Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Order the meeting.

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 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 meetings or minutes from previous meetings. Move to unfinished business, take up new business, and then conclude with announcements from staff. Each request is heard in the order that 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 the request, which may include questions by members of the board. We will then open a public hearing for each case to hear testimony in support of or in opposition to the request. Rules regarding public testimony are as follows. Anyone wishing to testify during the public hearing may do so once recognized by the chair or may, in lieu of oral testimony, submit written testimony to the board. 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, we may, to avoid repetitive comments, elect to ask for a representative to speak on behalf of the group 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 comment information, which will be limited to an additional five minutes. If members of the board have any questions of the applicant agent, that time will not be counted toward his or her five minutes. After all testimony is heard, we will declare the public hearing closed and no further public comment will be permitted. Uncivil, unruly, and or disruptive behavior at any time during this meeting is prohibited and will result in removal from the public meeting. State law requires the board to consider findings of fact for each case. for each conditional use and variance request. The request cannot be granted unless a majority of the quorum present finds in the positive of all 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. Any work done relating to decisions rendered by this board during this 30-day appeals window 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. So we're calling the meeting to order and we will do a roll call. Ms. Cook.

Here.

Mr. Martin?

Here.

Mr. DeWitt? Here. Mr. Medicine is present, so we do have a quorum, and we can continue with the proceeding. We do have meeting minutes from a previous meeting. However, they were not available as part of the meeting packet, so we're going to postpone consideration of those meeting minutes to a future meeting. We do have, under old business, we do have a case which I will reference as VAR 28-01. Sorry, VAR 26-019, Advantage Health, 699 Burroughs Street. The applicant has requested their case to be tabled to a future meeting, so... I think in terms of due diligence, we're going to make a motion to table at the request of the applicant VAR 26-019, Advantage Health 699 Burroughs. Do we have a second for that motion?

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion to table at the applicant's request the case with a second by Mr. Martin. How do we vote?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. So that case is tabled to a future regular meeting. I'm also going to announce that there's another case for which the applicant no longer needs a variance. That case is VAR 26-034 Roberta J. Vance at 511 Bryan Place. So we are removing that case from the agenda as an agenda item. That being said, the first case under consideration is, and this is under new business, VAR 26-030, City Neon, USA, 2188 University Avenue, request by City Neon for variance relief in compliance with section 1369.08 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding lighting and design standards City Tax District 12 in the Third Ward Tax Map 14A, Parcel 6 in the R3 Multifamily Residential District.

So for VAR 26030, found in the packet, but as well as on the screen, is the design for the signs, length with, you know, you can get the measurements as well as what it will look like. On the second slide, as well as, again, referenced in the packet, it's a little difficult to see, but where those red kind of rectangles are, that's their intended point of installing those. They would like those to be positioned there. So the applicant is seeking a variance regarding internal illumination standards for signs in the R3 district, which is multifamily residential district. The sign size and dimensions are permitted. Other than its illumination, that is the only request they would have to make based on what they've submitted here today. Refer to the sections of code below found in the packet as well as the submitted designs for lighting and design standards. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding illuminating a sign at the property address at 2188 University Avenue. Please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed. As staff have had no comments or modifications to these, this attachment can be found below the conditions in the packet. Planning staff have no objections to the applicant's request for variance relief. And if the board does grant the applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, only the standard condition will apply. Otherwise, we didn't add any other conditions. And that concludes staff report.

Thank you very much. Do we have a representative for this case?

Yes, we are here.

Oh, remote. I see. Would you like to just state your name or names and a reference address for the record, please?

I am Christian Wilson and I also have Michael Bennett with ASY.

Right. And an address for the case? You just want to use the 2188 University app then?

Yes.

All right, that's fine. Yes, would you like to speak to the merits of your application for the requested variance?

I mean, yeah, basically, looking at the building, The wall packs and the sidewalk lights and everything that's already there are going to be significantly brighter than the sign that we're even putting up. So I can't see it being a significant hindrance to anybody. The placement that we put on the building, we strategically put it in the hallway. apartment and same with the other side being where it's at the light is only shining on a brick wall and the parking lot that's next to the building so I just can't see that being a significant hindrance to anybody's sight or being that bright for anybody that could cause an issue.

Alright and so during night time hours thank you for the explanation for night time hours will it be Will it be on a timer at all, or is it? Dust to dawn, okay. Seems pretty straightforward. I mean, it seems pretty reasonable.

Is there anything different than what's been proposed by other people in this area district?

