Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of Morgantown Board of Zeroning Appeals. Please turn off all cell phones or other devices that may disrupt these proceedings. It is the duty of this board to consider requests for relief from the requirements of the city's zoning regulations to consider conditional use permit requests and hear administrative appeals. The board conducts business in the following order. Review, amend, and approve minutes of a previous meeting. We'll then move to unfinished business, conduct new business, and conclude with announcements from staff. Each request is heard in the order that it appears on the agenda for each conditional use and variance request. Following is done. We will introduce the agenda item and the planning division will present a staff report which may or may not offer a recommendation. The applicant agent will be asked to present their justification for the request which may include questions by members of the board. will then open a public hearing to hear testimony in support of or in opposition to the request. Rules regarding public testimony are as follows. Anyone wishing to testify during the public hearing may do so once recognized by the chair or may in lie of oral testimony submit written testimony to the chair. All recognized speakers must approach the podium, state their name and address for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. All comments must be addressed to the board. Should be relevant to the application and may not be of a personal nature nature or personal attach. All speakers will be limited to 5 minutes. If members of the board have any questions of the speaker, that time will not be counted toward the total of five 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 group or organization. Um, speakers are notified that irrelevant comments or comments of a personal nature or personal attacks may result in the speaker forfeiting his her opportunity to participate in the public hearing. 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 members of the board have any questions of the applicant agent, that time will not be counted toward the five minutes. After all testimony is heard, I will declare the public hearing closed and no further public comment will be permitted. Univil, unruly, and/or disruptive behavior at any time during this meeting is prohibited and will result in removal from this public meeting. State law requires the board to consider findings of fact for each conditional use and variance request. The request cannot be granted unless a majority of the quorum present finds in the positive of all or the findings of fact. The board may elect to continue the hearing to another date if it needs additional information. Applicants and requesting parties will be notified in writing by the planning division of the board's findings and conclusions. Regardless of whether a request is approved or denied, decisions of the board can be appealed to the circuit court of Monagalia County within 30 days upon receipt of written notification from planning. Any work done relating to decisions rendered by this B board during this 30-day period is at the sole financial risk of the applicant. Thank you for your consideration and respect for these proceedings and the opinions of all meeting participants. Call to order. Miss Cook

here. Mr. Misfeld here. Mr. Dwit is absent. Mr. Bennison is present. Um, please let the record show that we do have quorum. Um we have meeting minutes from um previous meetings and in this case it's well beginning with the August meeting um August 20th, 2025. Um and also for December 17, 2025. Um any comments or amendations?

No to that minutes. Um, I move then that um we accept the uh meeting minutes from the August 20th and the December 17th, 2025 meetings as included in the packet. So, we have a motion to accept, seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I

I All right. So, those meetings have been accepted into the record. Um, our first order agenda item is uh unfinished business co25-109 Brandon Desenso at 52 Campus Drive. Request by Brandon Denso for conditional use and compliance with section 1331.05 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding a neighborhood convenience store use. city tax district 12 in the third ward tax map 20 parcel 80 in the R3 multif family residential district. So for CO29 uh on the screen as well as in the packets is just an aerial view showing um what that site looks like uh based on uh Mon County parcel information. Uh the second slide is just a further zoomed in uh image just to give a bit clear of exactly what uh what building we're talking about. Um the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit regarding a proposed neighborhood convenience store at the above reference address. The structure is already existing and has apartments that exist above the proposed use space. Uh refer to sections below uh in the packet. Um in summary, the applicant wishes to get a conditional use approval for a neighborhood convenience store at 52 Campus Drive. Please see the attached application uh to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these uh the attachments can be found below the conditions. Uh staff have no objections to the applicant's request for this conditional use and if the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant conditional use approval in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, these shall be subject to the following condition being our standard condition. And that will conclude staff report.

Thank you. Do we have a Is this a remote? No, I'm not right here. Oh, all right. We do have a representative for this case. Uh, yes, sir. I'm Denzo. Thank you. How you guys doing? Uh, my name is Gordon Denzo. Um, this this is my first uh museum meeting, so I'm not sure necessarily how to run this. That's fine. Just an overview justification. Yeah. Just can you state a reference address? Uh, yes. Uh it's uh 52 Campus Drive.

Okay. Yeah. Um yeah. So I mean high level overview. Um like seller just said the property uh it's a 14 unit multi family building right now. Um below on the ground floor of the structure. There's about a 1,000 square ft. Um right now it's kind of just like an empty space. The prior owner used that as his uh as his office that he ran his business out of. kind of the idea that we're looking to uh what we're looking to move forward and and push into into action. Uh we would like to put a convenience store in there. Uh you know, they're going to sell essentially um you know, pretty pretty regular items that you would find at any other convenience store. Um prepackaged good beverages. I do I do think that they intend to also try to sell um alcohol at some point, but that's obviously pending um them getting the proper approvals. uh you know our kind of our case or our opinion for why we think it would be good for the area is you know we just think it adds a it's an additional place where where students can go um get food and beverages you know I think in Sunnyside when you compare to when you compare Sunnyside to more of like downtown you know Sunnyside is more of like a little bit of like a like a a food desert you know the really really the only place you can go get food and beverage in Sunnyside is a Sunnyside super red or uh you know kind of like the Starbucks that's at the bottom view place. Uh the property it's situated directly across the street from uh the life science building. So, you know, I don't have an exact count for how many kids pass that uh pass that location on a daily basis, but I would I would venture to say it's in, you know, between Monday and Friday. Uh it's probably somewhere in the in the thousands, if not over 10, you know, probably over 10,000. Um you know, and again, I think it just I think it just adds a good place. I think it's a place where kids convenient place where kids can go uh get food and beverages and you know I think it I think overall it it enhances the appeal of the neighborhood.

Mhm. Okay. Any questions at this time? No. Are the um days and hours of operation on here correct? It says 7 days a week, 10 to 8:00 p.m. Uh, I think what they're looking for is more 8 to 10 p.m., but yes, uh, 7 days a week. 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Yes, sir.

Okay. And then also too, just to give you a little bit of a high level, so you know, myself and our company, we're not the ones who are going to be operating the convenience store. Uh, the gentleman's name is Harish Patel. His kind of experience in convenience stores. Uh he owns I don't I don't know the locations of all them that he does, but I know that he owns a couple of convenience stores at other college markets throughout uh you know kind of like like uh the Mid-Atlantic and then he also owns uh a handful of Dunkin Donuts um you know chain chain restaurants as well. So he is pretty well versed. This is not you know his first goound uh doing this kind of an operation. So, um, you know, we we obviously would not move forward with him if we didn't feel that we had confidence in him being able to execute what he, uh, what he intended and planned to do.

What's the current use of this space office? Well, so no, I mean, right now it's it's kind of just like a it's just dead space really. Um, it's about 1,000 square ft. There's there's two there's a half bath and a full bath in there. We took over management of the building. Uh it'll be 2 years this May. Um you know from when we took it over the owner at the time he was kind of using it as like a makeshift office um where he ran he he also own a couple other buildings in the area. That's kind of like where he ran his like property management side of it out of with I mean you mentioned the potential for alcohol sales.

Yes sir. If that comes to pass, do you anticipate a change in operating hours? Uh, no sir. So the the the other side to it too is obviously we have we have tenants that that live in the building. Um, you know, so we're not we're not trying to make this something where, you know, uh, people are going in and out at at all hours of the night. you know, we're not trying to keep this open till like 2:00 in the morning or anything like that because we do at the same time, you know, like we want to set the we want to set the the operator of the convenience store up for success, but at the same time, we don't want to jeopardize, you know, kind of like the the peace and well-being of the uh of the tenants that currently live there. Mhm. Is there going to be signage? Uh, yes, sir.

In what form? Um, I mean, typical it's it's I wish I brought you the the visual for, but it's so it's it's going to be kind of like a uh it's going to be the vinyl vinyl banner sign. I think I think the proposed dimensions of it don't hold me to it. I can get this to you guys, too, as well if you would like. Banner fabric banner. No, no, it's it's like a more of like a hard like vinyl vinyl banner. All right. Um, it's going to go above the top of the above the top of like the the double door entrance into what is like now the office space, call it. Um,

as an additional note also, any signage would have to get approved and permitted through the city anyway. Um, so if you know at the stage of where it's at now, if you know something wouldn't be compliant, they would have to come back with the board of zoning appeals or make it compliant for things like signage, things like that um for that space. We we do al the the operator of the community store, he also has came up with renderings for us. So again, I don't I unfortunately don't have them with me tonight, but I'd be more than happy to to share and supply you guys with those.

In terms of the signage, do you anticipate needing a variance for the area of the sign? Can you speak to that or will it just be like a materials and illumination? Uh

I think it's going to be more more just materials. Um, I mean it's to my knowledge, you know, from based off what what he sent me so far, um, it it doesn't seem like it's any it does not seem like a a crazy or like intricate or over the top sign. Really, more or less just seems like, you know, um, an area where he's going to be able to go put the name of the name of the convenience store on and just be able to let people that pass the building know that that is a, you know, a place for business that they can go and get food and beverage. All right. Right.

