Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Yeah, I can't really recuse one. I prefer, I wanna just.

I mean, this wasn't available to us until like, what, 325? I mean, I didn't look at the timestamp, but I'm like, oh, there it is.

It was definitely item F when it did come through, but it wasn't until like 3.30. Well, there was the initial, there was one email.

stating we're anticipating last minute changes to the packet and it'll come through. And then the packet actually will come through.

I would like to see it. I would really like to see it. I would like to have it by Friday of the week before.

Because you need kind of some time for it to like percolate instead. It did come on Monday?

I never, I never.

I think, too, I was looking for, was it Courtney? And I was, like, searching on Ricky's name and his name, and I'm like, I'm not seeing it. Where is it? We'll wait until that, actually that clock is a little slow, but we'll just wait until that's at the bottom of the hall.

There they are. I mean...

If that team, so that, you didn't see that until this afternoon. I don't know.

It's kind of cute.

Well, she may be looking for my signal, though. Oh, okay. Our signal. So 318 Wilson, that's down toward... That's right by the school. That's right by the school.

I think it's across from the school.

Yeah, okay. Oh, that one, that property. The distressed property. Yeah, the distressed property.

I don't know if that's the one. That's what makes me... Yeah. That's the one I can think of.

Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals. Please turn off all cell phones or other devices that may disrupt these proceedings. It is the duty of the board, this board, to consider requests for relief from the requirements of the city's zoning regulations, to consider conditional use permit requests, and to hear administrative appeals. The Board conducts business in the following order. Review, amend, and approve minutes from a previous meeting or meetings. Move to unfinished business, take up 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, the 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 their request which may include questions by members of the board. We will then open a public hearing to hear testimony in support of or in opposition to the request. And that may include correspondence. 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 lieu 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 personal nature or personal attacks. All speakers will be limited to five minutes. If members of the board have any questions of the speaker, that time will not be counted toward his, her five minutes. If there's a large number of speakers, including many who are part of groups or organizations, I may, to avoid repetitive comments, elect to ask for a representative to speak on behalf of the group or organization. Speakers are notified that irrelevant comments or comments of a personal nature or personal attacks may result in the speaker forfeiting his or 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 five minutes. If members of the board Have any questions of the applicant age at that time will not be counted toward the total or the initial five minutes or the total five minutes. After all testimony is heard, we will declare the public hearing closed and no further public comment will be permitted until 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 variance cannot be granted unless a majority of the quorum present finds in the positive of all of 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 Montegalia County within 30 days upon receipt of the written notification from planning. Any work done relating decisions rendered by this 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. All right, call to order and roll call. Mr. Martin. who is a new board member. We'd like to note, welcome. Ms. Cook. And Mr. Benson is present. I do want to notice or note for the record that we do have a quorum so we can continue with tonight's proceedings. Mr. DeWitt is absent. Mr. Mismelt is absent. All right, so we have meeting minutes from both February and March, past meetings for 2026 to consider and officially accept into the legal record as meeting minutes. Did anyone see any issues with anything there for February or March?

No.

I move that we accept them into the minutes as written.

Okay. And I will second that motion to accept the meeting minutes for the regular meetings February and March of 2026. How do we vote?

Aye.

Aye. So we have accepted the meeting minutes for February and March into the record. We're going to move, there's no old business to consider. We have several cases under new business. The first being, it's referenced as CON 26-026, Apothecary Ale House at 227 Spruce Street, request by Apothecary Ale House for conditional use in compliance with Section 1331.05, of the city's planning and zoning code regarding a restaurant, private club use, city tax district 11 in the second ward, tax map 26A, parcel 140, and 145 in the B4 general business district.

So for CON 2626, up on the screen as well as in the packet, is an aerial showing where this will be located. We were having technical issues, so this is just a parcel viewer instead of the normally generated one we provide. But further into the packet, you'll see the site plan showing kind of what that space looks like. for this project and as it is operating now. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit regarding a proposed restaurant private club at the above reference address. The structure is already existing and is currently operating as a restaurant selling beer and wine. They wish to expand into selling liquor. No other major changes are presented at this time. Site plan can be found, as I mentioned, as above found in the packet and then refer to the sections of code below for the layout and the structure. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a conditional use approval for a restaurant or private club at 237 Spruce Street. 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 also have no objections to the applicant's request for this conditional use. And then if the Board of Zoning Appeals does grant this conditional use in regards to CON 2626, only the standard condition would apply. No additional conditions or anything else is required at this time. And that will conclude our report.

All right. Thank you. Do we have a representative for this case?

Hello.

My name is Grace Hutchins.

And I'm the proprietor of the Apothecary Ilhausen Cafe. I'm always nervous for public speaking, so sorry for the wavery voice there. So we have been a business in downtown Morgantown positively contributing to the community since 2012 down on Chestnut Street. We moved up to our current location now back in 2022. So we actually at that time applied to this board for the same variance, the liquor license, full liquor at that time. The board granted it to us. But at the time the ABCA did not think that we had a kitchen that constituted a restaurant kitchen. So they denied us. We went back to our beer and wine. We are now back again four years later. We have since expanded into a second room and we built a full-fledged hood, oven, flat top kitchen to satisfy the ABCA requirements. So we're circling back around to upgrade to a full liquor license instead of just beer and wine because we feel we can really attract the max number of customers and provide the community in the full range than we already do now. We are a very prevalent community member. We are popular with families during the day, during the weekends. We have a wonderful outdoor space. We provide live music events within the appropriate times at appropriate sound levels. We do community fundraising events and we're just a really nice gathering space for people of all ages and then later at night, 21 and up, to meet with each other and gather and just have a very nice experience together. And so we feel by adding the full liquor license option that we can attract and serve everybody that we need to. Now the important part of this is restaurant. We do have a very strong lunch crowd. We do have a good dinner crowd. And so we do sell a lot of food. It is freshly made. We make all of our soups from scratch. do feature a large panini menu and a large shareable menu. And so there are many options to come and have a full meal there. And with this new kitchen that we just built, we now have the opportunity to expand our menu even more to make it more comprehensive in foods. So we just want to kind of be the entire package for everyone.

Excellent. So with regard to, and I do remember your initial application.

Mm-hmm.

With regard to the request for the restaurant private club designation, have there been any significant changes?

No.

So it's just meeting or satisfying the ABCA standards.

Yeah, I mean, we did build that bigger kitchen. Yeah, and so with it, it allows to do a bigger food menu as well. So nothing has significantly changed. Our footprint is bigger than when I was here four years ago, but that's just given us more flexibility.

And you're not going to shift hours? No, no, everything is exactly the same.

There won't be any other significant changes? No. Yeah. Our latest hour is we close at, I think, 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday. But we die out. We are very much an older crowd. Our prices kind of keep it that way, too. So we are not a late night, you know. We get some younger clientele, but they start our night and then go elsewhere. We're the bar that they bring. We are the bar and the restaurant that they bring their parents to. So... Yeah, so we have lots of regulars of all ages, you know, especially during the day and stuff.

Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Martin? Thank you. We may have other questions for you. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, let's go ahead and... Do you have anything to add, Mr. Thompson? No. We're going to go ahead and open... The public hearing for this case, CON 26-026 for Apothecary Alehouse at 227 Spruce Street. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or opposition to? Now is your opportunity. Go right ahead. Just name and a reference address.

Yeah, Trevor Lloyd, 574 Killarney Drive. I have been a member of this community for 25 years, lived and worked in Morgantown, and I have seen a lot of businesses come and go in the downtown, as I'm sure all you have. And I have to say that these business owners, they've been doing a great job with all of their businesses. Zeek's, Blue Moose, Apothecary. And as I have been here in Morgantown, I have often been to a lot of these council meetings and I've known a few people in the city, having worked there for a little while, an age ago. And there was always this question of, oh, what are we going to do about downtown? We have these businesses that are coming, but they're not staying, and so on and so forth. And some business owners were good, and some were bad. These guys are part of the solution. They keep those storefronts filled. They keep the downtown vibrant, which is what we need. and I am very much for. If they think this is going to be good for their business and they're the best judges of that, then I would support that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Name and reference address?

Scott Frederick, 1065 Wayne Avenue. I've known Grace and Jason for a long time and They do a really good job of managing their business, and they have put so much effort into expanding what they've done a really good job of. And having worked personally on installing the kitchen, they've put all the best equipment in, and I think that it's a logical progression for them to be able to expand their menu, have a full restaurant, and to be able to offer you know, cocktails and a full menu of what people come downtown to enjoy. And I think the more people we can get downtown to enjoy what they have to offer, I think everybody wins.

Thank you.

Danielle Trumbull, 1141 Charles Avenue. I'm the mayor for the city of Morgantown and the representative for the fifth ward on city council. Just came to speak in favor of my friends Grace and Jason. They have been very responsible business owners throughout the downtown for years, never had any issues with their things. They have made significant investment, not only in the apothecary, but the new Zeke space and upgrades to Blue Moose when she took that over recently. As she said, they do a lot of community service projects. Grace volunteers her time on the city's photo review subcommittee. Grace has donated food from Apothecary and Zeke's to fundraisers that I have held for the warming shelter and things like that. I think that they show that they're a part of the community and approving this license for them would be showing them that we are willing to reinvest in them and help them grow their business in the ways that they are looking to do.