At least for their kind of property is a lot of that area referenced there, but it's close-ish to downtown. You could maybe say that's comparable, but as far as illumination variances have been granted, for signage previously in similar districts the only thing i would also like to add we never received any actual correspondence on this case we did get a voicemail referencing that there was potential concerns about light on the above the hill and they said that they would follow up with a more detailed letter to us or a phone call which we've not received at this time so they never actually Sent us anything. They just said that they would but we never received anything beyond saying that they might have concerns for the illumination going above the hill But that is as far as it got like behind the property Yeah referenced is like Yeah, directly behind the photo there, that's where they said their concern was. They didn't really elaborate on it on the voicemail that I received, unfortunately, but that was a concern that they had.

I think we've brought this up before, but to have some sort of lumen threshold or something that we can cite.

That might be something in a future sign code, but at least ours currently, we don't have any restrictions other than you can't really have light going onto a neighboring parcel in a And that's also, it's more of a district requirement than a signage requirement for like light lumen standards. We don't have specific levels of light.

In terms of the light leakage up the hill, are there, is that for that voice? Yeah, go right ahead.

So for that one that is to the right of the photo that we are looking at right now, that is actually going to be a single-sided one, so the illumination will only be going towards the road and not up there.

That helps.

Right. But again, we don't have anything to base it on in terms of how much light.

But yeah, like a brightness level. I mean, you could make a determination that... how reasonable it is or not or how much light would reasonably on a standard sign project up the hill. But there isn't like we restrict them to how bright the sign is. It's just LED. What's considered reasonable could be argued about further.

And in terms of the properties up the hill, are those like rentals or are they more

single-family owner-occupied at all? Not have done extensive research on it. The call, the correspondence was from, it was like an owner-occupied single-family. Right. Or at least that's what, again, led to believe, didn't give a follow-up specific address or anything, but I believe it's kind of a mixed. There are some houses back there.

But if it's unidirectional light projection, it's not likely that there's going to be significant... You know, you get the bright light in your eye. Right. You know, behind this structure.

I mean, if anything, I'd be more worried about the houses across the street from the front of the building, not... up the hill from it because it looks like this is on the front side at that corner of University and 3rd. Right.

If this is where I think it is, there are other rentals across. Yeah, primarily student housing across the street. With their own ambient light, which is probably comparable, similar to what this is going to produce. Sure.

Correct. Our sign really isn't going to have anything protruding uphill when it comes to the light. It's all going to be focused down towards the road because there will be a single metal panel on the backside of that sign that won't let light come through. You can't see it in this picture, but where the parking garage is to the right, they have parking lights that shine that are going to be significantly greater than our sign or whatever amid it.

Yeah, and you want, in terms of your wayfinding, to orient your residents, I mean, this sign is, it's pointing toward University Ave. It's not, and it's going to project most of the light in that direction, not up the hill. Any other questions? That's a pretty straightforward one. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to make a motion to accept the findings of the act. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Okay, we're going to open the public hearing for this case. This is for... VAR 26-030. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, VAR 26-030, now is your opportunity to do so. Do we want to re-reference the, just mention the

We can really quickly reference that a voicemail was left with the city saying that they would follow up with additional, you know, more of a written response. We never received that, at least as by the time of this morning when I checked. That was not, I don't have access to it. I don't have it. Other than that, though, there was no other correspondence other than a voicemail alluding to one that we never received, or at least I never received.

And we also do want to mention that the one condition relating to this is the standard condition. Any other modifications or changes to the site plan shall be compliant with the City's Planning and Zoning Code, or the applicant shall seek additional variance relief from the Board of Zoning Appeals. So we have, okay, anyone wishing to speak to this case in support or in opposition to seeing no one, we're going to close the hearing and I'm going to refloat that motion to accept the findings of fact for this case. And we have a second by Mr. Martin and by Mr. DeWitt for VAR 26-030. How do we vote? Aye. Aye. So we've accepted the findings of fact.

I move that we grant the variance for VAR 26-030 with the standard condition.

I'll second that.

So we have a motion to grant the variance for VAR 26-030, seconded by Mr. Martin. How do we vote? Aye. Aye. All right. So, sirs, we have granted your requested variance for your lighting. You will receive written notification from planning. Generally, it's 7 to 10 business days. But do keep in mind that the determination we just rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Montague County within 30 days upon receipt of written notification from planning. And then please keep in mind that any work that you undertake relating to decisions rendered by this board during this 30-day appeals window, you do at your sole financial risk. But thank you very much for your application, and you have a good evening. Thank you very much. All right, next case is VAR 26-033, Brittany Furby. at 649 Villa Place, request by Brittany Furby for variance relief and compliance with section 1331.09 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding fence height standards, city tax district 15 in the seventh ward tax map 54 parcel 86 in the R1 single family residential district.