We could put a This is one we could put a condition on if if they have a different cuz you're leasing this to an operator. Correct. So that if they they change uh like if he gets out and then they get a new leie, they would have to come back for for each for another condition. Any signage changes change. Yeah. Right. Because otherwise it would just carry with it stays with the owner. So whoever he leases to could use it.

Uh correct. Yeah. As long as they wouldn't be changing the use. Any one could go into that space um and open up a neighborhood convenience store without coming back. Uh the board can condition that. They've conditioned that in the past on things like restaurant private clubs um and other things uh like that. So you could condition if this prospective buyer or lease or whoever uh doesn't go into that space or even after they're already in that space and it goes to somebody else, they could come back to the board of zoning appeals to get approval. That's a good idea. And there's no need with regard to the the rental space, the residential space. There's no there's no anticipated you're not anticipating separate signage for the residential units. No need for that.

No. No sir. Not that that's I mean you're focuses on the convenience store, but just so that we understand. So there were there just do you know anything about number of employees? So from discussions that we've had I mean they plan to staff it probably obviously depending on hours of operation I think um you know I think over the weekend they probably plan to have like about two people at all times but it's going to fluctuate between one to two. Um that's for that building right? Yeah there's there's a 39 unit parking uh parking lot directly behind the building. So in terms of the anticipated employees, there's accommodation for in terms of the parking, right? Uh yes, sir.

And accommodating set employees isn't going to adversely impact the residents who are already there. Again, I mean your focus is on the convenience store, but just yeah, you know, big picture.

Yeah, for sure. No. So, I mean, obvious, you know, obviously if you take if you take two parking parking spaces away from from that lot and dedicate them to the employees, obviously that's too less for um you know, two too less for the tenants of that building. But we do also manage a handful of buildings within the area, you know, call it like within 150 yards that have substantially sized lots. Um you know, and that's that's also like right now the the prominence in question, 52 Campus Drive, there's also a building right next door to which is 48 Campus Drive. They're kind of like sister buildings. Um in total between both of those there's 59 uh 59 beds, right? So obviously 59 beds, 39 parking space. So there's a there's there's a deficit in parking. Um typically what we do right now, we we manage we manage a building down the street and then we also manage a building uh a building across the street from it as well. So, kind of how we do is like any, you know, if once we hit that 39, um, once we fill up that parking lot, if any additional tenants in the building do want parking, we offer them to, you know, to go park at at one of the other lots that we manage in town.

Mhm. All right. And Sailor, can you speak to that? You don't see uh it's complications with entanglements with regard to available barking. So what's mixed you what's being proposed is mixed use.

Yeah. With the uh number of employees and then the size of the space that the number of spaces that they're they're asking for isn't a lot. And then um they are also close enough within that proximity that they can use uh nearby uh parking like off-site parking and that would be a part of of this conditional use kind of um uh review. Um, but but yeah, that that would kind of be encompassed into one conditional use for this uh neighborhood convenience store.

All right. Any more questions? Thank you. Yeah, we may have other questions for you. Okay, we're going to Okay, you ready for the public hearing? We are going to proceed to the public hearing for this case. So, anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, CO2-109, um 52 Campus Drive, now is your opportunity to do so. Public hearing now open. Is there any correspondence on this?

Nope, I have not received any. All right. Seeing no one, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing.

I would say approve it with that condition. Yeah, that's a good idea. Would you like to propose the language on that? Uh, okay. So, I move to approve. Well, let's do the findings of fact first. Okay. So,

the findings of fact, they seem pretty um straightforward. Right. Um, let's just take another look at them. I mean, it is it's it's consistent with I consider that part of Sunnyside. I mean, it's it's kind of mixed juice in nature. So I would say that this what's being proposed is more or less consistent with with the mixed use character of of that part of Sunnyside. Yes.

Um you know there are it's student it's a student population. They have vehicles but at the same time in my mind that part of Sunnyside it's kind of pedestrianoriented which is consistent with what's being proposed here. Right. I mean that's right where that's right where all the students cross,

right? Yeah. Um you know the students they have vehicles but it's very it it is it's it's pedestrianoriented. You've got the residents there. You've got what's being proposed for the convenience store which is it's convenient. So you know it's people passing by. Oh, it's a convenience store. I'm going to take advantage of this. about I would say that the proposal is consistent with the character of the name of this part of Sunnyside. So I move to accept the findings of fact for CL25-109 52 campus drive. I second.

So we have a motion to accept findings of fact with a second by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I we've accepted the findings of fact. Um any further discuss Oh, no. Would you like to propose the We're going to suggest the condition with regard to the anticipated signage proposed for or anticipated for the convenience store. Was there a staff condition to or no?

Well, there's the standard condition. We can It's the standard condition. Yeah, it's just if any other modifications or changes to the site plan are made, they have to be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or they shall come back and seek variance relief or just adjusted to be uh um permitted. So basically if there are any changes after we make our determination that will subject you to the need to come back for a a separate variant basically. So, okay. So, I'd move to language.

Yeah. I'd move to approve the application with the condition staff's condition and the additional condition that uh if the property is relet to a new leie who wants to continue the convenience store use that they come back to the board for an additional conditional use permit.

A second. So if there's a change in signage, especially with regard to ownership operation, that applicant will have to come before zoning board of appeals for approval for that different signage. So, we have a motion to grant the V the requested conditional use for CL25-109 subject to the proposed condition with regard to changes in signage with changes in ownership operation of convenience stores at the property. Second.

And we have a second by Miss Cook. Um, so we have the motion. It's been seconded. How do we vote? I I so we've granted your request for the conditional use. You will receive written notification from planning in about a week. Um but do keep in mind as we stated at the top of the meeting um any work that you undertake well it can be appealed to the circuit court of Monagalia County. It's a 30-day appeals window. any work that you undertake in that window that's subject to appeal at the court, you do it yourself financial risk. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Good luck. Thank you very much for coming down. All right. Um, next case under new well, this we're moving to new business. This is uh another conditional use. This is co25-117 Nicholas Romanoli at 130 FET Street. Request by Nicholas Romanoli on behalf of Dave Flores for conditional use in compliance with section 1331.05 05 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding a dwelling a dwelling two family use city tax district 11 second ward tax map 26A parcel 87 and the B4 um general business district. So on con 25117 if you look up at the uh screen here's just an aerial view of what that site looks like. It's in the packet as well. And then here's a zoomed in view of what the property looks like just to get a better uh orientation of where the structure is as well as that uh parking space in the back. Uh the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit regarding a dwelling two family at the above reference address. Uh as you can see, the structure is already existing and has previously been a commercial salon space. Site plan uh can be found below conditions as an attachment. Refer to the sections of code below in the staff report. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a conditional use approval. Get that in a second. Uh use approval for a two family dwelling at 130 FET Street. Please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these. The attachment can be found below the conditions. Staff have no objections to the applicant's request for conditional use as well. And if the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant conditional use uh approval in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code as the use shall be subject to the following conditioning being our standard condition.

Uh and then that'll be back. Yeah. Break it down slowly. He's done. Thank you. Yep. All right. So, do we have a representative for this case? Thank you very much. Just state your name and a reference address. I'm Carmine Lindsay and my my home address is 206 Mande Road. Excellent. Um my my son's a student here and a student athlete. So, that was sort of the the whole reason behind this project. Mhm. Um we you know, we found a very suitable house and a safe place uh walking distance to his class.

Mhm. and um we can get his teammates parking so they can drive up to the coliseum every day. It was like pretty much the perfect scenario. Um and uh because of the ordinances, we needed to make it two units so we could have five kids there. So there's two bedrooms downstairs and three up. So that that was the reason for the ask to do it two residential units so we could get his teammates there. We had a parking for it cuz that's what we're trying to do. Mhm. Okay. So, but it's only going to be like one unit. Well, it's going to be it actually is laid out as two. There's but there's a door in between. I am sure they're going to leave the door open.

I mean, they they wrestle with each other every day. I'm sure they're probably going to be uh leaving doors open, but but it is actually literally laid out as two units cuz it was it used to be like an upstairs commercial and then the upstairs was part of that and the downstairs was separate. So, pretty much we're going to leave the layout the same. All literally no construction on the layout. We just wanted to make it so we would be able to um compliantly have the right amount of kids in there. Right. And then you factored in parking.

Yes. We had to have the right so five basically two downstairs, three upstairs. So, and five. Actually, technically when we measured it, we drew out six spots, but it's advertised as five. Mhm. Um but there's there's probably six there. There's five comfortable.

All right. And they'll get that striped and stuff when when it gets to that part of the permitting stage. Um right now I don't believe it's striped. Uh are you are you familiar? But for if this is approved and then they're able to pursue uh permitting for it, they'll uh they'll have to, you know, restripe it, make sure the lots, you know, compliant, stuff like that with with uh in regards to the parking. Um but they have enough spaces. They area they meet six is is meets the requirements.

Yeah. They only needed to provide uh no more than like four four was Yeah. for a duplex um with the number of uh of people in that duplex. That's about where they're at. Seven, I think. Say, yeah, based on what what our previous discussion or me and Dave's previous discussion, about seven is they could probably fit seven even in there, but they may not even be able to because of the cap on how many parking uh spots you can have. Um but but yeah, they're covered on their spaces sufficiently. Sure. What uh what sport?