We should have nominated someone.

Mark Downes, 303 46 Green Street and Sixth Ward City Councilor. And I just want to echo, you know, everything everyone else said. The apothecary has been a huge success story in what is becoming the transformation of our downtown and the revitalization of our downtown. They took a blighted, empty corner of a prominent corner in our downtown and have transformed it into a destination. So I appreciate your consideration of this. I hope you approve it as you did before. And thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this first case. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. Any issues with the findings of fact? The applicant has stated there are no material modifications to what was originally applied for. They're returning to this board after having met the ABCA requirements with regard to the kitchen infrastructure, which they've satisfied. So I'm going to move to accept the findings of fact for this case.

I'll second.

Okay, so we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for CON 26-026, Apothecary Ale House, 227 Spruce Street. We have a second. How do we vote? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

And I'm going to make a motion to grant the request for the conditional use for restaurant private club.

I'll also second.

And we have a second for the motion to grant the requested conditional use. How do we vote? Aye. Aye. Aye. So we've granted your requested conditional use. You will receive written notification from planning generally seven to 10 business days, but do... Point of order. Point of order?

Yes, there is to be one condition. Any modifications?

Oh, yes. Okay, so let's redo that motion. So I move to grant, just a technicality, to grant the requested conditional use subject to the standards planning division condition, which states any changes in the application, you will come back before the board for reconsideration. Sorry about that. And we have a second second. How do we vote? So we have officially granted requested conditional use. Please do keep in mind, though, that the determinations made by this board can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Montegalia County. That is a 30-day appeals window, and any work that you undertake during that 30-day appeals window, you do at your sole financial risk. But thank you very much, and thank you for all your hard work on behalf of the community. Thank you. Okay, next case is VAR 26-019, Advantage Health, 699 Borough Street. Request by Advantage House for variance relief and compliance with section 1365 and 1367 of city's planning and zoning code regarding parking lot requirements. City tax district 15, seventh ward, tax map 55, parcel 93 in the B2 service business district.

Mr. Thompson. So for case number VAR 26019, Advantage House, 699 Borough Street, upon multiple conversations with different departments based around this variance is going to be a recommendation for tabling. I wanted to present that first to see if the board would be willing to table it for the next month hearing awaiting a planned meeting with them as well as additional documentation involving some of the concerns presented by other departments. Would the board like to do that or hear the case first?

Yes. Well, in light of the adjacent property owner's concerns about what's being proposed, I think we're open to a motion to table. and we'll just advise the parties. Are they requesting a special date or just the next regular?

Just the next regularly scheduled. It would be tabled for them. They actually might not need some of the variances even that they're requesting. It'll be planned for the June hearing, standard June hearing at this time.

the adjacent property owner's concerns about what's proposed for VAR 25. Well, departmental concerns. Or departmental concerns, I'm sorry. We need more time, so I make a motion to table VAR 26-019, Advantage Health, at 699 Burroughs to the regular June meeting.

I second.

So we have a motion to table the reference case with a second by Ms. Cook. How do we vote? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Duly noted. Table to regular June meeting. All right. The next case is VAR 26-024, Kevin Farrell at 451 Winsley Street. This is a request by Kevin Farrell for... variance relief and compliance with Section 1335.04 of the City's Planning and Zoning Code regarding setback standards, City Tax District 10, 6th Ward Tax Map 36, Parcel 183 in the R1A Single Family Residential District.

So for VAR 26-024, as referenced up on the screen as well as in the packet, is an area where you're showing a property. It is on the corner of the street there. Follow-up is also in the packet as well as there. It's kind of showing the work that they're proposing that they want to do, effectively enclosing in that existing front porch. So the applicant is seeking variance regarding encroachments into setbacks regarding covered but currently unenclosed porches. As you can see, the existing porch currently encroaches into the setback beyond the normally permitted amount up to their property line. The engineering department also had comments and concerns, which can be found below the sections of code in the packet. I will read out their comments, but the sections of code you can see. So the Engineering Department's comments are based upon Section 1321.023 , which is the clear sight triangle, shall be provided at all street intersections. Within such a triangle, no vision obstruction shall be permitted, which exceeds a height of 30 inches above the elevation of the abutting streets. As you can see on this previous image, this aerial, they're right on that corner there. So based upon engineering's comments and concerns with the vision-sight triangle, visibility is their concern. However, if the variance is approved, the enclosure must be constructed using a transparent or see-through material to maintain adequate sight distance within the clear vision triangle. So they would, if this is approved, be able to enclose the front porch as they're intending, but they will have to use material that will allow sight through it. So either screening or... Screening, if they did some sort of glass maybe, it's kind of up to them. As long as it's clear and you can see through it and it wouldn't impede people taking that turn, they're able to still see.

So in other words, no casements.

Yeah, they're not allowed to. There will be a final inspection for it to make sure that they use the material that they're supposed to be using for it. And engineering will have a review of that submitted material as well if this is approved, of course.

Before the permit is even issued?

It'll be a part of their engineering review of the permit. Yeah, there's a material component of reviews. So if this is approved, they'll say, hey, we want to maybe use this type of material. And then engineering will make the determination if that's see-through or not. If you said like plywood or something, you can't see through that. But they could come up with a couple of different ideas. There's no restrictions on that way. for the vision triangle concern. So that was Engineering's comments and concerns for it, as noted in the report. But in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance to enclose an existing porch at the property addressed at 451 Winsley Street. With that, please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed. Staff other than engineering have no comments or modifications to what is being requested. Planning staff have no objections to this applicant's request for variance as well. And if the Board of Zoning Appeals does grant the applicant variance relief, in accordance with the city's code. There'll be no additional conditions other than the standard, including the engineering comment, but that's not really a condition of this. That's just more of a part of the review process for it. So I wanted to make that aware. Otherwise, that concludes staff report.

Thank you. Do we have a representative for this case, VAR 26-024? Hello. Hello there.

My name's Stacy Youngs, I'm a representative on behalf of Great Day Improvements Patio Enclosures and I have Donna here with me, she's the homeowner. What we were proposing to do is simply enclose the existing patio, covered patio with the brick knee wall with glass. With a very thin framework, it will not block any more view than is what you see there. It's a single pane glass. It offers her an additional security as well as her mother who is on hospice, one of her dreams to have.

Yeah, I think the sight line for Winsley, I'm familiar with Winsley. You probably are too. It's pretty dense. Is it, so it's on the single, this is, front's on the single lane lane. It's quite, it is quite narrow.

Yeah, she's a little bit more familiar with that geographic.

Hello. Hello. I came back from North Carolina. Can you state your name too? Donna DeWitt, 451 Winsley Street.

Perfect.

Born and raised in Morgantown, played for West Virginia University one year, then transferred out. But came back home because my mother refused to leave that house to come to my lake house with my in-ground pool and my boat and my acreage of yards. And when I was told she couldn't live alone anymore, I tried to get her to go south. She wouldn't do it. So I gave up. Everything I worked 12 to 18 hours a day for 30-plus years to have. And so when I retired, I could get some peace and quiet and comfort. I was a teacher, an athletic director, and a coach. And I just turned 66. My mother just turned 95 in December. She'll be 96 this coming December. She fell two years ago and is now bedridden. I, because I was an athlete and have many injuries and bone issues of my own due to that and workouts and all, but bottom line is I can't get her out the back door. I have to put her in a wheelchair with a lift and there's three or four steps out the back door to the patio area. We talked about even trying to do a ramp, but there's not enough room to run it because The step is up so high. The only way I can safely get her out of the house to see The world again right now is the front. And when I get her out there, I told her this was her Christmas present. And, of course, we've been through this since November, trying to get it approved. And Christmas passed. Mother's Day passed. And I really don't want her to expire before Christmas. give her the last thing that's our house from my great-grandfather built every generation has been there I left to pursue my career and she didn't want to come to me so I came back home so now I'm begging for an area where I can sit without bugs debris flying when the wind i mean the wind shoots straight through there as far as the visual part of that on that corner the only problem that you have there are the parked cars on winsley street right because they're tearing up your sidewalk trying to turn almost into my neighbor's front porch to clear the cars that were parked right across from her area. There's no visual, if there was a visual problem, that should have been dealt with before the brick porch was built. I have cut down, mom had bushes that were impeding some site there. I've cleared all that out. I put the wall out there just to keep some low landscape plants out there. trying to spruce it up because you know i had a house built to lake and i told mom i didn't want to live the way she was living anymore and i wanted to see some nice things go into this house since it was our our family home it's gonna you know it's gonna be mine upon her death and uh so i'm i'm doing upgrades right um because i don't want to I didn't want to give up my lake house to come back here and not even be able to sit on the front porch without bees and flies. It's going to improve the value of the home. My big thing is keeping her safe.