So for VAR 26033, in the packet as well as on the screen, is just an aerial view of the reference property. Important to note, on the back left rear of the property is a patio that near the rear of the property is pretty in line with grade. Whereas when you get a little bit to the left and forward closer to the home, it goes down a little bit and that'll be relevant with the second. But otherwise, reference addressed is there. And again, in the packet as well on the screen. Easier to see the site plan in the packet. Where the red is, is the part of the fence that would be in violation of the height requirement for opacity. It is just the section pretty much on that left side of the patio. view there on that. Otherwise the fence will also go around the back of the patio but due to the grade it actually isn't, it is at the normal six feet height. So as well as the graph just from the ordinance showing what we mean when you know six feet to eight feet is permitted but that top kind of foot and a half have to be 50% see-through. for it, but the applicant is seeking a variance regarding fence standards for fences in the residential district. The applicant wishes to build a privacy fence around the interior of their property. A section of the fence is raised due to the existence of a patio in the backyard, which would make the total height eight feet, five inches from grade. Refer to the sections of code below as well as submitted design. So in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding height and opacity of a privacy fence at 649 Villa Place, meaning that they would like it on that section to be 8 foot 5 inches with no opacity, just 100% opacity. So it's not see-through. Privacy fence all the way through. That will continue around the property. But again, at the rear of it, they can have it at their wanted height, and they would not need a variance for it. Please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed. Staff have had no comments or modifications to these, as well as the attachment can be found below the conditions. Planning staff also have no objections to the applicant's request for variance relief. If the Board of Zoning Appeals does grant the applicant variance relief, in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, only the standard condition applies to where if they were to make changes or something that would make them noncompliant, they would have to come back and seek variance relief. And that will conclude the staff report.

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

My name is Jacob Buer and I live at 649 Villa Place. All right. As he mentioned, the back left corner on that picture We have a patio that slopes down towards the grade of the hill there. And the way the rules, as we understood them, were is that part of that patio, if we put a fence on top of it, counts as part of the fence, if I understand it correctly. Yeah, for the height. Yes, for the height. And so if we built the fence beside it, it would be sloped up the hill, and then we would lose that footage, and it would become more of a hazard from a patio falling over, and also it wouldn't look correct. So all we would like to do would be to keep it level across there. So the max height would be that 8'5", but then it quickly slopes back towards the Rector Park.

So in other words, for a small... portion of the fence, you're asking for two feet.

Yes, at the highest, and then it would just level back out with the rest.

Have the neighbors commented on any of it? There has been no correspondence about this case, even by voicemail or anything like that. I've not received any calls. Did you ask the neighbors?

Yeah, well, my direction, I've talked to the neighbor across and the neighbor beside me that would actually be looking at the fence. He actually came over to talk to me about it. He was perfectly fine with it. That's all I have. If you have any questions for me.

Are you, just with regard to the opacity, are you planning on maybe the lower... There's no opacity right now. Right. Can you do 100% and then less than 50% for the top section?

Well, we were only looking to buy a six-foot fence total. Right. And we wanted to – so on the right side of the picture, about half of that yard is going to be the same fence, and we wanted to – to be six foot on that side too with the same no. So it's just a six foot fence. It's just a six foot fence all the way around. It just happens to be that one part.

It's that capacity zone, but technically it's still a six foot fence. So he's not in the opacity zone. Right, right, right, right, right, right. And the neighbors are okay with it.

We just have one little hiccup on that corner where we'd like to keep it level with the group.

Good on you for flagging yourself for television. Well, I mean, I'm new to the city, and I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. Actually, my partner lives in Utah, and I had to knock off a board off the top of one corner of her fence because somebody was complaining about it. I was like, oh, my god.

It's actually less than two feet. Yeah, I'm fine with that.

I think it's the neighbors are fine with it. It's all that matters.

Any other questions? No. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Let's open the public hearing. So we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing for this case, VAR 26-033. Anyone wishing to speak in support or in opposition to this case? Now is your chance. And no correspondence on this? Nope. It sounds like there's been some communication with the neighbors. Yep. Generally positive. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing.

I'm going to accept the findings of fact for VAR 26033.