Wrestling. Okay. Yeah. And it's almost as if you're reverting to it's consistent with it has a a history the structure as a residential. I'm pretty sure it was a house. I mean the the owner the owner's on online but I I think cuz it certainly was set up as bedrooms. Yeah. This is right. I believe so. Yes. Okay. Yeah. You're saying yeah cuz it's right next door to the realy right? It is. Yeah. I Yes, it was. Okay, cool. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you guys.

Um, okay. Let's open the public hearing. Um, we're going to open the public hearing. Co 25-17 uh 130 FET Street. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case? I could speak. All right. Can you just state your name and address? Nicholas Romanol. Okay. Do you want to use the 130 FET Street as a reference address? Yes.

Okay. 135th Street um was a hair salon for 20 years and before that it was a residence and before that it was a family residence and um we have kept everything updated. Um all the apartment buildings next to us don't have parking but I do. I'm the only building that has parking there and the building next to me has I think three or four units with no parking. The building next to me has two or three units with no parking and the one across the street has no parking and that's four units. So the building that I own there is a perfect for what they want to do with it and there's plenty of parking. Five parking spaces easily seven if you want to pack them in.

Mhm. So that building there is the only one that has parking. Right. Works out good. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Mhm. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of an opposition to this case?

Okay. I I just I would like to say something. My name is uh David Flores. I'm I'm the agent helping Carmine um with this. The one thing, you know, Carmine really wanted a a safe place for his kids and and his kids' friends. and they are part they're a part of the wrestling team. Um the problem a lot of places in Morgantown are very old. Um they are you know not so safe and habitable habitable. Nick's property is very safe and very habitable. And that's the biggest reason why one of the biggest reasons why, you know, we we would like this property to be a residence for them is because of the safety. It's a very solid property. There's no wavy floors or a, you know, bad foundation. It's uh it's just a really safe place with parking downtown that that we see. And I also spoke, you know, with code about this and they're in agreement that it kind of hits all the buckets in the sense that it has parking. Um it is kind of laid out as a residential property and it's and it's extremely safe for students to live in. So, um, that's all I'd like to say, but it it just makes a lot of sense for that for that property to be a residence for kids as well.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We're going to close the public hearing for this case. Mhm. All right. So I'm going to make a motion to accept the findings of fact for CO2-17. So we have a motion to accept findings of fact seconded by Miss Cook. Any other discussion? I mean it's got parking.

It's got parking. It's I mean it's what's being proposed is consistent with the history of the property. Um, it's Yeah. Okay. Um, we have a motion to accept the findings of fact. Seconded. How do we vote? I I um I move that we grant the the requested conditional use or the request for conditional use for this case 130 FET Street. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion to grant the conditional requesting conditional use. Seconded by Mr. Missfelt. How do we vote? I I I.

We've granted your request for conditional use for the subject property. You will receive written notification from planning soon. Um but again, it can be appealed to the circuit court of Montgelia County. and any work that you do during that 30-day appeals window, you do a useful financial risk. Thank you very much. I said go win.

Yeah, have a good uh good season. Um all right, so moving on to the next case under new business. Um this is a variance request. Variance or V25-113 Garrett Lane at 371 Mansion Avenue request by Garrett Lane for variance relief from section 1365.04 04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding off street parking city tax district 13 in the fifth ward tax map 21 parcel 105 in the R1A single family residential district. So for V2113 on the screen is a zero view of the property and reference as well as that dash line being the property line for that property. The applicant is seeking a variance regarding parking standards for a single family dwelling. This house was previously vacant and the applicant is trying to remodel the structure to current city standards. Refer to the sections of code below in the packet. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding two off- streetet parking spaces at the referenced address. Please see the attached application uh to review the funding fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these. This attachment can be found below the conditions. uh planning staff have no objections uh to the applicant's request for a variance. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, these shall be subject to the following condition being our one standard condition. And then that will conclude staff work.

Could you show us where the parking will be that you said there's going to be two spaces? That is what they're requesting. Two off street parking space. Can you just kind of No, that's what the variance is for. They need to provide two spaces. is they are unable to so they are asking for two spaces. Oh, the way that Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Single family dwellings need two spaces. Uh they are unable to do as such. So they're requesting two spaces varied. So they would not have to provide two parking spaces for the single family dwelling at all. Yep. Is there enough parking on the road or whatever there? Uh I guess we can Yeah, the applicant can maybe answer that better, but that wouldn't you know.

All right. Yeah. So, um thank you, Mr. D. Do we have a representative for this case? Look, Gary Lane, the applicant. There is a space. Can you just state a reference address for this case? You can use the, you know, 371 Mansion Avenue. Okay. Uh there is an area in front of the house where I park my truck. However, it is not nearly large enough to fit two vehicles. My truck will barely fit there. Right. And on the side there where the trees are.

Yeah. There isn't an accessible way to get there because coming from one way, I would have to go through WVU's land to get onto the land for that property and there is a retaining wall on the street side that would have to be taken out to get to the property beside the house. Right. So, there is potentially one parking spot there, but no feasible way for me to put a second. So there's no way to to create like a drive immediately

because of is it because of the gradient. It's also not wide enough either. The side of uh the reference property isn't wide enough for uh for a driveway there to not be in violation of setbacks on on the side or another uh and the retaining wall there is 4 and a half to 5t tall. So in the area from road to there, I would have to lift a significant amount which would make it hard to enter the property if it were bad weather conditions or anything of the sort and would be a good slope under the best of conditions. Right.

Plus taking out the retaining wall that is functioning to hold back the hillside there. Right. Right. What's that? What's that dotted line there, sailor? Is that That's their property line. Oh, it is? Yep. So, that dashed line that you're seeing on there is their parcel. Yep. Oh, that's Yeah. Regrettably, they built it clear at the front of the property line next to the road. Had they built it back farther on the property, it would have been easier to make the parking spaces, right? Okay. So, that's WVU on the back side. on the back and right hand side is owned by WVU. Okay.

So, I mean there's a requirement for two and you can you have room for at least one vehicle. Yes. street. There's one there where I can pull just in front of the house, right? That's not on the street, but there's no way that two will fit there unless somebody was driving a moped or something of that. And that's also not even on uh their property. So, it can't it's not counted towards uh off streetet parking. That's more street parking actually um for for what he's referencing. Um,

so he he couldn't even fit a with the setback requirements, he couldn't put a parking space there. Even if you could get correct. Yeah, the property line pretty much just goes directly to the front of the house. There's a couple feet at some parts. Some parts it's really close, especially on the corner there. It's almost touching it, give or take, you know, a foot or two. Um, and then on the right side there, if a suggestion uh would have been to go off the side of it, it's not wide enough to be compliant as a parking. it's not wide enough for the width requirement. Um so that wouldn't be permitted either. Um without asking for either one or two other variances. Um and then even then uh it would yeah squeeze probably not even be able to fit the vehicle.

I mean it's not as if he created the problem. He used to he he walted into the situation as is. So okay. Yeah. Any No, I don't any questions? No.

I think we're all set. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing for this. Okay. So, we're going to open the public hearing for this case V25-113 at one or I'm sorry, 371 Mason Avenue. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, please do so. Now, seeing no one, we're public hearing. No correspondence or anything further to to add? Nope. Okay. I I'm going to make a motion. Well, I mean, I can um I move that we accept the findings of fact as stated in the packet. Second.

So, we have a motion to accept the findings of fact. The findings of fact are they're very straightforward. They speak to the physical characteristics of the site. Um we have a second by Mr. Missfeld. So, how do we vote on the findings of fact? I I I'll also make a the uh motion to grant the variance with the one the standard standard condition uh mentioned by the city. Okay. I will we have a motion. I'm going to go ahead and second that motion to grant the requested variance for 371 Mansion Avenue. How do we vote? I I

I. So, we've granted your variance. Again, you will receive written notification from planning. Um, the determination that we just rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Monagelia County. Um, it's a 30-day appeals window. Any work that you undertake in that appeals window, you do yourself financial risk. Thank you very much. Thank you.

You're welcome. Um, next case we have a signage case V25-119 City Neon for 356 High Street. Request by City Neon on behalf of Cold Stone Crearyy for variance relief from section 1369.08 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding internal illumination standards city tax district 11. Second ward tax map 26A parcel 110 B4 general business district for VR uh 25119 uh for city neon um on the screen as well as in the packet is just kind of that design of uh what that signage will look like dimensions illumination you know standard things like that uh the applicant is seeking a variance regarding internal illumination standards for signs in the B4 The sign size and dimensions are permitted other than its illumination standards. The sign will also be the same approximate size and shape as the one that's previously there, the one that's existing currently uh which was illuminated by neon. Refer to the sections of the code below as as well as the submitted designs. Um in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding the illumination uh assign of the property addressed at 356 High Street. Uh see the attached application to review the findings of fact. Um listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these. Those can be found below the conditions. Planning staff have no objections to the applicant's request for this variance relief. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, you shall be um subject to the one standard condition. Um and that is all.

All right. Thank you very much. Do we have a representative for this case? Good evening. My name is Joshua Gats with city. Okay. All right. Um, do you have anything to add? Uh, just Yeah, actually could you restate your name and just uh provide a reference address for your case? Again, my name is Joshua Catz KTZ uh with City Neon at 1095 Chaplain Road in Morgantown. Thank you. So it's b you're basically requesting the the variance for the illumination com part of the signage. Correct. That's correct.