Right.

So I can get her out there very easily. I don't have to worry about it.

And in the colder months, too.

Yes, the colder months. As a matter of fact, we thought we were going to get approved right off the bat. So she was excited about March, getting out there in March. So we couldn't do it. So I put a toboggan on her. She's a West Virginia University diehard football fan and put on her football stuff and wheeled her out there and said, she sat out there until she got too cold. So I'm trying to keep it warm, bug free, safe, to breathe.

Would double pain be better for that?

Well, we talked about double pain initially, but I started worrying it might be too much Possibly with heat in the summertime. I mean, it's going to have sliders for screen. It's going to have the screen. I was going to just screen it in initially. And then I thought, well, because I was going to do this once mom was gone. But now that she can't get outside at all, I'm trying to get her a way to get back outside. So I told her, I said, put out, you know, we'll put the windows out there with glass, be able to open them, close them if you're cold or if it's raining. We both want to sit out there and watch it snow in the winter. I'm hoping that she, you know, she makes it to winter this year. But she's waiting to get on her porch without a bunch of, you know, even when it rains. We used to sit outside with my grandmother. the porch and my grandmother and I would sit until we'd start getting wet. I think it's gonna save the foundation of the porch to be honest with you because it everything shoots straight at the front door comes in the side and I tried to put up some plastic to get her out there this past fall since we couldn't get approval and to be honest with you look really redneck but it kept her It kept her from the wind hitting her. Right. And I really don't want to have to go that route. So if it's a site thing.

I mean, you're pretty much grandfather, great grandfather, didn't you?

Exactly. Yes. The porch would have been the issue. had it not been built decades ago. I think I was in elementary school.

None of the sight lines are changing. It sounds like you're just putting a clear barrier up.

It is. And if the apartments hadn't been built where Mr. Capilani's garden was when he was alive and had Capilani's restaurant downtown, we wouldn't have as much traffic coming through there. And there would be an easy way to see without somebody flying down the road or coming up. I mean, the younger generation sees the one way, but I guess they want to make it both ways. But that's the only issue. It's not the issue of the porch or the site. It's the neighbors in the apartments, their younger college kids coming up a one-way street you're supposed to go down on. And that's where the big trucks, when they get to that corner, they have to really look out. I do when I have my van and have to pull my van out.

It's tight. It's Winsley.

Yes. And the bigger trucks do have to go on the sidewalk. Yeah. That way.

Right.

because of the parked cars. When the cars are parked right in front of my neighbor's house, they can't swing wide enough to stay on the road, so they have to come up onto the sidewalk. So if you want to fix it, fix the parking.

So basically we're just looking for the glass enclosure, which... You're not expanding the amount of encroachment.

It's just... It's a reasonable request in terms of you... making the most of your property in a reasonable manner. So does anyone have any other questions? No.

Okay.

We may have more questions for you, but thank you. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Let's open the public hearing for this case. This is, again, this is VAR 26-024. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, you can do so now.

Mark Downs, 346 Green Street. I lived, which is right around the corner. I just moved from the corner of Arch Street and Ray Alley, which is at the opposite corner of Winsley street. Um, so I'm very familiar with, uh, the property and in fact own the, uh, where on the, on the building where Mr. Capilani used to have his garden, uh, and Jean Pirelli, Jean Pirelli built, built apartment buildings there. So, uh, so I go up and down Ray alley all the time, just in terms of the site issue. And I think you guys are probably already getting there, you know, I don't ever have a problem at that intersection. You know, just careful coming through there. But even if I do encounter someone, they're never traveling at such a rate of speed or I don't have enough notice to see them coming. So it has never been a concern for me, and I think, you know, It's over 30 inches from the road, absolutely right. But I think it's been that way, it sounds like, for maybe 100 years. So anyway.

And their design is responsive to, is a reasonable response to sightline concerns.

Yeah, but I just wanted to speak. As a user, as a frequent user of that intersection, I've never had an issue. So thank you.

Thank you.

Daniel Trumbull, 1141 Charles Avenue. I had to stop and think about my address again. 1141 Charles Avenue, mayor for the city of Morgantown, fifth ward city councilor. I do not represent the sixth ward, but I do spend a lot of time in Greenmont. I am an active member of the Greenmont Neighborhood Association. I have many friends that live in this area. I will say This particular porch is not the issue with sight lines in that area, as the applicant stated. I think that you are absolutely correct when I hear you say that this is a reasonable request that is not significantly changing anything. And when I come to meetings, and not with you all, certainly, but I am mortified at our process. And I am so sorry that you have been dealing with this since November for what we all say is a reasonable request.

Thank you very much.

That's kind of what I was wondering.

Why does it take so long? So to add to that real quick, the variance for this was applied for, and this is the earliest it was after it was applied for. So this has been in back and forth conversation about the denial, the change, to make it accommodating, how that would be looked at, and then when they applied for the variance and it was in our system, this was the first meeting it could be on. Why was it denied the first time? Because of the site lines. And then that was a conversation back and forth about how to adjust it, what to do, and then it eventually got to the point of, well, you could go the variance route, and then that's what was decided upon, and that's why they're here today.

And we had no meeting last month. I said, and we had no meeting on this.

Correct. So this was as soon as their application was in and the fees were paid and it was processed, this was the very first meeting it could be upon.

Was it already proposed that it was going to be a clear barrier whenever it was first?

To my understanding, no. That was a conversation that kind of came out with this conversation with engineering of, hey, how do we get this done?

I was going to say, if it was proposed initially, sight lines would have been brought up. Yeah. Okay.

All right, sir.

Scott Frederick, 1065 Wayne Avenue. In regards to the sight lines, I drive a Sprinter van, pretty high in the air. It's previously accepted that the sight lines are not already clear. Why are we even here? Seriously, why are we even here? The fact that planning has not said, hey, oh you're gonna put glass where there's an opening? Why are we even here?

Does it have to be glass?

No, just let them do whatever they want. I mean, the sight lines are already previously accepted as compromised. It's a very narrow street. Anybody who goes, I go there all the time because I'm a maintenance guy for the building there where Mr. Capilani's garden was. Why are we even here? The fact that planning says, oh, well, there needs to be flexibility and reasonable discretion to say, oh, okay, there's nothing really changing as far as practicality goes. And so that's why I'm speaking, because why are we even here with an issue such as this?

and they're going to know all of their fish to fry the visibility is an engineering concern their variance isn't related the site that's a was a part of it they're getting variance in regards to open and covered but i think that's what we're just being enclosed with any material but it's like there's a group already there so i mean what's really not because yes they're close enough i don't have an issue with using a material yeah exactly so i mean why wait if there's a brief and there is

uh a perimeter that's already partially enclosed what's the difference there's a lot more options for closing that space too exactly yeah so i mean why are we even here if somebody wants to enclose their porch that's already there why are we even here that that's that's my uh you know i mean this is a question 13 3505 encroachments into setbacks explicitly states

that's not non-permitted, which is the reason we're here. Not to say that, you know, there are situations where it makes perfect sense, right? But it just says open and covered but unenclosed from porches, attached to a single family dwelling, can extend into the required setback from a distance, which they are, but such porches may not subsequently be enclosed unless the normal setbacks are met, which is what they're asking for.

And that's just... So we still have to grant them the setback?

You would be exempting them, you'd be granting them a variance from section 133505, section A3, meaning that this property can always have an enclosed front porch met with reasonable material being the site triangle concerns. The variance that you're actually granting today would be for A3, which is that open and covered. You're basically saying a porch that exists, it's open and covered but unenclosed, this property is allowed to enclose it. That's all you're doing. Okay.

I don't want to speculate.

How do you feel about with regard to the ‑‑ yeah, is there anyone else wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case before we continue with the deliberations? Anyone else? No. Closing the public hearing, thank you very much. So, how do we feel, I mean, we're comfortable with granting the variance with regard to enclosing the existing front porch. The, yeah, it's existing. So, what about the materials?

That's inside of our scope, yeah. I think the sight lines is a record. It's good the engineering brought it up. We can consider it. But from the feedback, it doesn't seem to impact at all. And that's not what the variance is requesting. So I don't think we lay it on. I agree.

All right. Any questions regarding any of the findings of fact?

So I move we accept the findings of fact as stated in the packet for V26024. I'll second that.

So we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for VAR 26, Deseret 2-4. Moved by Ms. Cook, seconded by Mr. DeWitt. How do we vote?

Aye.

Aye. So we've accepted the findings of fact. Any further discussion? And we do want to note we have the standard condition.

Yes. So I move that we grant the variance with the standard condition as stated in the packet.

And I will second that motion. What's the standard condition? Basically, if there are any material changes to the application.

The site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code, or the applicant shall seek variance relief from the Board of Zoning Appeals again.

Right, but it doesn't indicate what materials they used to construct it. Do we want to explicitly... No, I don't. Okay. I just want to make sure that...

