeah. And I don't foresee any future development past that. Thank you very much. Discussion. Oh, actually, let's go ahead and just open the public hearing. Um, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition of this case, please do so. Now seeing no one, close the public hearing. There's no correspondence on this one. Just a note that for the brethren um discussion I mean I I've already offered my discussion

like you said cut and dry. Yeah. I believe I'm going to go ahead. Do you have anything further to No, it was just if you were going to be the one to motion it. Yes. So I'm move to accept the findings of fact for V25-060. I second. We have a motion to at least consider the findings of fact. Seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I do. We have a motion to grant the variance. Yes. I move that we grant the variance with the condition as stated in the packet from uh the city. Seconded. And then again, we're so this is um requesting an additional 8 foot and then relief from the parking the partial parking requirements. Those two variances that we're addressing. Okay. So, we have a motion to grant the variance. We do. Yes. And seconded. Seconded. Yeah. By Mr. Missfell. How do we vote? I I I and then again subject to the condition. So we have granted you variance. Um you will receive written notification from planning within a week or so. Please keep in mind that the determination we just rendered is appealable in the circuit court of money county. Um it's a 30-day appeals window. So any work that you undertake during that 30-day period, you do at your financial risk. Thank you very much. And we are moving on to our last um well it's a transfer um it's uh it's not uh do we want to reference I mean it's not really haven't

assigned a case number. It's uh request to transfer a conditional use permit for MUT's place from Blahit Hospitality LLC to Hot Matra LLC for the purpose of operating a conditional private club use at 263 Beach Avenue city tax district 12 tax 19 Parli 22.1 in the fourth ward no case number. So, uh, yes, this, um, and I'll get into it, but the case number would be that CU13. Okay. It's it's not in the packet, but it is CU3 condition. Correct. Yeah. It was a condition of an older uh condition put on it. So, we referenced that original. Yeah, that's one of cuz it's just a transfer. Yep. Uh, all right. as you said, uh just here's a a visual indicator just kind of where that's located just for reference also included in the packet for visuals. Uh just to give context of it. So background uh on May 2nd, 2013, the board of zoning appeals reviewed an application for conditional use approval to operate a private club use at 263, more commonly known as mud's place. Uh after review the findings of fact associated with the case were found in the positive and the board grant the conditional granted the conditional use permit with no or with conditions excuse me please see the attached action letter dated 53 2013 uh more information. Um so in granting the conditional use permit the board of zoning appeals noted that the beneficiary of the conditional use granted herein in specific to mudsplace incorporated and may not be transferred without prior approval of the board of zoning appeals. As such the applicant is requesting to transfer the ownership of the establishment to hot on the trots LLC. In speaking with the applicant, the houses of operation in menu will not

change and to our knowledge there will be no work or any additional uh development involved other than just exchanging uh ownership um of that. Um so staff have no objections to the applicant's request to transfer ownership of the property and no conditions uh or uh etc. Mhm. But it is private club, right? Cor will not be changing but the use uh is a private club use. Does that represent a change? It's not going from something to private club, right? Correct. It is a private club uh that is going to continue operating as a private club just under new management and then new ownership. Excuse me. And then everything that go well I mean you mentioned menu anticipated changes but everything that goes along with private club. Correct. To to our knowledge, there is no change involved with this. And if uh there there would be, it would have to still be compliant as if the current owner uh or you know before the transfer were to make a change, right? Uh no change of standards or uh changement of enforcement of those would would change based on who owns the property, right? Mhm. Okay. Do we have a representative for this uh requested transfer? And Eli Martinez 409 Marlor Circle. Um, I noted that in in the finding of fact number one, I believe that is all in reference to 2013 when this was originally, but it talks about Mud's Place being in operation for 30 plus years um, up on University Avenue and it was moving down to Beach. So, it's been about 12 years since then. So, now we're closer to 45 to 50 years of Mud Place being in operation between those two locations. Um, and and there

have been a few owners within that time. As far as I know, nothing has changed. I'm actually currently the general manager of Mun Place. I have been since 2022. Um, I've been a general manager at a bar on High Street as well since 2011. So, I do have experience in the industry. And in saying that, since essentially running the place for the past 3 years, there will be no changes. It's um the name of the bar will continue to be Mut's Place. The hours of operation will stay the same. The menu will stay the same. We're not adding any things to the structure. We're not taking anything away. It's it's literally just the the change of the LLC. Um like a rebranding. Correct. Um one thing I do want to note kind of like in finding a back number of the apartments. I'm not purchasing the building. There are apartments above uh the bar. So things like that don't really apply in this situation. I am just purchasing the business, not the building. Ah, so so the building would stay under the current owner. Okay. So but you're purchasing it outright. You're not leasing your space, right? Yes. I I would be I would be renting the Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I would pay rent to the landlord who who currently owns the building and the business. All right. Right. Okay. Any other questions? No. Thank you. I mean, it's cut and dry. Um, does anyone have any issues with any of the findings of fact?