It's not for area, not for materials. Are you are you going is it going to be timed illumination? Can you speak to is it just going to be in relation to business hours for Cold Stone? Yes. So yes, it will the illumination will be on a timer or it will be turned off at close of business. It it will be on a timer, sir. Okay. Um what color neon and um um is it going to be flashing?

Uh there's no flashing involved. No, the the sun has the red acrylic face and the internal light of it would just be white LEDs. So, I mean, you'll get the ambiance of a red light, but it's it's just the the acrylic itself. Oh, okay. Okay. And then Cool Stone is open through what is it? 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. Uh 10 10 p.m., I believe. Okay. So, in terms of the residences, the rentals downtown, I mean, it's literally going to look identical to the sign that's up other than the fact that it is no longer going to be neon and it will be LED, right? Okay. They already have that sign.

Yeah. So, pretty straightforward. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir.

I Yeah, let's go ahead and open the public hearing for this case. Um, we're opening the public hearing for V25-19 City Neon, 356 High Street. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, now is your opportunity to do so. Seeing no one, we're going to public hearing. No. And no correspondence for this case and just the standard condition. Right. I I move I mean these are the ones that I think we should have like a running order to just like grant these LED variances, right? It's okay though.

Um All right. So I I move that we accept the findings of fact for V2-119. The variance request is just for illumination. It's not even for area or materials. I second. So, we have a motion to grant or accept the findings of fact seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I um I move that we grant the the requested variance or the variance request for V25-119. Um it's an illumination variance request for 356 High Street with the condition that was mentioned in the pack and I second

with this. Yes. Okay. So we have a motion to grant the variance request seconded by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I So sir, Mr. Catz, uh we've granted your request. You will receive written notification from planning. Um the determination that we just rendered is subject to appeal, the Mon County Circuit Court of Appeals. Um, so any work that you do in that 30-day appeals window, you do at your sole financial risk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. So, um, moving to V25-122, Matt Lacy at 670 South View Street. Request by Matt Lacy for variance relief from section 1333.05 05 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding encroachments into setbacks. City tax district 15 7th ward tax map 54 parcel 158.1 in the R1 single family residential district. So V2122 on the screen as well as in the packet is just similar to the last ones. An aerial view uh of the property what it looks like uh on there. Uh the applicant is seeking a variance regarding encroachments into setbacks in an R1 single family dwelling district. The applicant constructed a pool and patio uh without receiving a building permit is now seeking variance relief for that project. The pool structure itself is within its required setback distance, but the patio around it is encroaching approximately 3 ft into that setback. Those setbacks were determined using Mon County positive information as a survey was not provided. The project uh has a building permit applied for which is contingent on this variance uh as well and then refer to the sections of code below to uh address this issue. The applicant seeks a variance in the amount of 3 ft for the proposed improvements at the referenced address. Uh please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff had no comments or modifications. Uh the attachment can be found below the conditions. Um staff have no objections to the applicant's request for this variance relief. And if the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief from section 133305 of the city's planning zoning code, the proposed improvement will be subject to the following condition being our standard condition and then that'll be it. All right. Um do we have a representative for this case?

Sir Karly Lacy from 670 South View Street and thank you for hearing our request today. The issue of whether or not we had a building permit for this project was contested in the municipal court and we resolved that issue and as part of that resolution we're here today asking for this variance. It was a condition of the resolution. So um we believe we're within the 3 ft requirements all around the pool but um we did not get a survey to prove that and we are therefore here relying on the city's software. But I would note that certain software that the city used in our municipal court hearing I was able to show was inaccurate. So that's really neither here nor there in this situation, but I just bring that up. Um, so um, we did start looking at this project in 2020 and at that time Chris Fletcher was with the city and we worked with him to make sure that our concrete was going to be within the appropriate setbacks and he did agree with our placement at that time. because of COVID, we couldn't get a pool for a long time. So, we had to wait for that and that's why this was all delayed so long.

Um, I would note that the pool is in the concrete, excuse me, is within a fence that was previously approved by the city. Um, and that I would also note that there's no negative impact on the neighboring property. I know this partially because we own one of the neighboring properties. Um, and and I would also note that all of our neighbors have taking part in festivities at our pool and they've never voiced any concerns. So, um, that's really all I wanted to represent to you today, but if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. I think you did your homework well. It sounds as if you did your due diligence.

Yeah. Was this the only variance you had to apply for as part of the municipal court? As far as I know. Okay. Um, there have been some surprises along the way. So, as far as I know, this is the only variance we need. I think they would bring them all all up at one time, wouldn't they? Yep. Okay. Okay. Can you So, one more time, can you speak to your un what your responsibility was in terms of the permit, the initial permit? Sure. Because that's an important component to this situation.

I agree. Um, we applied for the permit and the city there's there's it's contested whether or not it was actually ever reviewed. There is a law that went into act that was enacted right before we started the project that said after 60 days if a city doesn't respond to a permit application, it's automatically approved. Right. And we were it's understood as approved even if

the actual it's not issu. Yeah. Okay. I should note the city disagrees with me that that applies to them. However, I don't have anything to refute that that would apply because they never presented anything. So, we're just trying to work with them to make the situation um you to fit within what they to make this situation

solved. So the law is in the city right now that if they enact a law I mean if they if you if you um apply for a permit they have to um answer within 60 days or it's automatically approved in my opinion. Yes. Um and I'm an attorney and the I worked I worked in the past with the city attorney so she and I both sat down and looked at it. She could not find a reason why the why the law would not apply. However, code enforcement disagreed with us.

Well, if Yeah. Well, if you again, it sounds as if you did your due diligence, you provided the necessary inputs with the understanding that or the expectation in this at the end of this 60-day period, this is what we're expecting as a response, right? And and just for transparency, the one thing that the city took issue with was the fact that we started the project before the end of the 60 days. We did start the digging

and that the reason for that was because of the timing. We had called the city several times to try to get the permit pushed through and couldn't get a response. And as I stated, we had already waited five or four years, I guess, at the time for a pool. And so the timing was it was like either we do this now or we may not be able to do it. And so that was what they took issue with. But the project, the pool itself was not put in nor the concrete or anything until after that 60 days had been Oh, right. Could have told him your dog don't know the whole bone. Just kidding. Any other questions?

Um, yeah, we may have other questions for you, but thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing for this case. This is for V25-12 Matt Lacy, 670 South View Street. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this, now's your chance to do so. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. And there there's no correspondence. Nope. For this,

well, what are you thinking? It sounds to me as if due diligence was done. Yes. And it's not as if uh you know there was the reasonable expectation we're making application for this permit and it sounds as if there was a non-response. Mhm. By the other party and then they got upset because they started digging a little bit early. But there was a a lot of like you said to be

can you um what's the Yeah. So for this setback, what is the Can you speak to what's the what the required? The setback for it is 3 feet. That would be like 3 ft away from the property. Um and based on Mon County parcel records, the property line is the fence, which you're allowed to build a fence uh on your property line. Um so they're asking for the full 3 ft because partly because the fence is on the property line. Yep. Go ahead. There's already a fence. I mean, there's already a fence there. Yeah, the fence isn't a concern. The fence fence you didn't erect the fence. The fence was already there.

It is actually not. It's actually not on the property line. It's a foot to a foot and a half off the property line. Um, but we did get a permit and that was approved by the city at the time. Just a permit or a variance? I thought you said you had a variance for the fence before.

No, I'm sorry. I think it was just a permit. That's all we were required at the time cuz it and it was like I said it's a foot off and then the concrete is a couple of feet from it. So it's okay. Okay. And also I see somebody trying to comply with the city and then like you like they're saying surprises come up and which nobody intended. It's not a it's not a blatant I'm disregarding the city and doing my stuff. Mhm. So, this is just a deck. It's not like blocking light or views or anything.

No, it's just a concrete patio. It we had to have so much concrete around the pool because it's a fiberglass pool. Okay. To stabilize this to stabilize it. Yes. Yes. Mhm. So, it's a structural it's a structural requirement. I don't pull myself out as an expert, right? So the the cement is like the the the margin of the cement is right on the prop on the property line.

No, we believe it's with it's 3 ft off the property line. But like I said, we didn't do a survey because frankly we didn't put the money into it and this all happened pretty quickly. So we were just relying on the city software and the software goes by the fence. So that's why we're getting the variance out of the abundance of caution. Okay. Comply with standard. All right. Thank you. I'm hearing due diligence, due diligence, due diligence for as much as they knew. I had no What about you? Uh

I don't really have a problem with it. It seems to be more I mean probably the more pressing issues where the property line actually is, right? And that that that's going to be that would be decided somewhere else anyway. And the pool's already in. And I'm like, but it's not like a tall structure. It's not like a big shed block right on a property. I keep hearing due diligence until you got back. That's all right. If you'd like to you mentioned something that I thought I should mention. When we put the fence in, it was right when we built the house and so the survey markers were still up for that. So that's how we knew it was a foot off the property line. Those are now gone because there's been, you know, it's been six years or so. So those have all been. So that's how we know those. Sorry. Okay. No, you're good. Thank you. I I prefer to know.