Okay, so we are... The motion that we are about to decide on just grants the variance for the setback with regard to enclosing this existing front porch. Correct. And it... There's no consideration to given... restrictions for proposed materials. Correct. For said enclosure or porch.

Correct.

Okay. So we have a motion. It's been seconded by Mr. DeWitt. How do we vote?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. So we've granted your variance request. You will receive written notification from planning generally seven to 10 business days. There is, it can be, the determination that we just rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Montague County. That is generally a 30-day appeals window and any work that you or your client undertakes during that appeals window, you do at your sole financial risk. But thank you very much. And hopefully you can get that done in time for football season. Let's go. All right, thank you very much. All right. The next case is VAR 26-027, Mark A. Downs, 15 Court Street. Request by Mark Downs for variance relief and in compliance with Section 1331. Point zero six of the city's planning and zoning code regarding supplemental regulations pertaining to permitted land uses table. City tax district 11 second ward tax map 26A parcel 22 in the R1 single family residential district.

So for VAR 26027, in the packets as well as on the screen, is a aerial view showing where the property is. Again, our normal kind of generation for the map that's a little bit cleaner, more accurate, was having issues. So this is just pulled from the parcel viewer. An important thing to note based on this is that the property line actually not cutting the building in half. It's pretty much right on the back and also the side of the building, which will come up in just a minute. But that is important to note that the building actually pretty much hugs those property lines. It's not this kind of slightly shifted off. It's just kind of a product of the software.

Can you speak to why the property line is that close?

Well, we'll get to a picture of how old this building is, but this building was constructed a long time ago, so that's most likely why it's so close to the property line. Moving beyond that, the next part in the packet as well as up there is just a site plan showing the proposed work. The units represented 1 through 5, standard kind of apartment units. Then the final image as well as attached in the packet is a picture, an older image of the structure when it was used previously. You'll notice that it was more facing out to a street in an area that is kind of no really there. It's the rail trail now on that part of the building where you see the overhang. You also see cars parked in front. That would be kind of located on this part of the building historically, and then here is that part in the image there that faces Court Street. So the applicant is seeking variance from supplemental regulations regarding outdoor pedestrian walkways for dwelling units above the ground floor on a principal facade. A remodel of this building will add five dwelling units on the upper floor for rent, as previously mentioned. The principal facade has been determined to be off of Court Street, as that is how vehicles access the property mainly now, as well as where the main entrance to the structure is. As I said a moment ago, historically, the structure was accessed from a road that was where the current pedestrian trail is. Additionally, the rear and side of the property are directly on the property lines, which limits their potential development on those sides of the property. If they were to try and move it onto another part of the structure, they wouldn't be able to because of property line concerns there. The supplemental reg is referenced in the packet. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance to construct a pedestrian walkway on the principal facade of the Texas dwelling units, the reference property. And you can see there at the bottom is that pedestrian walkway to those units. Please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed. Staff have had no comments or modifications to these, as well as planning staff have no objections to this request for variance relief. If the Board of Zoning Appeals does grant the applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's code, the only condition is the general standard condition that if something any modifications or changes to the plan would not be compliant, then they would have to get a variance or adjusted for that. But otherwise, as is, no additional conditions or modifications or issues with planning department side. And that will conclude my report. Thank you very much.

Do we have a representative for this case?

Mark Downs, 346 Green Street. Yeah, I'm a representative of the ownership group. We bought this building about five years ago. It had been for sale for a long time. It had been out of operation for a long time because the roof had been leaking for about 30 years, and it was collapsing from the inside out. So we started about five years ago a slow process of structurally rebuilding the building from the inside out literally. Lots of permits, lots of working with the city, new roof. So we're to the point now where we're ready to start building out on the inside. And we've gotten here. This process really started Back in the late winter, we started applying for financing and getting our ducks in order there. And then in January, had asked for a meeting with the city, sat down proactively to talk about the project. uh... review our plans cover our intentions the idea was that we wanted to make sure that we understood exactly what was in front of us Because we are now paying interest on a note to get a project done, right? Didn't want to run into any problems. So January 12th, after the January 10th meeting, January 12th, our initial plans went in. We started comments back and forth. Usual stuff. No issues. By March 12th, we had engineered drawings of the balcony to to go to go into the front because the old balcony was it was not salvageable we needed a new one so march 12th then uh april 2nd nearly three months after our initial meeting with the city to identify any issues associated with our plans we found out that We had this issue. We had this variance issue. Because the building that was built 100 years ago was built with zero property lines, zero lot lines on three sides and with a street-facing balcony. for ingress, egress. So, you know, that's how we got here. I tell you that just because, you know, it is frustrating. And I appreciate all that you all do. Thank you for your service. This isn't an easy thing to consume all this material and weigh in on these decisions. I appreciate you. But I don't tell you any of that to criticize anyone, but I think it highlights a broader issue, you know, for us as a city and something that, you know, the mayor and I definitely want to work on. I'm sure at times it frustrates you. But we need clear development processes. We need more predictable identification of issues earlier in the process. And I know staff's working to that end. And I appreciate where we ultimately have arrived with no issues and no objections. a recommendation to move forward. So I'm really optimistic about this project. It sits right on the rail trail, five units, five new residential units. We need housing. We're going to have commercial space that we're targeting as bar restaurant space on the rail trail adjacent to the amphitheater. This is one of the few historic buildings that we have left in our Wharf Historic District. If it were resurveyed today, it wouldn't qualify as a historic district anymore because there aren't enough historic buildings left. that's directly from SHPO this building is and that's just something that's near and dear to my heart it's where our company where we invest in the community trying to salvage our history it's critical and so I'll take any questions you have

Is the variance because of the work you're doing on the porch that fell apart?

The variance is because, and Sailor can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll take a stab at it. But because we have a balcony, a street-facing balcony for ingress egress.

But again, the balcony was there prior. In before. For residential, though. For residential, right. It's the sub-regulation property. for mixed-use residential in the before, which before it wasn't. It wasn't residential. It was resident.

It was actually, it always was residential.

The units up top are new, though, is what I'm getting at. That's where it stems from. Historically, though, I feel like...

It was always, and maybe that's a miscommunication, but I felt like I'd communicated that with the director.

Was the, wait a minute, was the district rezoned?

To the best of my understanding, it's always really been before down there. And another thing to note additionally is that if you do over a percentage cost amount of work to a structure, it has to be conforming on certain things. And that also is kind of where this is caught because there was some conversation about, you know, where what's the facade and stuff like that, but just the amount of work, fixing it up, making it nice, puts it above that threshold, which would be kind of like the second reason as to why they would need a potential variance for this in the B4.

Yeah, we're sprinkling that.

You spend more money on building something than there's even more hurdles to show in some way.

Yeah, but... It is just the sub-regulation for that principal facade egress for residential. Nothing else is an issue for what they're projecting for the units up top. This is kind of it.

All right. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you. Thank you for the, did you generate the findings of fact?

No, no, no, no.

Well, maybe in consultation with Mr. Thompson. Thank you for those.

Oh, well, we've provided a lot of history.

Right. Well, thank you very much. Welcome. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing for this case. Oh, hang on. VAR 26-027. We're opening the public hearing for those wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to. All right, now's your chance.

Scott Frederick, 1065 Wayne Avenue. I've worked with Mark for five years. I'm the one who said the building could be saved when he took me in there, so I feel personally responsible. But I've done a lot of research about this building. It was actually built, I think, closer to 1914 when Musholy Brothers Produce was incorporated. And the original address of that building was 65 Pleasant Street. So the front of the building was where the Westover Bridge is now. So there's a whole convoluted history of that building. There was a porch and another side building. There was a rail spur. So Court Street was actually the backside of that building when it was originally built. The balcony and everything was, so as far as everything being changed, the balcony is where it was when the building was built. It was residential. So I don't see any reason why it can't just be accepted as how it was when the building was built, regardless of where the balcony is or was. And now the hardship is the state has, you know, through eminent domain built the bridge and claimed all the property right up to the edge of the building. So there is no other option to make this viable property than to put the balcony where it was and where we need to put it.

I don't see any self-created

No, we're just a victim of circumstance and in order to make this a viable piece of property and Mark has gone out of his way for years to try to revitalize buildings downtown that have been compromised or neglected and I can't think of a better champion of trying to revitalize Morgantown than Mark. And like I said before, why are we even here? You know, the fact that planning has kicked this can down the road to say why are we even here? I mean, I understand because it's the only logical way to make this building viable. So I implore you to just go ahead and say, hey.

Apart from the pedestrian balcony fronting on the frontage...

Which was not... To me, that's a technicality.

Exactly. In terms of the property lines, this is the most commonsensical place for siting the pedestrian balcony. And there's nothing self-created hardship about your case at all.

We're making the best of what's around.

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wanting to speak in support of or in opposition to?