Um, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone open to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, please do so. Now, seeing no one going to close and we want to know there's no correspondence submitted for this case. Closing the public hearing. Um well I'll just make a motion to accept the So he still had to he still had to get get one even though the owner already had it. Yeah. So based in just the condition of if the ownership is to be transferred if the next person has to get uh the conditional use because it goes to the goes with the owner not with the property. But that's just the business that the the the property is still sold to that same owner. Right. To the best of my understanding, when this private club use was approved conditionally, that was a condition tapped on to the use being approved in that specific owner. Mhm. So, whoever is operating in business also has to get one has to or has to for that private club. So for like Mut's place getting its conditional use to be a private club at that location, they had to go through the conditional use process and a condition on that for Mut's Place specifically was to if it ever exchange ownership to come back and and get a condition. Whereas if they were to leave this location and it'd be vacant for an amount of time and another private club comes in for example, they would have to go through the whole kind of process of you know our menu, our brand, seating, uh you know some of the other ones that you you guys have seen during our time. Um so if it was like I don't know not much place they would have to go through the whole procedure. So as a condition it uh that's that was the condition on it. So from mud's place doesn't have to go back if they change ownership or or change or something. Okay.

It's like a break in the chain of title. If that happens then the transfer is required. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. I move to approve the finding of facts. I second. Okay. We have a motion to um consider approve findings of fact. Seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I I move to approve the transfer requested for well the original case is CU 13-05. We're going from MUT's place to um what's the name again? Uh sorry hot on the TR. So we're going from Mud's Place Lodge and Hospitality LLC to Hott LLC at the reference property 263 Burst Avenue city tax district 101 12 sorry tax map 19 parcel 22.1 4th ward. A second and we have a second. How do we vote? I and no conditions for this by the way. Correct. There will be no conditions on this. Okay. So we have a motion seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I I have your transfer written correspondence from planning generally within a week and this is still appealable. Correct. So this I mean our determination our decision that we just rendered it can be appealed to the circuit court of my Gary County. It's a 30-day appeals window and any work that you do associated with your transfer during that period you do at your sole financial risk. Thank you very much. Question. Yep. Go ahead.

Uh, should I resubmit one of those? I would say reach out to Ricky Jagger, our director. I believe that's the main contact you've been talking to up to this point. He's the one in in the planning department that handles all of that. So, I don't want to give you an answer I'm not confident in. Um, but I would say if you've been in contact with him, I would just say reach out to him. Uh, and it'll also probably be um, you know, he'd be able to just tell you, you know, the way to proceed forward with it. Um, uh, to my understanding, I would say yes. But, you know, I'd double check with him. He's the guy who covers it um, those forms. So, I appreciate. Yep. No problem. Thank you very much. Do we have any announcements? Uh, we do. Um, so I, um, you might have been on the correspondence. I don't believe I was, but I have seen it. Uh, Mr. Plyer will not be uh returning to the board of zoning appeals. Um, he is uh uh stepping away from the position. Um, so those who have another vacant seat and uh working to get those filled cuz there is there's a a couple currently. Um so uh but yes that that's um unfortunately all right he will be uh he will be stepping away from from the board of zoning appeals uh indefinitely. So so what about uh Logan and Gabe? Are they still actually on the uh Gabe is uh still uh uh was involved with the BCA. Uh Logan uh however is also not uh a part of the board of zoning appeals anymore. Okay. Um so Flyers uh was was a recent uh retraction from it. Uh, Logan hasn't been on for a little while. Um, and we're working to kind of get that. I know on here it still says it on some of the documents. I got you. Yep. And then Yeah. And then K, I mean, he gave us forewarning that he would be traveling a lot in the summer. Okay. Okay. That was my uh Yeah, I remember. Otherwise, that's really the only uh uh special news,

right? And and then cases, I mean, the five more cases for August. Yeah, there are five uh more cases on the August about five on the next uh board of zoning appeals meeting. Okay. All right. As of this time. Yep. Do we have I move. All right. So, we have a motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? I I just Okay.