I mean, I don't I would move to approve the findings in fact as stated. And that last statement, the cement was a foot off of when the when the stakes when it was still staked. Mhm. And it's still a foot off of the the actual property line. That Well, if you're right about the property line, then you're you're in compliance with the setback, right? That is correct. Yep. Okay, that's good to hear. All right. I move to accept the findings of fact for this case. Um, V25-122, 670 South View Street. I second. There was a public hearing, right? Yes or no? Yes. Okay. I just Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. Did we?

Mhm. No, we didn't. Okay, we didn't. I'm sure we did. Well, we didn't close it. Okay, you know what? Let's just We'll reopen it just in case. Just in case. We are going to just to make sure because we didn't we didn't close it. So, we're going to open the public hearing for this case. V25-122, 670 South View Street. All right. Anyone w anyone additional wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, please do so. Now, he did open it, but didn't close it. Okay. Cuz I asked about correspondence. Okay.

All right. Seeing no one, we are going and we're going to note there's no correspondence for this case. We're going to close the hearing. All right. We have a motion to accept the findings of fact for V25-122, 670 South View Street. Do we have I second it. A second. I second. Um, so we have a motion to accept the findings of fact. Second or we have a second motion or a motion in support. How do we vote?

I I move to grant the requested variance for this case um for V25-122 670 South View Street subject to the standard condition. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion to grant the requested variance seconded by Mr. Misfell. How do we vote? I

I So, we've granted your requested your request for a variance. Um, you will receive written notification from planning. Um, but the determination we just rendered is subject to appeal in the Mon County Circuit Court of Appeals and any work that you undertake, any additional work you undertake in that appeals window you do at your sole financial risk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes.

Have a good evening. All right, we're moving to Well, we have they're separated out. we have an additional five cases um for the same subject parcel or development project referenced as well I'll just read them all. So the first is V 26-008R ARJ LLC. This is all at 264 Hartman Run Road. The first case is request by ARJ LLC for variance relief from section 1347.03 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding lot frontage. City tax district 14 tax map 32A parcels 13.1 25 and 26.1 in the B2 service business district. Then we have V 26.009 ARJ LLC also 264 Hudman Road. This is a request by ARJ LLC for variance relief from section 13.4 I'm sorry 1347.03 03 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding lot size. City tax district 14 and the six ward tax map 32A parcels 32 13.1 25 and 26.1 in the B2 service business district. The third variance request related to this um application is V 26.01 010

by ARJ LLC 264 Hardman Run Road request by ARJ LLC for variance relief from sex um section 134703 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding lot depth city tax district 14 in the six war tax map 32 32A parcels 13.125 and 26.1 in the B2 service business district. Uh V26.0011, excuse me, 011 ARJ LLC. Also 264 Hartman Run Road request by ARJ LLC for variance relief from section 1365.09 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding driveway layout and design. City Tax District 14, six war tax map 32A, parcels 13.1, 25, and 26.1 in the B2 service business district. And the last related variance request is referenced as V 26.012 012 ARJ LLC 264 Harbon Run Road request by ARJ LLC for variance relief from section 13 I'm sorry 1347.04 04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding rear setbacks. City tax district 14 6 map 32A parcels 13.1 25 and 26.1 again in the B2 service business district. So I will be doing a kind of combined staff report for these um V26008 to V26012.

Uh here's the reference property as well as shown in your packets. Um it's a kind of undeveloped uh combination of three parcels um together. And then attached uh in the packets as well as on the screen is a site plan uh layout of what the site will look like as well as uh our city planner going around kind of handing out um site plans to give you a little bit of easier time looking at them. Thanks. Um so I will go in order V26008. Uh they're seeking variance uh relief regarding lot uh this says lot. Yeah, lot size standards for dwelling townhouse use. The development project will involve 104 town houses across the three lots shown above. The applicant wishes to res, excuse me, reduce the lot fronted from 60 ft to 40 ft for the referenced area. Uh refer to a denim A for lot sizes, layout, additional information, uh etc. Refer to sections of code in packet, uh as well. Uh in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance of running 40 ft of frontage for the referenced address. So, I'm going to then move on to the uh next one because all the uh um uh I will read uh two more, but I'll read all the conditions at the end. Um please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed. A staff have had no comments uh or modifications. Uh the attachments can be found below. Planning staff support the applicant's request for variance. The division of internal laws is what is causing the issue uh for variance while the development as a whole is not. And then I will read those conditions later. So moving on to V 26009 uh for the same address uh same supplementals on screen that were shown um work. The applicant is seeking variance regarding lot size standards for dwelling townhouse use. The development project will once again involve 104 town houses across three uh the three lots shown above. The

applicant wishes to reduce the lot size from 6,000 square ft to 1,750 ft for the referenced area. refer to item A for lot sizes layout and additional information and then code below. In summary, the applicant wishes to get the variance regarding 5,250 ft at the reference address. Uh see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications. Planning staff support the applicants request for variance. The division of internal laws is what is causing the need for this variance while the development as a whole is not. Uh then the conditions will be referenced later. What? I missed that part. Mr. S.

Yeah, if you could you state that last point. The uh planning staff support the applicant's request for a variance. The division of internal lots is what is causing the need for this variance while the development as a whole is not. To kind of expand upon that, if you look at the site plan on screen as well as in the packets, um you'll see how the town houses are being cut up. Um, if the town houses as a structure were on one parcel, they wouldn't necessarily need uh most or all of some of these variances. Um, however, they're dividing the parcels up for individual ownership of their part of the townhouse. Um, and that can be discussed a little bit later by by the applicant. Um, but that is what I mean uh in that kind of support um the rationale section. Moving to V 2610 uh ARJ LLC at the referenced address. The applicant is seeking a variance regarding lot depth standards for dwelling townhouse use. The development project will involve again 104 town houses across the three lots shown above. The specific lots requiring this variance can be found on addendum B. The applicant wishes to reduce the lot depth from 100 ft to 71 ft for the referenced area. Uh refer to addendum A as well for lot sizes, layout, and additional information. Refer to the sections of code below. Uh in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding 29 ft. For lot depth at the referenced address, um uh see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed. F staff have had no comments or modifications. Um the attachment can be found below conditions. Planning staff support the applicant's request for this uh for this variance. The division of internal lots is what is causing the need for this variance while the development as a whole is not. as well as the only exception to this is exterior lot number 37 and uh refer to the findings of fact for supported rationale for that topography

maybe

uh V26011 the applicant seeking variance regarding uh driveway standards for a dwelling townhouse use uh this development project will involve 104 town houses as previously referenced uh refer to addendum B for the specific speification on distance measurements for each of the lots. Um the applicant wishes to res reduce the lot depth from 15 ft uh to 25 ft for the reference area. Refer to them to a again for um for the layouts and additional information. Uh in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance of running 14.75 ft for driveway distance to an adjoining residential property line at the referenced address. Uh see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications. uh planning staff support the applicant's request for this variance. None of the lots require this variance in regard to neighboring um or external properties. Uh the subision of internal lots is the only uh reason causing this variance. Um the development as a whole is not as stated. Uh this isn't in regards to any external uh properties.

Mhm.

Was there any correspondence in relation to the driveway issue? Uh no, there was no uh correspondence for any of these uh any of the variances reference and the driveways are only those internal ones. Their external driveway kind of entrance the road itself uh is fine for planning purposes. Uh this is in regards to the internal driveways for each of the the relevant properties. Um they would have to be 15 ft uh away from adjoining residential properties and again cuz they're kind of cutting up the town houses for individual sale. that's where that kicks into 15 feet. But whereas if it was a uh you know structure on one parcel as a whole um then it would not necessarily be require these variances.

Mhm. Um I'll also add there that all of the driveways on that drive that drive is anticipated to be a private drive um that will be managed by an HOA. So it will not be dedicated as a public drive to the city. Right. Right. Right. Right. Uh so does that change the standards? It does not. It doesn't change the standards. No, that's why they've applied for the variance. So there there's no standards for town houses specifically.

So there are and and their rationale speaks to it a little bit, but uh town houses um have standards and ordinances tied to them and it's usually on one property as a whole with someone managing that whole townhouse and then the people like the lease under that live in the townhouse, right? um the the conflict is coming in where they want to develop town houses and then have the people who individually live in them could have ownership of that of that section of the townhouse. If this was just all managed as kind of one one development and individual ownership wasn't that wasn't a factor um then a lot of that wouldn't be necessarily but because they're cutting up the lots for individual ownership of your part of the townhouse um then that's where where that uh is coming in with conflict um with it. But yeah, there there's ordinance standards and and things like that. Otherwise, they're compliant with with the requirements of permitted use in their district. Um, and none of the other um um considerations with like townhouse use. Um they're they're they're good on that part.