Danielle Trumbull, 1141 Charles Avenue, Mayor, Fifth Ward Councilor for the City of Morgantown. We're back to one that I actually did come to speak about, not one that I just kind of got the spur of the moment itch on. I'm here to speak on behalf of my friend, Mark, my friend and colleague who has done a lot to revitalize many of the buildings within our downtown. As Scott said, this building is a victim of circumstance, there is literally no other option to make it usable than to utilize that one frontage that is not against a property line. This is one of the things that really infuriates me with some of our zoning code. And that's no fault of anyone that is involved at this time. But our zoning code is so convoluted that it makes things impossible to tell someone, you're investing too much money into a historic building You now have to jump through all these extra hoops. We should be encouraging people to revitalize these instead of knock them over and build a chain or something like that.

Especially if it's increasing housing stock.

Absolutely, that is a problem within the city limits of Morgantown well throughout the whole area right is a lack of housing and affordable housing and quality housing and Marcus committed to making that happen. He has many apartment complexes and Renovated buildings all over the city. So I am very happy to come and speak in favor of this I know that Through my position on the Planning Commission and Council and in coordination with Mark, we are committed to making those changes to our zoning code so that you guys have to see way fewer of these types of cases. But in the meantime, let's encourage this type of revitalization. And I've been here three times now, and I keep forgetting to welcome Mr. Martin. So welcome. Thank you for your service.

Anyone else? Okay. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. Whoever generated the findings of that for this case, thank you very much. They speak to potential areas of concern and they point out that what's being proposed is it's the best solution for making, developing the property in a responsible, reasonable manner to increase badly needed additional housing stock in the city of Morgantown. So I'm gonna, does anyone have any issues with the findings of that? They are excellent findings of fact. So I move to accept the findings of fact for VAR 26-027. So we have a motion seconded by Mr. Martin. How do we vote? Aye. So we've accepted the findings of fact for VAR 26-027. We do want to note there is the standard condition before we make the motion. Any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code, or the applicant shall seek variance relieved from the board's zoning appeals. So I move to grant the requested variance for this case. Second that. And we have a second by Mr. DeWitt, subject to the standard condition for planning. How do we vote? So we've granted your variance, Mr. Downs. Thank you so very much. As you know, just the standard disclaimer there, you will receive written notification from Planning 7 to 10 business days generally. It is appealable to the Circuit Court of Montegalia County, and that is a 30-day appeals window. Any Further work you do during that window, you do your sole financial risk. But thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thanks for coming down. And good luck with your project. All right, so the next case is VAR 26-036, Dave Vitez at 395 Laurel Street. Request by Dave Vitez for variance relief and compliance with section 1333.04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding setbacks, city tax district 15 in the seventh ward, tax map seven, parcel 85 in the R1, single family residential district.

So for VAR 26036, as shown in the packets as well as on screen, The reference property is on the corner of Laurel and University. Another thing to note is that the building there isn't, shown in the images, isn't there anymore. It's a vacant lot currently. This was just the most accurate that we had at the time. But it is important. That is a vacant lot at this moment. As well as, again, the package is on the screen, is this is a project area showing kind of where the house will be structured. where it will be built, kind of giving it the show of where it will be located relative to neighboring housing, the lot, stuff like that for what I'll get into in the analysis. The applicant is seeking a variance regarding extending the maximum front setback for a new construction. The building would sit approximately 50-ish feet back from the property line. which will put it about 20 feet above the maximum of 30 the minimum maximums of that district is 25 to 30 from the front there's a maximum setback yep yep there's a min and max front setback and there's only minimums on your rear and side setbacks so an r1 what's the point of a max setback There's too far back to have backyards wanting to keep with the makeup of the neighborhood development standards.

But maximums apply only to front, not side or rear.

Correct. In other words. Reasonings for wanting to have a front yard, that neighborhood look, things like that. The previous home, an additional thing to note, is the previous home also set back farther than was permitted. If it was new, kind of as you can see there, the footprint as it's layered over that, pretty similar. But that home was demolished and is no longer there, as I also stated, which means that wouldn't necessarily apply. The relevant sections of code can be found below the analysis, being the maximum front setback of 30 feet. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance to construct a single family dwelling approximately 50 feet back from the property line at 395 Laurel Street. Please see the attached application to review those findings of fact. Staff have had no comments or modifications to them. Additionally, planning staff have no objections to the applicant's request for variance relief. And if the board does grant the variance, only the one standard condition would apply. And then that concludes staff report.

Thanks. Thank you. So the front is on University or the front is on Laurel?

So the front is on Laurel because that is the shortest side. If you're on a corner lot, it's just the shortest side. Just to be specific. I mean, it's referenced as Laurel Street, but... Yeah, the front's on Laurel, so that is determined based on two things in this case, being that it is the shortest side of the two abutting a street, and the other one is their intention to access the property off of Laurel as well. So that's kind of two ways as to why... Laurel Street is considered the frontage. Additional thing to note as well that will probably come up, through conversation with the applicant, it was discussed moving it. How would that work? If they moved it any farther forward, they would be in violation with their side set back on So that is an additional issue to be aware of that the side setback still applies. It is actually longer because it is on a street. So it's seven and a half instead of the five for that district. And they're being conscious of that and have shifted it away. And if they bring it any further forward, but they would need a variance for that. So that might come up as part of it.

So the house on Laurel, presumably it's extant. with all the dormers and the gables there? Is that 30 foot, would you say, in your estimation?

The one... Yeah, the neighboring, the middle property between... No, that one's also approximately 40-ish to 50. Really? Okay. So it sounds like the neighborhood already has a precedence of this.

Yep. Okay.

Thanks. Thank you very much. And the one on the corner... If that one is 40, then the one on the smaller is even, that's gotta be 50 or 55.

All right, thank you, Mr. Thompson. And how old is that particular piece of item code?

Oh, it's just tied to the district standards. for it. So probably since whenever it was produced, since I've been here, there's not been any change to the setbacks on the front. I'm just wondering if there's an effort to like get an average per district area so that you're kind of keeping with consistent Some of our districts actually do have that as like a caveat that if you can show that you're within similar to your neighbors, you don't need it. But R1 and R1A doesn't have that. It's more for like business or commercial districts or like other density. But yeah, for their district, it wouldn't matter. That type of thought works too. It can help find the BCA rationale potentially.

And hopefully when they update the standard that that would be considered for sure.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Do we have a representative for this case?

Hi, Jeff Hornets, 1001 Ice Circle, Morgantown. This is Dr. Carol Lyle. She's the property owner.

Dave Vitez is the builder of the property that's worked with the city to attempt to get the plans. That's where his name came in.

So as Sailor indicated, it's a fairly simple request. If you'll see the overlay of the home on the plat attached, and I have larger ones here if you'd like to see any closer, it's consistent with the prior home. The reasoning for the extreme setback originally is that lot used to be a square. Decades ago, the city rounded those corners and put that little island in so you have two, a way in and a way out. It's kind of neat, but it's a little abnormal for the area. By keeping the house back, it increases the sight lines, which is what we were talking about earlier. My aunt used to live in the house right next door that was remodeled, and it sits on the same footprint that it always has. So both of these homes... were on that footprint. The prior home that was torn down was an old Gunnison house. Probably makes Scott cry that we tore it down. But it was an old dilapidated structure. The neighborhood kids called it the Scooby Doo house. And it was demolished. And they saved some of the architecture of it to incorporate into the new home, which is kind of neat, the plate and some other things. What this will do is the exact kind of development that's, I think, wanted and needed. It's replacing an old structure with a beautiful new home that Dr. Lau plans to live in for quite a long time and stay in the community So by setting it back, the other issue we had was MUB required a well for the water to come in and collect and then feed out into the drainage system. And that sits right on the side of the driveway about 10 feet back in front of the house. If you remove the house forward, it would alter the drainage as the way the water flows and disrupt the way that the water is going to collect and hold there before it slowly seeps out into the street rather than just simply blowing out into the system.

It's a whole system that's been engineered. Do you have to have a water catchment on the property?

Yeah, that's the way that this was designed. Barry Dixon did the engineering. There's a name on it that he put on here.

I forget.

Yeah, it's this one that shows the... Mr. Vites does all his drainage that way with subterranean cribs to hold the water. That's smart.

I mean, that's a really good proactive way to handle a lot of new property.

It guarantees you're not dispelling more water from the property after construction than you were before. It actually improved on this one. It's called a... Dry well.

I don't know why I came up with that.

A request simply is to, it's kind of an opposite of most of the variance requests for setbacks that you usually get is that it's in the reverse.

I was kind of asking about the maximum. Yeah. Rarely comes up.

And it's a rather large, it's a larger lot than the neighboring lot so there's still quite a lot of yard in the back and you can see the cut-in in the back. There's going to be a nice little courtyard there in this building. It's going to be kind of a nice little oasis.

I mean this one would need good sight lines and having it back further only improves it. So I think you're just helping the situation.