I'll second that. All right, so we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for VAR 26033 by Ms. Cook, seconded by Mr. DeWitt. How do we vote? Aye.

And that we grant the variance. for VAR 26033 with the... One condition. Yeah, one condition of severe.

And I will second that. So we have a motion to grant the requested variance for VAR 26-033. Second. With a second. Several times. How do we vote?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

All right, so we've granted your requested variance. Again, you will receive written... Notification from planning, typically seven to ten business days. The determination we just rendered, keep in mind it can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Montegalia County. And it's a 30-day appeals window. Any work that you do during that 30-day appeals window, you do at your sole financial risk. Thank you very much for your application and for coming down this evening. Happy fencing. Okay, so the next case, we have the withdrawn case, VAR 26-036. We are now moving on to VAR 26-046, Michael Callen at 1137 Muncie Avenue. Request by Michael Callen for variance relief in compliance with section 1333.04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding setback requirements, city tax district 15 in the seventh ward, tax map 55, parcel 52 in the R1 single family residential district.

I would also like to just quickly reference that there's two variances for this address, VR26046 as well as 047. For the sake of repetition purposes, they're combined as like one staff report. You'll have to vote on them separately as other cases that have done similarly. I just wanted to reference that before I go into my staff report. But yeah, for VAR 26046 as well as 047 in the packet as well as on screen, as said before, here is what the parcel and reference looks like. An important thing to note, different from this view, is that the structure that's there is actually demoed. It is an empty lot currently. This is just most accurate satellite imaging kind of thing. But do note that it is that corner lot there and the house is gone. There isn't a home there anymore. Following it in the packet as well as on the screen is a site plan showing the projected development and also the different requests for their variances. So for the first variance they're requesting The setbacks in the rear as well as the front, they show there that they're going to be 10 feet away from both the front and the rear. And then on the Muncie Street side, they're also requesting five feet because it's a corner lot. It has an additional side setback requirement of one and a half. And it's 10 normally, so they'd need 15. They're wanting to put in 10. For front? For side. For side, okay. So they will be requesting a rear and front setback allowance of 15 feet, and then five feet for the side, the roadside on one seat. So that's the first variance. The second variance is for lot coverage. It is 40% in that district. They are requesting 43.5%. So they're going to be requesting variance of 3.5% for square footage requirements on that lot. The applicant is seeking variance regarding setbacks, which is referenced as VAR 26046, as well as lot coverage being VAR 26047, standards for a new construction in a residential district. The property previously had a structure on it which has been demolished as referenced. The proposed new build is comparable to what was there previously, different orientation, but size-wise and lot coverage-wise it is comparable. The new structure will take up approximately 43.5% of the existing small lot. It encroached 15 feet into the front and rear setback requirements. It is important also to note that the existing lot is smaller than a normal size lot for that district by approximately 3,000 square feet. So it is already a small lot. What percent is it smaller than the average? It is at reference in their The normal requirement lot size for that district is about 7,000 square feet. They're at 4,200 square feet. So they're missing out on 3,000 square feet for the minimum if this was like a new lot developed. there so it's it's a little they're a little above half of what a normal size lot in that district would normally look like and as well you can look at just in this view some of the neighboring lots would also be not large enough comparable in size that way just just as a thing to note there is there any sight lines that are messed up by encroaching on the So there has been no comment by engineering that sight lines would be an issue. I think they have to. Like making a left turn? Yeah, for all variance cases, if they have the time, they review them. But a part of normal building permits, they 100% do. So if this is approved and you grant them the five feet, and then the engineering goes, actually, due to sight vision, you have to shrink it back a little bit, they would still have the variance so they could adjust with that accordingly. But that would be a separate. So why did they review the other one about a porch? That was one that they specifically left comments to. I'm not saying engineering didn't review this one. They resolved the workflow in there, but that one they specifically reached out and said they have concerns, whereas this one I never got an email or a call from engineering saying that they have concerns. I'd like to know if they reviewed it or not. Sure. At this time, I don't have that information unfortunately, but that will be a requirement of the building permit regardless. If we grant variants for setbacks and there's site triangle concerns, that's an engineering issue versus us, but that would be information that could be helpful. Otherwise, refer to the sections of code below as well as submitted designs in the packet. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding 15 feet of front and rear setback plus five feet of side setback minimums, which will be variance 26-046. And then the 3.5% maximum lot coverage allowance, which is VAR 26047 for a single family structure at 1137 Muncie. Please see the attached application to review the findings of the fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications. This attachment can be found below the conditions. Planning staff have no objections to the applicant's request for variance relief either. If the Board of Zoning Appeals does grant the applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, only the standard condition would apply. And then that concludes staff report.