They would have been in compliance if it was under a townhouse standard. Yeah. Except for uh it was like those three referenced uh properties and only which one of them is uh involved with like the exterior of the property. So they would even if it was kind of a whole development need need mo at least one of the variances being the um the um shoot I believe it was the depth depth one um rear set

rear and the rear setback one um which and that'll be referenced on this one as well but otherwise yeah the the internal parking um and then um adjacency and and frontage wouldn't wouldn't be an issue. I'll also add um town homes are permitted by right in the B2 service business district. The main issue at hand is the fact that the lot provisions for the B2 service business district are very large um for as far as lot size, lot frontage and things like that go. They're not necessarily directed towards the construction of town homes. And there is no specific provision in that code that would allow any deviation from those lot provisions that are outlined. So that's the main reason that they've had to request these variance applications.

Yep. Um and then just quickly kind of on that last one, uh VR26012, um the applicant seeking variance regarding setback standards um for this use. Um the project has the 104 town houses as referenced. The applicant wishes to reduce the side and rear setback requirements uh for the reference area. Refer to addendum A and B uh for further information. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding 12 ft of rear setback and 5 ft of sight setback at the reference address. Um, see the attach application uh to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to these. Planning staff support the applicant's request for this variance. Again, reference the uh division of internal lots is what is mainly causing the need for this variance. Well, development as a whole is not um with the exception of a couple of the exterior lots uh refer to their findings of fact for kind of the rationale of support with that one as well. Um and now since that is the final one, I'll read the condition. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, the shall be subject to the following condition being our one standard condition um with it as far as the BZA. That's our only condition. uh as a note uh they did go to the planning commission and got approval with a condition from the planning commission to go to the BCA and receive these variances.

Um I'll add to that last Thursday's meeting um they received conditional approval for both the associated type 3 development of significant impact site plan um as well as preliminary approval or approval for a preliminary major subdivision to create 104 parcels where they plan to sell these privately and they will be privately owned. um those condition there were conditions attached to both of those and the relevant action letters were sent out to the applicant today.

Thank you. So with regard to -012 and the setbacks for side and rear five five is required 12 is required right the require

and they're asking for variance various variant so five would be required for the sides right correct uh on the rear it's 40 ft they're requesting 12 so they they're uh They're about 28 away at the uh largest extent. Um so basically the issue is like the B2 district uh like contemplates or allows townhouse use but not it did it doesn't contemplate uh multi-unit town houses. Yeah. It doesn't account for like individual ownership of them. Yeah.

Okay. Even though town houses by their nature, right? Um, do we have a representative for this case? Yes. Please approach the podium, state your name and a reference address for this case.

Scott Copen, 170 Old Cheat Road. I'm with Cheat Road Engineering. I'm the designer for the project and the representative for ARJ this evening. Um, put this one up. It might work as a good pointer for me a little bit. I tried this last week and it worked perfect. That's that's the best use of a cell phone I've seen. Um, so just to run through these real quick. um the the discussion was going there anyways, but really I I feel what's bringing all these on with the exception of the three rear setback request which I'll get to um at the end um is just the way the code's presented. Um

Mhm. the the code requires and we'll just go through these real quick. The code requires a 60ft lot width, front lot width, but B2 in the B2 district you're allowed to build town homes by right. So, the C code says you can build a town home, but it doesn't have the language to allow a town home to actually be built based on the the typical width of a town home. Um, the way it's written, you technically have to have a 60t wide town home um just to meet that width. So that first variance request 26-08 um is to allow for the reduction in the the frontage the the width of the lot down to the width of the townhouse.

Mhm. Um from 60 ft down to a minimum of 20 ft. Does that make sense? And typically um So you are going down to a minimum of 20 ft for frontage. Yes. Cuz each unit is 20 ft wide. All right. So with with regards to that, um I don't know if you can see this. Can I move this over there? Point to it. They've got a I I gave them a couple copies of that as well. So each town home unit each town home unit if we're looking particularly at an interior unit because the 20 foot wide town home. M. So the lot lines exist within the common walls of the town hall. Therefore, the width of the lot is 20 ft.

Right. H what about the one at the end of the unit? The one at the ends um we actually are exceeding uh well block width is still less than 60 um because we have 15 ft between units. So that one's 27 1/2 ft on the and that gives us our 15 ft between units. And I'll get was going to get there in a second, but that gives us a 7 and 1/2t side setback, which is 2 and 1/2 ft more than there's the minimum required. Okay. Go ahead.

By the by the ordinance. And generally speaking, if you look at and this is not a knock on staff or anybody else, it's just how the ordinance is written. If you look at a a standard subdivision ordinance, um, planning ordinance, say even the Mon County ordinance for Wester Run, it'll say in this district, the minimum lot width for a single family detached home is 60 ft. Mhm. And then below that, it says for town homes, the minimum lot width is 16 ft. Right. Meaning you can build a 16t wide town home if you so choose. M

um I think they know more about the history of the ordinance than than I do, but it must not have been contemplated to have individual ownership of town homes. These aren't rentals. These aren't for students. These are for individual homeowners. Um you know, and quite honestly, it's the only I don't know of any other town home communities inside city limits and Mortown um like this will be. Is there can you speak to like variation in terms of lot frontage and structure width among the different districts B2 versus R versus

is there any really at least a in our ordinance if you're in like you know whatever district you're in decides your frontage regardless of your use. uh ours and kind of what he was getting uh at is that our districts don't really differentiate between your use frontage and your district frontage. Um it's more you have a principal structure that has to be you know this far from whatever parts of your property line um as well as it has to be the property has to be x amount of distance wide um on so with respect to the B2

Mhm. um what's being proposed is responsive to so yeah so it's you know requirements and yeah part of a part of the rationale for planning this kind of support of this variance is that the structures themselves the buildings if you took from the farthest left parcel to the farthest right parcel of that building and combined them then you wouldn't necessarily need the 60 ft variance it's the individual units it's the individual units that's causing the need for that um with it. But uh if you looked at like the buildings as like individual buildings by themselves, then the 60 ft isn't isn't um right necessary where

or would be required in terms of the individual unit issue that we're contending with here. Where did the 104 units come from in terms of my understanding of what's driving the residential density here if you follow me? What where does the one why do we have 104? Yes. Because I couldn't fit 108.

I mean that's just that's that's the bottom line of it, right? So when you're doing residential development, what drives everything is the economics. Um, so when we're looking at when we're looking at yield on the property, there has to be a a a minimum yield, right? You know, to be able to purchase um and then we have to pay for all the infrastructure, um water, sewer, storm, gas, electric, right? um the improvements to Everlasting Lane out the out the Hartman Run, you know, the sidewalks uh along Everlasting Lane, the area for the bus stop. I mean, that that's what drives everything, right?

Um so the I don't mean to I don't don't mean to sound facitious when I say that, but that is the that is the truth. I was expecting that response, but yeah. And and the reason if you look, we've got quite a large area um that we're not building on, right? Um and the reason for that is it's just not not economically feasible and it's not responsible to build there because of the the land grade, the the soil conditions and what have you. Um so that's what that's how we end up at a 104. But it it wouldn't matter in this scenario if I only put one block of buildings on that property for individual sale. I'd still be standing here today asking for the same variance.

Right. So lot size is also due to the individual sale of each unit. That's correct. So just so you know there and again I'm not not being negative but there's nowhere in the Morgantown city planning code that allows for the individual development and sale of town homes. None of the residential districts allow for it. They don't have any they don't have any separate criteria for town home lots. There is nowhere in that code that I read I read and I looked through it today that actually allows someone to build town homes and sell them individually. Mhm. Right.

And and that's that's with the exception of three three setbacks which I'll talk about separately cuz they are a separate issue. Um, all the rest of these are driven by the fact the code just doesn't have the the provisions in it for town home lots. Even though by right we can build town homes. How's it defined in the code? How's what defined? Town houses. I mean, if there's no code sections on it say B2,

they are per the permitted uses table. Town homes are permitted in the B2 district. The issue is when you go directly to the B2 district and it lays out the lot provisions. It's just basically A, B, C, and D of it has to have this frontage. It has to have these setbacks, it has to have this minimum lot size. The B2 service business district is one of the less restrictive in the city. Allows a lot more uses. Um, and those law provisions tend to be more, you know, associated with a larger detached single family home or a commercial development, which would also be allowed in the B2 service business district. There is no additional provisioning that says, you know, town homes are allowed in the B2 service business district by right. So, we will allow exceptions to those lot provisions. There's nothing in the code that says that. It just lays out the lot provisions point.

Same with duplexes. I don't believe there's But, but you're saying nowhere in the code. Is there anything about town houses? It's defined like what a townhouse is, but it's the the difference between like the definition in in our ordinances town houses versus this is just individual ownership and sale. Mhm. If it was all one parcel and that's kind of per the codes like standard without needing a variance is that someone would have a townhouse developed and built and then they would just maintain ownership or somebody else would and then the individual place would be like units um not for individual ownership.

Yeah. If we wanted to develop if we wanted to turn this into a rental property with 104 rental units I I would be here for one request tonight and that's one rear setback in the upper left corner. we wouldn't even be here discussing this. It's just it's like when the code was written, which obviously predates anybody in this room, um the individual sale of townhouse lots wasn't contemplated, right? It says you can build them. They just never contemplated somebody might want to sell them, which is kind of weird. And in terms of a private road.