An additional comment as well is that we've not received any actual correspondence on it, but I did receive some phone calls and emails that had some concerns with site issues at that. And then when they were told what the variance was really about, they then said, oh, I don't really They thought it was the other way, and that's where they had issue, but then when they, yeah, the clarification of it's actually 20 feet back and not forward, there was no official correspondence. They're like, oh, we don't want to say anything.

The other advantage with having a longer driveway is, of course, I know the city's very concerned about placement of garages behind the front of the house so that you have more off-street parking. And so by having a longer driveway, it accomplishes that goal as well. So you can see that we put four cars in the driveway spot as well as the two or three in the garage. It's a three-car two. You wanted a three.

It's a two-car garage.

So conceivably, with a busy intersection there, it wouldn't really be safe to have cars parking on that street. So this will accomplish that goal as well. Are there any other questions?

It seems pretty self-explanatory. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing for this case, VAR 26-036, David Tez, 395 Laurel Street. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case? Now's your chance.

I won't speak unless Commissioner Arnett will be upset that I didn't get up to support.

You're fine. Thank you. You're fine.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, we just need you to come up again and say, why is it?

You can just say it from there. If you'd like to log in on the record.

Scott Frederick, 1065 Wayne Avenue. Why are we even here? This is a no-brainer. In fact, this is the kind of development, especially in this case, that should be encouraged and not questioned. So I feel really bad that you guys are wasting your time here on something.

It's not, though. It's not. Doing due diligence. I understand, and I appreciate your participation. In accordance with zoning regs.

And our board actually gives the flexibility that you've been talking about.

Good, good, because that's necessary, because this is a no-brainer. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right, seeing no one, we're gonna close the public hearing. Okay, so we have a motion by Mr. DeWitt to accept the findings of fact for this case, VAR 26-036, seconded by Ms. Cook. And then again, we just wanna, before we make the motion to grant or not, there is the standard condition per planning. So I make a motion to grant the variant. Oh, that's right. Okay, I'm sorry. So we need a vote for, we have the motion to accept the findings of fact. Seconded by Ms. Cook. How do we vote? Aye. So I move to grant the variants as requested. It's a reasonable request. You know, the frontage is not within, it satisfies the minimum setback and the request is for 20 feet in excess of the maximum. It's not an unreasonable request. It's not interfering with sight lines and it will help, it's helpful in terms of the the onsite water drainage design as proposed by MUB, which is a positive.

Yes.

So we have a motion and you're seconding. How do we vote? Aye. So we've granted your variance request. Again, you will receive written notification seven to eight business days from planning. it is appealable to the Circuit Court of Modern Data Accounting. So please do keep that in mind, because any work that you do in that 30-day appeals window, you do your sole financial risk. Thank you very much for coming down, and have a good evening. Okay, we have one, two? Well, we have...

Yeah, there's one reasonable request, and then there is a change of ownership for a restaurant. Right.

I just want to note that the last case for the change of ownership, it's not actually technically listed in the agenda items. Yeah, it doesn't. Okay, so let's move to agenda item F. This is, I'll just read it into the record, request for reasonable accommodation for Morgantown Sober Living, Inc., regarding 318 Wilson Avenues, City Tax District 10, Second Ward, Tax Map 36, Parcel 119 in the R1A, Single Family Residential District. I do want to note that this was added, this case was added recently, and in addition, we have correspondence submittal, which was also very recently submitted. And I don't know whether board wants to speak to whether everyone has had ample opportunity to review, especially with regard to the correspondence.

I mean, I'm interested to hear what it is. Okay. Well, let's... But if that's up to the board, you know, I...

Well, let's introduce the agenda item and then we'll see if we know everything we need to know. Right. Okay. So this next case is request for reasonable accommodation for Morgantown Silver Living Inc. regarding 318 Wilson Avenue, City Tax District 10 in the second ward, tax map 36, parcel 119 in the R1A. single-family residential district. Mr. Thompson.

So this is a, as you said, reasonable accommodation for 318 Wilson Ave. On the screen, as well as in the packets, here's an aerial view showing the property in reference. It's the one on the corner of Ash and Wilson. Just a note, kind of pointed out there's just a blue dot on it. So the applicant is seeking a reasonable accommodation regarding parking in the R1A single-family residential district. A staff recommendation can be found below with conditions. Refer to the sections of code below as well as the submitted designs. In summary, the applicant wishes to get approval for a reasonable accommodation regarding parking standards at the property addressed at, well, there's a in there, but it's for 318 Wilson. addressed there they are able to provide one parking space on the property they need to make up the additional three and they're asking that's that kind of reasonable accommodation is for those three spaces but it is important to note that they do have one space for their mainly for their employee already on property and then the rest is calculated by the number of residents in there that will require them to have three spaces for that so Under, I won't read every bulleted point, but under the Federal Fair Housing Act, the city must provide reasonable accommodations and rules, policies, and practices when necessary to afford equal opportunity to people with a handicap as defined by the FHA and ADA to use and enjoy a dwelling. The requested accommodation must be granted if it is one, reasonable, if it is two, necessary, and if it is three, directly linked to enabling equal housing opportunity. However, an accommodation is not required if it would either impose undue financial or administrative burdens or fundamentally alter the nature of the zoning regulation. And then there's 20 kind of points that go through explaining the reasonability, necessity, and enabling equal housing opportunity in there. Otherwise, that would conclude staff report. But if anybody does want me to read the 20 points, I will do that as well.

So the available one parking space is that.

we talking on is that on street or is that no it is on the corner here uh it's easier to see in the packet and again we were having mapping issues unfortunately but they do have one driveway onto the property um off of ash street and it does meet the requirements for one space so they have they do have one off street parking space on their property off for this building right They also brought up the idea of adding an additional parking space on the property to have two spaces. That would not be permitted due to a couple of different parts with expanding the width of the driveway for engineering as well as just not having the depth needed for another spot. So they did have the idea of maybe paving more by the driveway in the front, but it wouldn't be deep enough. It would be parking half on the sidewalk. right so what is it eight by sixteen it is uh eight and a half by eighteen by eighteen yep and they don't have the depth needed um but so engineering said it's not not capable even if they went yeah with engineering and planning standards even if they you know it's there's just not enough room to put an additional parking spot to get a second space um on there, based on the lot, the distance from the house, the structure, to the sign block. How was it proposed initially to deny it? What was the proposed work? It was more conversational. We brought up that they would need to have four parking spaces in total. They have one. They would need to make up the other three or request a reasonable combination or a variance. And during that conversation, it was brought up, oh, well, we might be able to add a parking space. And then it was, well, even if you could there, it's just not deep enough based on just knowing the measurement of how deep a spot has to be. But yeah, that was more of a conversational.

And then what about off street, not necessarily on Wilson, but Hash?

There's only off-street parking off of Ash Street. There's no off-street on Wilson Avenue or room for it there for the same issue of there's just not enough depth or width even on certain parts of it. So they wouldn't really be able to put parking on either side or they'd be parking like out of their property in the right of way or in the street or on a sidewalk. It's just not deep enough for a standard vehicle based on our measurements.

And what does the city recommend on this one?

based we recommend the approval approve the request for the reasonable accommodation and our rationale is based on those 20 points trying to state that it's reasonable necessary and directly linked to enabling equal housing opportunity in line with FHA and ADA those 20 points found in the packet

Well, does the inability to provide on or off street parking accommodation, to what extent does that constitute a fundamental modification of zoning regs? Doesn't it change the, I mean, those zoning regs, including for the parking requirements, those were written ‑‑ Correct. ‑‑ consistent with whatever the given characteristics of any given ‑‑ part of any neighborhood within the city of Morgantown.

So point A says if a proposed use is similar to surrounding uses, permitting the use will generally not be considered a fundamental alteration of the zoning regulation. And then that kind of goes on to discuss other variances that would be given for similar issues in that district or area or comparable states of houses. So to add on to that, if you look at the imaging, most of the houses that you can see around don't have more than one space. If that, a lot of them have zero and that would be a similar amount that they would have. compared to the other uses nearby.

I have a wishful thought on these types of requests is to like if we had some sort of data analysis on the variances requested in the district, things that we've approved already, things that haven't been approved of similar nature so that we could see what precedence has been set before and things like that. Sure. I don't know if that would be a future.

Yeah, well, what are your options if the board would like to see that and that would be kind of contingent on getting it approved or not? You could table it with that as a condition, table it to allow for a report to be ran to try to generate variances, similar permits, things like that. Or you could make your ruling based on what you have, and then that could be a suggestion for the forward-looking ones.

Just because there's some messages and things about the parking, and I want to know what other homes on that street have been granted such things.

Because for us to deny something that we've been given really creates a... Because given the degree of similarity among the adjacent properties with respect to... what's available for parking. Right. So, but what I'm saying is in terms of the reasonable accommodation, if any other property owner were to make a similar application, I guess what I'm trying to say is there's a built in justification because the properties are so similar for granting the

But it's just that we've approved ones in other neighborhood areas for other reasons. And so it's like, I feel like it's conditional on that as well as much. What were the other reasons at the other properties for granting the request? I'm just trying to think of things that would help justify our position. Right. Because if we've rented like five homes on this street, that type of thing, well, then there's a precedent.