Yeah. So just very quickly the the the road from um Everlasting Lane you can see the the the lot line on the right side there. From there in is all private will be privately owned. It's a is it do you remember what that 28A community I believe is what they call it. Uh that's all dictated by West Virginia state law. So it'll have a homeowners association. and they'll pay dues. They'll be solely responsible for maintenance of the roads. Um and the the storm uh water and sewer obviously will be owned by MUB, operated by MUB electric by the power company. Um but the um the HOA documents um all have to be submitted and approved as a condition of the DSI and subdivision approval we received last week. Right.

That all has to be reviewed and approved by the city to show that yes, there will be an HOA created and no, they can't come back in the future and decide they don't want to take care of the roads anymore. Like that's all part of that. They don't want to There have been instances in the past happened quite a while ago in the South Hills region um where somebody built roads. Oh yes. And um Well, when you said that, that made me think of East Gate, too. Same type of thing. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So, and the goal is, you know, from the city and our standpoint, obviously, we don't we don't want to have that happen. So, it's it's being taken care of legally. Um, the attorneys will be involved in that to make sure that that group of people can't come forward someday and say, "Hey, we're in the city and we pay taxes and we have to take care of our roads. We're we're putting that in the deeds. It'll be restricted." So, they can't do that. Right.

That's a that's a condition of the DSI in the subdivision approval. And I'll also add that you know dur as part of that type three development of significant impact process um when we held the technical review meeting engineering and fire were both given the opportunity to provide feedback on some of the standards of that. So the standards in this site plan are reflective of the comments that the engineering department as well as the fire marshall provided as well. Right. Mhm. So why the change in lot depth for the lot depth? Bring that back up. Yeah. Because the requirement is 6,000. Is that the one? The second one that goes from front to front to back, right? Depth of

Yeah. Yeah. Front to back. So generally speaking, the way those the the the 100 ft depth Mhm. um as I interpret it was to achieve um if you look at the way the code is 60 foot wide minimum 100 foot deep minimum a 6,000 square foot lot minimum okay right so they kind of all go together and and when you look at the land and the way that I was able to um to lay the project out with the exception of those three lots where I have an issue with the the rear setback which again we'll talk about separately

I'm not I'm not encroaching into the backyards of these And if you look at the the and I shouldn't say encroach in the backyard, the buildings are not encroaching into the rear setbacks. So a shorter lot doesn't affect anything from a setback standpoint or distance from a property exterior property line or any anything like that. And when you go when you get away from the 60 ft minimum width in the 6,000T minimum area, the the 100 foot just doesn't it it doesn't play into the a need for a town home community to be honest with you.

Okay. Um, so the driveway uh variance was for the individual driveway of the of the home, right? Yeah. So that's for the driveway in between. And again, I'll use my Yeah, feel free. So that's for this driveway here, here, here, and here. And the way the town home units are set up, if you think of a standard town home, you stand facing and looking at it, there's a garage on one side. this, in this case, the garage will be on the left. Um, it's a 10 foot wide opening. Normally, it exists about two foot off the lefth hand side, the start of that opening.

Um, and they'll pour a a driveway right up to the the left side of that unit or within inches of it, within about 0.25 ft, right, which is why I'm asking for that. So, that means that technically the distance from that driveway to the adjacent unit is 3 in. Oh, yeah. Right. That's just how how Okay. Yeah. And I'll add the request for that variance comes from a specific provision in the code that says that um driveway entrances and exits cannot be closer than 15 ft from an adjoining residential property line. But with the construction of the town homes and then being connected to one another, that was just part of the variance package.

Will there be immediately adjacent to the drive that's going to access the stall? Mhm. Are you anticipating another spot immediately for two vehicles? No, these are single width driveways. Um, and they'll actually be if you see I had some color on there, but it gets really messy. But these little white areas in here and they are I mean they're not big lots, but those are green space landscaped areas, right? Um, so you you've got one car, one car to park here,

right? Uh and then obviously one in the garage and we've got some off or we've got visitor parking throughout throughout the development. Um but thankfully they the builders have changed a little bit in the recent years and they've got away from the sea of concrete, you know, that you see in a lot of places and they they do want to get a little front yard in there or landscaping or something.

And each unit has a two vehicle requirement, right? Correct. Yes. So, they'll all be three-bedroom units. Um, the determination per the code is 0.75 spaces per occupant, which would equal 2.25 spaces per unit. But there is a specific provision in the code that also says when you're calculating that unit of measurement that if you end up with a fraction of 0.5 or less to round down, 0.5 or more, round up to the next space. So, it's two spaces per unit. Um, we also did, it'll be a onecar driveway, but there will be also a onecar garage. Uh, we did consult as part of the DSI application, consulted the APA planners dictionary to determine that that garage parking did suffice to meet and count toward the off- streetet parking requirement.

Okay. You feel comfortable with that? Like practically, you know what I mean? Yeah. Practically speaking, and not everyone is going to have two vehicles necessarily, but still. Right. It's still small. Yeah, tongue homes are typically smaller. I mean, narrow to get in, narrow to get out. So, the last one regarding rear setbacks. Um, could you speak to that? Yeah. So, there's there's actually two things in there, and I guess they got the tables, right? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So, there's one table that should say should reference side setbacks, and one table should reference rear setbacks. And they do. And they do. They do.

Yeah. So just quickly the side setbacks again are because we have count units right currently. Um our end units um like I said we've got 7 and 1/2 ft. We're only required that the code requires five. So we're a little bit bigger there. So rear setbacks there are three units. Um can you point them out please? Yeah I will. Um, two of them are internal here and here and one is on the exterior which is over here. Um, okay. And how does that one differ from the others, please? And what

how do those three differ from the others? You said there was three that Oh, those ones. Those are the only three that don't currently that don't the 40ft rear setback. Oh, okay. Requirement. Okay. Yeah. Um, all the rest of them do. these this is internal, you know, obviously we're not we're not affecting an adjacent property or anything like that. Um the other thing to keep in mind with with these units, the way these are built, you've got the building and then a 15t yard and then it's slope going up or down. Okay.

Um so these units are actually um from the second floor you can see these you can see these. Okay. Um, from the back floor basement, there's actually a hump in here. Um, you'll be able to see the roof line of this building and you'll be able to see from here the roof line of this building, but that's you you won't be looking straight in back doors. Um, that's good. This one um, which is I think let Yeah, that's the 11T setback. This abuts the city property. Okay. On a very steep sloped area, right? That's just not not developable.

It's not developable. So, we're not we're not backing up against a neighboring house or an existing land use or anything that's even potentially in the future going to be built. Not even sight lines really. Yeah. No, no. I mean, all of these all these variances are based like these code requirements are basically to prevent underdevelopment, right? And that's obviously not the problem here. Yeah. like there's a lot of development going on aside from maybe the the setback, the rear setback except for these three. All the rest of these are are related to the fact that the per the planning code just doesn't have the provisions in it yet.

Yeah, I can't speak to this just it's this what's being proposed. It's there are a lot of townhouse. No, no. There are other developments that are very similar to this. Not necessarily within city limits, but around the county. Yes. Damn. Right. And if those other comparable developments, if they were problematic, we would know that they're problematic. So, in other what I'm what I mean is what's being proposed is not. Well, and and to that regard, this is a more I know it looks like we're cramming them in there, and I get that,

but this is a a more this is a less dense town home community than what you would typically see elsewhere in the county. And I know that because I've designed many of them, and we wouldn't have all that empty space in there. We would figure out we would figure out a way to put the units. The across from Sunrest, are those all rentals? Where at? Across from like Sunrest Town Center. No, those are those are um ownership. I mean, some of them are rented by the owner, but they're they're owner, but that's outside the city of Morgantown. Ask me. I don't know of any other town home communities inside city limits like this. All right. Well, that are single that are single.

That's why I said not necessarily in city limits, but within certainly county outside city. Yes. This is making me think there's more west of your way, but that's not as overlooking the river, but that reminds me of this. Yep. It It's It is similar that there are some distinct differences here because of the city. We've got more and because of the way they wanted to build this one. You won't find that many off- streetet parking or visitor parking in any other community. And and to be honest, if I could put 20 more in, I would, but City Code says you can't. I'd be here asking for another little concern about the parking

like if each one of these town home residents does in fact have two vehicles just practic you know what I'm saying using the driveway and then I I would I would say to that can you speak to I know what you're saying I'm not saying that one way because I mean it's that part of the project's already been approved last the planning commission. Okay? You know, there's no there's no requirement for me to come and speak to you about the the I don't need a variance request. Let me put it that way. For the parking, I would prefer we had more parking. The the developer would prefer we had more parking. The builder would prefer have more parking. That is the maximum amount of parking I can provide by the city ordinance,

right? Without getting another variance. Yeah. I felt the number we had was probably up there for Yeah. I can't and and even if you go to the because we had this discussion last week about the 2.25 Yeah. even if you carry the 0.25 through we would be required to have 234 and we're providing more than the minimum in that on that standard as well. So we're we're doing what you know we're providing the parking we're required to provide. Yeah.