Right. Because it's not as if the variance is just for a single part. It's for three. Three, I know that's the kicker.

I think we've come across this one before. I think we should open it. But we talked about having them try to find parking in other sections of town.

I don't know. Whatever came of that. uh based on if you're referencing the last conversation about well can they get parking elsewhere yeah um they're able to but it wouldn't satisfy um the ordinance because there is a feet limit so within um it's 200 isn't it it's either two or three hundred i off the top of my head i i'm not exactly sure on the number but it is within that amount of a couple hundred feet In certain districts you can go a little farther, like commercial business districts, but this is not one of those. So they could potentially, if there was a parking lot within 100 feet, use that and it would satisfy off-street parking standards. But because there's none of them that are close enough, then it wouldn't qualify for off-street parking.

I think it's dangerous for us to deny it based on the the complaints that we have versus, you know, the FHA, ADA regulations that are weak. That's law, you know. That's something we can't have an opinion on. That's my thought. So, anyways.

So are we opening it or what? What are we doing with it?

I kind of want to see this get resolved because this has come a couple of times and they've got a stack of FHA, ADA points that I don't think we can, even two or three of these from now can really argue with.

And there's no, you know, this is a newer case, but has there been any, it is ADA federal law, however, you know, We're tasked with doing our deliberations with regard to the specific characteristics of each case. So has there been any input from city attorney?

So as far, and also just to reiterate, the reasonable accommodation for 318 Wilson Add is separate from the previous one. It's the same entity but it's different addresses, different, this is its own separate, this is for 318 Wilson. And any ruling or anything related to this is just for 318 Wilson. It doesn't impact.

And again, we want to emphasize it's a unique case. Sure. The neighborhoods are somewhat similar between the recent case and this one. However, this is a unique case.

And as far as any comments from the city's attorney, it is one through 20 wasn't just written up by me. So I'm not a legal attorney or anything. So there was input by legal on our end regarding these one through 20 points presenting it to the BZA. In addition to that, if the board does have concerns or questions or wants additional information provided, a recommendation would be just to table it to make those requests to the city and we will work with the applicant to provide that for any other case if you guys have concerns with the table to follow up on additional information or any other clarification that you might need that you don't believe that you have sufficient enough.

What resulted in our last one for this?

The last one, the last reasonable accommodation, the reasonable accommodation was approved by the BZA previously. Wasn't it two, not three, though, right? Oh, yeah. The spots were three last time. It was three? But they didn't have any on-site. There was no on-site parking. They needed two to three spots, and then they were given a reasonable accommodation. It might have been two. That was a previous case. I didn't know. I'll read up on that one before I come again. But this one is four. They have one on site.

My only issue with this is that this is the same entity in this, is that it's like we knew the issue the last time, and then we do it again.

It's setting the precedent. I mean, we're all for acknowledging a reasonable... for an accommodation, especially as it bears on federal ADA law. However, property owners still have rights.

That's right. As in the property owners bought the property?

I guess what I'm driving at is if we grant too many of these, it does... significantly alter because it's changing the characteristics of the name.

It is. And the only time that we get, I mean, I don't read as many dissenting letters as I have with this type of project. And I know it's a good project in its nature, but it's the repeated.

Right. It's the reason, I mean, there's a reason we that the parking regulations are written in to the zoning code. There are very good reasons for that. Because history happens. Observations are made with regard to, oh, we have these vehicles in this very dense neighborhood and there are conflicts, there's congestion, this is not working. We need to adopt rules and then the regulations are set, they're adopted and those regulations are developed and they're codified in response to what happens in the real world. So personally I'm all for a reasonable combination but on the other hand we all have to live together amicably in the real world. So I guess my point is there's a reason why we have these zoning regulations, including parking regulation specifics that are contained in the zoning code. And those, we have those reg is a very good reason why there's a requirement for four. Yeah. It's not arbitrary, it's not.

So having said that, I would like to read the letter that we received as correspondence. Is that good?

Yeah, additional thing to note, planning has not actually even seen the letter. So if you would like to read it, this will be.

Like you said, we had information that came in late, although we have dealt with a case like this before. And this came in, I got it here when I came here.

Yeah, the letter came in, I believe they're here. Was this dropped off today or yesterday, the letters? I think today. Today. Well, I did not get it.

And I would also like to note that F, I did not see it, although I did read through.

In the initial email. It was in the agenda.

Anyway, I did not see it in my notes, and I did not have a chance to read through it, but.

Well, and in light of, all right, so planning has its own purview. We have our own purview. But planning plays a significant role in planning. how these applications are reviewed. So given that planning has not reviewed, and I'm for tabling this.

Yeah, we've reviewed the project. It's not the letters that came in. As we didn't receive any that were addressed to us, we're not able to open your guys' mail, for example. So that's all that we've not seen. Oh, I see. But we are, yeah, I put this stuff together. myself, but the letters or the correspondence has not been read by anybody on planning staff as we were not given any. And we're not allowed to obviously open your guys' mail as it is for you. Right. So that's the only part that we've not seen. We have seen the project up to this point. But yeah, if you'd like to read it. I would like to read the letter. If you want to.

Do you want to read the whole letter into the record? Just a moment.

Yes, I'm going to address the first page because it tells who and when and what. Name, Justin Wojcik. Best I can. 205 Waitman Street, Morgantown. Please see the attached four pages to, of course, our board. I'm here today with concerns about a request for reasonable accommodation. Let me read that again because I am here today for concerns about, quote, request for reasonable accommodation, unquote, by Morgantown Sober Living Incorporated regarding 318 Wilson Avenue. Particularly if this request is regarding the parking standards of the property, namely City Code 1365.04.01, quote, minimum off-street parking requirements, unquote. I am a homeowner just blocks away from this house down Busdy Wilson Avenue on the other side of Morgantown High School. I'm actually next door to another group residential facility ran by Morgantown Sober Living on Waitman Street that is currently operating without meeting the city's minimum off-street parking requirements. Parking, traffic, and congestion problems caused by their Wakeman Street facility is a major problem in the neighborhood, constantly causing unsafe situations to this very day. Staff and workers continue to literally park in the roadway itself or on the sidewalk and yellow curb, drive backwards in reverse directions, through the stop sign across the four-way intersection and countless times have damaged my property by driving through it as well. Just over a month ago there was nearly a car accident when all the neighborly traffic had to blindly navigate around a pickup truck and attached trailer of the maintenance person cutting their lawn who had parked literally in the road in front of the stop sign against traffic at a yellow curb for an hour. See attached photos. Without having the minimum required off-street parking, the busy public street is constantly obstructed as it is used as their personal driveway, dropping off people, waiting to pick up people, loading and unloading supplies, and more at all hours of the day and night. This is activity of intentionally ignoring traffic laws and flagrantly disobeying parking laws Excuse me, I read that wrong. This activity of intentionally ignoring traffic laws and flagrantly disobeying parking laws occurs constantly, creating one dangerous situation after another in the residential neighborhood, which could have been entirely avoided if the off street parking provided actually matched up to the number of residents and associated staff. According to City Code 1365.04.01, a group residential facility is required to have, quote, one space per employee plus one space per five residents, or if residents are unable to drive, one space per thousand square feet of gross living area, unquote. City Code 1365.02 states, when the intensity of use of any building structure or premise shall be increased through the addition of dwelling units, floor area, beds, seating capacity, or other units of measurement, parking and loading facilities as required herein shall be provided for such increase in intensity of use. In addition, 1365.02 says off street parking and loading facilities provided to comply with the provisions of this code shall not subsequently be reduced below the requirements of this code. City Code 1365.04 states in reference to the minimum off-street parking requirements that, quote, no part of any alley or street or other public right-of-way shall be used to meet the minimum parking requirements of this code unless otherwise provided for herein.

In other words, off-street parking.