Yeah. the board could could uh vote on extending their maximum requirement, but you can't you couldn't make them provide more as a minimum. They're meeting their their minimum for parking uh requirements. Um and like like you said, you're only allowed, I believe, 115% or so uh um spaces. If you go beyond that, you need to seek a variance for that. And they're they're at that 115% of uh parking spots. Yeah, I Yeah, if they added one more space, it would have required a variance. I had more spaces and and we we reduced it to avoid

Yeah, there there's just there's a provision in the code that says they may not exceed 115% of the minimum requirement. Um, so he's providing 20 is it 239 39 which is equal to but does not exceed that 115. Hm. Like an odd I I think the in terms of You have another one on that empty hump over there. Yeah, I I had I had more on the left side and more on the right on the curve. Yeah. I Yeah, cuz we do want a more livable town home community than what you see a lot of times.

And that's kind of why there's also that that cap on it so people just don't, you know, weigh seas of concrete kind of thing. Yeah. Um or make a parking lot and call it a house, but really they just are making a parking lot that has a home attached to it, right? Um for that. So that's kind of a little bit of the rationale of why there's a cap on it. It doesn't happen often that people uh meet that cap. You know, it's it's usually meeting the minimum. Mhm. I It seems There's going to be a bus stop there, too. Yeah. So, the bus stop goes out at the uh Where's the bus stop? The bus stop will be out here at Hartman Run Road.

Mountain Lion had asked us to put that that bus stop in. Ideally, I can talk to the board of education and maybe get them to and come back out, but it's probably not going to happen. The bus doesn't go to my knowledge, my understanding, the bus doesn't go everlasting, right? Um so, the bus stop at the direction of um that makes sense. city staff and mountain line was out here. Yeah. So, we're actually just so you know, Everlasting Lane's like 16, 17, 18 feet maybe. Um, we're widening Everlasting Lane to 22 ft to our entrance and putting a sidewalk up clear around the perimeter of our development and down to that bus stop.

And we're doing we're going to do all of our widening on our side of the road. Okay. um because there there is a existing um residence here. They're outside the city, but that doesn't really matter. They've got they they live here. Um and they've got some off street um parking that backs directly on the everlasting lane. So, we're not doing anything in our direction. We're taking all of our work to the opposite side so that we don't we don't negatively adversely affect it. Mhm. Mhm. And we actually have a area down here that we have to we're granting uh right away to do um to be able to do that. So so that they have that adequate right away they need to maintain their roots.

Okay. Okay. In terms of the variant, the the one that gets me is the the the minimum the lot size. Taking it from the 6,000 down to the 1750. Why that degree of difference? just but this like these code sections are basically what they're like anticipating is like one building per lot. One house. Yeah.

And so they have again because they don't want you putting some tiny place on a lot but that's not obviously isn't what's happening here. Like there's a lot of development. It's not like they're putting a little shed in this entire parcel. And to maintain that 6,000 square ft, we'd have to have a lot that's 300 ft deep, a football field. Right. Right. Right. Right. You know, which is that's a lot of grass. It'd be interesting for a townhouse. You put a driving range behind it. Exactly. Yeah.

Apart from that, I really don't have Are you all set? anything further to add or Okay, we're going to go ahead and Oh, before we open the public hearing

um because these there are five individual variances under consideration, but for purposes of conducting the public hearing, we're going to combine the cases with respect to public comments bearing on the public hearing. So, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing for these um five related cases 008- 009- 010- 011 and 012 all at 264 Harvey Run Road. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, now is your opportunity to do so. Um any correspondence received? No.

And in terms of planning conditions, uh just the standard Yeah, just the standard condition for the BCA, there was other conditions on the planning commission and other things that they've gone through, but instead of copying those over, um the board of zoning appeals only has one. Right. Anyone wishing to comment? Seeing no one, we're going to close the combined public hearing for the five variances. Any other discussion? Any further questions? Okay. All right. Anything else?

So, um, so when uh for voting on these, you will have to kind of approve or deny them all separately. So you know vote to 008 you know findings of fact and variance for that and then individually and we do want to note of course that there are separate findings of fact for each variance that is so do we want to is everyone comfortable with the individual bodies of finding fact for each yeah I know are we voting on them all at the same time

no we have to do a motion on each So if there's no further discussion, so we we need I move that we approve the findings of fact relating to V 26-008. And this specifically this is a variance for or bearing on um the lot frontage for this application. A second.

So we have a motion to accept the findings of fact bearing on V26-008 relating to the lot frontage. And we have a second. How do we vote? I I I um I I guess we'll all right. So now we need a motion to grant the variance. We'll just do the findings of fact and then the variance.

So I move to grant the variance the requested variance for V26-008. Again, this is bearing on the lot frontage issue for this application. Second. We have a second by Mr. Miss Felt. How do we vote? I I

I So that variance is granted. Um I move to accept the findings of fact bearing on V26-009. This relates to the variation in lot size for the proposed application. Um, do we have a second? Second. We have a second to accept the findings of fact for V 26-009. How do we vote? I I I I move that we grant the variant for V26-006

for the lot size issue. Wait, I mean 009 00 I'm sorry, let me restate that. So I move that we grant a variance for V26-00009 relating to lot size. Second. And we have a second by Mr. Misfell. How do we vote on that particular motion? I

I right. Um I move to accept the findings of fact for V26-010. Um this is for lot depth and we have a second for that motion to accept the findings of fact. How do we vote? I I um I move to grant the variance for V26-010 relating to lot depth for the application. We have a second. Second.

Okay. We have a motion to grant the variance for 26-0 seconded by Mr. Misfell. How do we vote? I I I um I move and if anyone wants to jump in and make a motion. Um so I move to accept the findings of fact bearing on or relating to V26-011. Um and this is relating to the driveway layout and design. Um and we have a second by Mr. misspelled again. Um, how do we vote?

I I move to grant the variance request for V 26-011 relating to driveway layout and design with distances between adjacent properties. I'll second. Um, we have a second by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I

I Okay. Um, so I move that we grant the variance for 26-011 for driveway layout and design. We have a second for that. Second. Motion to grant. Okay. Um, we have a motion to grant the variance for V26-011 relating to driveway layout and design. Second by Mr. Misfeld. How do we vote?

I I So we've granted that variance. Last variance for this application is V26-012. This is to accept the findings of fact relating to 012 and this relates to uh the rear setbacks for the application. I second. We have a second by Miss Cook. How do we vote to do we do we vote to accept the finance effect for this? Yes, we do. I

do you. Okay. So that we've accepted those findings of fact. Um V20 sat 6-012 relating to rear setbacks for 264 Hartman Run Roads. Do we have a second for that motion? Second.

All right, we have a second by Miss Cook. How do we vote on that last variance request? Um, so we've granted your five related variance requests for your application. You will receive written notification from planning. Um, the determination we just rendered is subject to appeal. Mon County Court of Appeals. It's a 30-day appeals window. Any work, further work that you undertake, you do at your financial risk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for coming down this evening. You guys have a good evening.

You too. All right, I think that concludes our all business, new and old. Old old and new. Sorry. Um do we have any um announcements from staff? Uh we we do have some on the agenda for the March meeting. So, you know, planning for the regular scheduled uh March meeting. Um otherwise, I believe believe that is it. Is there anything else? I don't have anything to add.

That is it. Well, I mean the sign the sign signage ordinances are there's something in the works with regard to signage there. Yeah, there is an update uh coming on a overhaul of the sign ordinance. Um I actually uh if you could hang around for a little bit just after we're done here to talk about that a little bit, but otherwise on like you know the public end or anything, nothing's ready yet. Um but there will be kind of an overhaul uh coming to hopefully address some of the uh repeated neon sign illumination standards among other things. So, but we'll get to that when we get to it. Otherwise, uh nothing else. My question is

is how does this particular case affect moving forward? Because we've actually set precedents now with which case you know with u lot width, lot depth, um you know, driveway layout and design. Does that go into the uh for consideration to go into B2 zoning district?

Uh I I don't believe it would have any real um precedent on the general B2. I think this is more of and and you guys have spoke to it when you were discussing with the applicant. um the kind of rationale, the specifics of this development, its size. It's, you know, there's a lot of uh points that you guys brought up that would differentiate it between, you know, someone wanting to just do a smaller, you know, maybe try to to get around some of the ordinance for for its purpose of um having proper lot size. um for the reasons of topography was brought up as well as individual sale town houses specifically being referenced um the size of the development uh the other work that they're making more compliant um by nature of this um so so you know I believe the determination was was uh you know made with with different points that makes it unique to this this variance request um and not necessarily applicable to everything in a B2 or every townhouse in a B2 um uh example Seriously, so all those people, they're they're going to own those parcels.

Mhm. In a B2, so they could turn their townhouse into a business. Uh so they wouldn't be able Well, I guess they'd have the HOA to deal with them. Yeah, they have the HOA to deal with as well as a part of their uh requirements of this is all getting approved as a townhouse use. If that use changes, then they're applicable to the standards of whatever their new use is.

We we approve, In other words, we approved them as a townhouse. Yes, this was all approved as it their townhouse development use and the uses that are assigned to these will be town houses. If those were to change to either a compliant or potentially non-compliant use, they would have to either get variance or um they would have to be compliant with the current standards. So, you couldn't necessarily take one of these and turn it into a restaurant, right? Um they would most likely be non-compliant. Even though the structures are in a B2, they're still approved as I don't know. Yep. Correct. Yep. Okay. I move we adjourn. All right. We have a motion to adjurnn. Second.

We have a second. All those in favor? I I We are adjourned.