Correct. On equal opportunity, The equal opportunity element mandates that housing be offered to handicapped persons in a manner equal to that offered to other residents. It requires even-handed treatment rather than providing handicapped persons with a greater opportunity than non-handicapped persons. on fundamental alterations, quote, reasonable accommodations do not require accommodations which impose changes, adjust or modifications to existing programs that would be substantial or that would constitute fundamental alterations in the nature of the program, unquote. On street parking, excuse me, on street permit parking spaces are not to be used to make up for the lack of minimum off street parking spaces and the number of required off street spaces can't be reduced due to their operation simply wanting to run a higher capacity facility. If the residence has two off-street parking spaces, city code allocates that the group residential facility can operate with one staff member and five residents, which provides an equal housing opportunity to the handicapped. To allow for an increase in intensity of use beyond that without having more off-street parking spaces provided is not only against multiple city codes, it is a disservice to the handicapped people in their program. It also fundamentally alters the purpose of the City's General Zoning Provision 1327.02 and 1327.02 to minimize or avoid congestion in the public streets as well as to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City. On necessity, quote, the necessary element think he has those quotes in the wrong place. Quote, requires the demonstration of a direct linkage between the proposed accommodation and the equal opportunity to be provided to the handicapped person. The accommodation is not reasonable as it does not provide a direct linkage between the equal opportunity of parking accommodations and the handicapped persons. At the December Board of Zoning appeals meeting, the Morgantown Sober Living Incorporated director talked about how the participants, that is the handicapped, in their program at any of their houses are not allowed to park on site. He went on to say how they are to try to be within walking distance of job opportunities and on a bus line. If there is not a direct disability-related need for the requested accommodations, then ADA and FHA do not apply to the reasonable accommodations request. The proposed parking accommodations provide no direct benefit to the handicapped persons and therefore are not necessary. Respectfully submitted, Justin Wojcik. And I apologize if I pronounced that improperly. So I would like to say on behalf of myself, and I'm not speaking for anybody else here, but I am speaking. So we, I noted the other, like he mentioned that there was other negative comments regarding this particular entity. And like he said, the nature of this program is not the problem. There seems to be another problem within this program entity that's anyway creating issue. And I'd like to say as a Board of Zoning Appeals member, I feel like because of possibly not listening to our neighbors, so to speak, because we had three or four people that came and opposed it, that I felt bullied into giving a positive response to this. But I would like to say that I am already opposed to it and I will vote nay tonight. I'm just declaring that up front.

Mr. DeWitt. Thank you, Ms. Cook.

This is a very good letter, very good citations. And is it part of the issue of the volume of people in the home? Like if they just reduce the number, then this would be... Yeah, reduce the number and get it right down to the right number.

I think at this point we need... And you said equal opportunity, yes. There's a disjuncture in my view between the density of the neighborhood and what is... The nature of your... It's residential, and that's really your best line of argument with regard to... eighty-eight law however the nature of the activities the operations such a nature with regard to the parking requirements what your what's your business requires with regard to vehicular activity and parking disjuncture between what the nature of your operation requires in terms of vehicles and parking and the density and the characteristics of the neighborhoods for both cases. And that, with regard to how the parking requirements are written for zoning code, that creates, it's problematic, regardless of what ADA law says. in terms of reasonable accommodations for residential residents or occupants of whatever property. It creates problems.

It's one situation whenever it's like it's happened once and it's like an issue of what we didn't know, but this is something we know about.

And additionally, with regard to the problematic nature of residential density and conditions vehicular congestion, et cetera. When does what is constituted as a reasonable accommodation under ADA law become an unreasonable accommodation for all stakeholders in a community? For me, that's the crux of the issue. When does the reasonable accommodation that's provided under federal ADA law become an unreasonable foundation.

I think it's very dangerous. I think we should have the city lawyer look at some of the ADHDs with respect to what Justin... And the specific characteristics. Based on the handicap aspect of how applying, not applying, again, because we don't want to overstep our bounds as a board here.

Right.

And like you said, feeling bullied by this regulation or law based on, but then we support the community on all sides, all homeowners. So it's like the last one we approved, now they have to deal with that, you know, the ramifications of it. Now it's another one just down the street from that. So it's like, how do we, again, it's a great program.

I don't want to like... And we have to be cognizant and defer to ADA law in our determinations. However... Our primary role is, what we do, we are operating at the local level. We are here to advocate on behalf, that's how I view our role. We are here to advocate on behalf, yes, we're U.S. citizens. We're subject to federal law. However, we're here to advocate for the residents of the city of Morgantown.

I just want to open the city up for a suit for over an hour.

There's staff too.

But I'm open with opening up the...

floor more information or no i mean i don't i mean i i know how i would decide on this but again the city attorney yeah from based on what gabe is kind of suggesting um and you can correct me if i'm wrong it seems like you would at least like to table either into the next meeting or into whatever appropriately met to legal guidance by the city's attorney and understanding of the laws that would apply to it how they would apply give some guidance on that to better understand exactly what you'd be kind of approving on. Does that?

And can the city attorney speak to the specifics of this case, but also the recent case?

Well, we can't change that one.

No, we can't, but we can do a comparison and contrast.

Not being the city's attorney, I can't give a yes or no, but at least if that's a request by the BZA, I can at least make that a requirement of, hey, the board wants to table it. Well, you guys would make that a requirement. You would like to table case the reasonable accommodation until legal guidance can be given by the city's attorney to give a better... compare and contrast between this one and the previous one, as well as generally what applies.

Or do we need that?

Is that what you recommend? It's up to you guys. I recommend if that is a question you have, then the attorney isn't here and can't answer that.

I think I have enough information for how I would feel about it, but again, I don't want to open the city up for some sort of suit over this, so I'm asking for what's the proper...

Yeah, I think it would be very reasonable to say that the board wants additional information on how to look at it, and that's what you vote for.

The things that Justin wrote here are correct, and then we have grounds to stand by our opinion.

If not, then we really don't have... Yeah, and legal counsel hasn't looked at that because, again, we're not sent any, so we weren't able to, again, open it.

Okay.

Go ahead. Is everyone comfortable with tabling? Yeah.

I move to table the motion.

All right, and I second that motion. Do we have, well, we never opened.

You don't have to if you're tabling, but you can if you want.

Someone's indicating that he wants to speak. But we have, sir, we haven't opened a public hearing because we're tabling. So.

I just have a question.

It's up to Chris. I mean, you're the board. You can choose to listen to it or just say wait until the next meeting.

I think we're going to table. We're going to look. We need more information to continue deliberation. So we're going to table. Okay, so we have a motion to table. And we do have a second. And, again, this is for Agenda Item F, Request for Reasonable Accommodation for Morgantown Sober Living, Inc., regarding 318 Wilson Ave, City Tax District 10, Second Ward, Tax Map 36, Parcel 119 in the R1A, Single Family Residential District. We have a motion, we have a second. How do we vote? Aye. Agenda item F is so tabled to our next regular meeting. We have one more case.

I would like to add real quick for that last case, the one that isn't on the agenda. That will actually have to be tabled. It has to be tabled? It has to be tabled due to legal deadline requirements.

Oh, I see. Well, all right. So this last case, so it's referenced as Transfer of Ownership 344 High Street, the bank. It is not referenced as a specific agenda item, and I'm advised by Mr. Thompson from planning that we have to table this. Do we need a motion or no? Because it didn't meet the legal requirements for advertising. So no motion required. Thank you very much. So do we have, actually before we move to, I think we should do, we meant to do the introduction Well, we're welcoming Mr. Martin to our board.

We can end with that. Yes, I have no closing announcements otherwise. But as Chris was alluding to, we do have a new member, Alexander Martin, as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. So welcome to the BZA. Otherwise, I have no other announcements. If you would like to add anything, you're more than welcome to. If not, welcome to the board. Would you like to say a few words? Welcome. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the welcome. I'm excited to be more involved with my community and helping to give a voice to some residents of Morgantown and the surrounding area. I'm looking forward to working with you all and learning throughout this whole process. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to take questions at the next regular meeting because I'm assuming the question relates to Do you want to approach and lodge your question? Well, I think because you've already tabled it.

He said it wasn't about the fence.

It's just a general question.

Hi. My name is Justin Wojcik, 205 Waiton Street. That was my letter that you read. The question I have pertains to the meeting packet that was provided with information for these cases. I'd seen that, you know, the item that I came to speak about, you know, when it was first put out, it did not have an agenda item. Then they added it to item F. But nowhere in the meeting packet that was put on the website have I seen the 20 points that's provided or any other information relevant to this case. So if that could be... Can we address that?

As far as that goes, it should have been, because I sent out the packet with those 20. It was a combined thing. If it wasn't, thank you for letting us know. If that happens again, give me a call or email or even show up and say, hey, that's not there. Because I was under the impression it was, and that was what the intention was. So if that's, well, we can update that to reflect that based on this. That was my only question. Thank you. Yeah, that just must have been an error.

That is a salient concern, especially since the 20 points, I mean, it does become part of the official legal record.

Yeah, and that, on the packet that I have and that you guys have now, it reflects that. And based on speaking with Heidi as well, that the one that was maybe sent out of residency didn't have it either, and that, again, was an error it should have. If that happens, please reach out to the office or show up, or, you know, showing up for the concerned resident, but otherwise send an email, give me a call, let me know if that's an error.

What is your office number?

It is... I'll give you my card.

It's in the... It's in his emails.

It is referenced in the email. I just want to make sure I had it. Plus, I let them hear it too.

It's in any of my emails I send out as well as the letters that go out or emails and things I send out. After this, I can give you my card just to make sure. If you guys would like a copy of my card, you're familiar with my number, but just for the sake of it. If that does happen again, 100%, please reach out. Let us know.

Yep. Because I think we're all interested in working toward improving our community. You know, outcomes and the quality of the process.

So thank you very much. I also want to make a statement that I've heard really good things about the sober living program you run. That's not the issue at all. Any other questions?

All right, I move to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Cook. How do we vote? We are so adjourned, but please wait.