For VAR, the findings of fact for dash 047, you referenced it's, they're intending to, the building footprint is 43.5, but in the findings of fact table, it's referenced as 42.5. No big deal.

When the applicant goes to speak, if 42 is more accurate or 43 is more accurate, we'll just amend it.

Just for consistencies. Yeah. All right. Do we have a representative for this case?

My name is Mike Callen, and I'm the builder. Pretty much what the gentleman over here said is what we believe. Per that zoning, if we were to follow the standard setbacks, 25 front, 25 rear, that would allow 15 feet to build a house. That's not realistic. This was the homeowner is an 80-year-old woman and her sister. They're building a single story, everything on the main floor. It's just something simple but large enough for the two of them. you know, to have essentially their own side. You know, once again, the main thing is if I followed the city's requirements, it'd be a 15-foot deep house. So, you know, I could ask for five feet. I could ask for 10 feet. This is what I feel that would give them a comfortable living square footage. So that's pretty much the gist of it. You can't realistically build something based on today's zoning standards. That's where we're at.

And what you're proposing, I mean, it's consistent with the nature of the neighboring structures. Yes, sir. Right.

It's just it's satellite right before you know this this lot was developed before all the city Code was you know came into play so back then you know the the loss the frontage isn't big enough the Square footage isn't big enough. You know none of this none of these measurements Qualify for anything of today's standards, so that's why we have to we're asking for a variance to be able to work You actually work with the law It'd be interesting to see what the original footprint was, just to see, like, you're just effectively building right atop the... Well, the one change we did make, which is per code, it's facing, the original dwelling was facing Muncie. We are facing Milford now. Now, the reason, I mean, there's two reasons for it, but per city code, and let me know if I'm correct on the sailor, the front side has to be the shortest side. Because one was, it's 65 by 65.5. So technically the way it was faced prior was wrong. We're actually flipping it.

So technically what you're saying then is the long axis, if there is a long axis, it's so to speak left to right rather than up to right. Exactly. I mean by...

half a foot, but still technically what we're doing now is the correct way versus the previous dwelling, which was opposite of what it was supposed to be.

Yeah, to add on to that, if the planning and zoning ordinance does allow for changing that interpretation, but it's always usually based on how do you access the property and an existing structure use. So because there's nothing on the parcel, as he said, it would be more correct to have it facing the shorter side because there's no single family dwelling there anymore to give it a use in a history of access, even if the driveway is still existent, right? There isn't a house there to do that orientation. So as he said, the shorter length side is per code they encouraged. Front facade front side of the property and yeah by the difference of half a foot This this side of the stream would be more would be more correct for zoning if it was like a whole new You know build everything else was correct.

Mm-hmm.

Have you also asked the neighbors about?

Being closer to the setback. They said anything. Yeah, nobody said anything

And the city has received a bunch of calls about this variance, but after explaining what the nature of it is, none of them wanted to commit to writing something in or going on the record as having an issue. There was questions about sight vision triangles and what is this for and things like that, but once kind of explained through the packet of what it is, there was follow-up questions, but nobody at least sent anything in or left a call saying, we feel strongly either for or against this anyway. wise, but there was no official correspondence other than a lot of calls were sent in, but nobody committed to anything being read or sent to us.

Well, plus the lots, almost 3,000 square feet.

Yeah, 3,000 square feet under if this was like a new development.

If you had the 3,000 square feet and you tried to build that, it would be perfectly fit and even have extra space.

Right. Yeah, the one variance for total square footage, whether it's two and a half percent, you know, 42 or 43, like you said, if it was on a standard size lot, it would be nothing.

It would be well within the standards. Well, well, well, well within the standards. Try to do the best with what you got. Exactly. Exactly.

I mean, it exists. I mean, somebody has to own it. So somebody has to do something with it. This is what we're, you know, what they're trying to do.

Yep.

Yep. Makes sense.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead. Can we combine the public hearing for the two or no?

Yeah. We can combine it as long as you reference it.

Okay. We are going to open a public hearing for a combined public hearing for these separate variance cases. The variance cases are VAR 26-046, which relate to the setback request variances. The other case is for VAR 26-047, which relates to the request for the area to be developed on the subject parcel. So we're opening the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to either or both of these cases, now is your chance to do so. Seeing no one, we're going to close public hearing. We do want to mention there were calls of interest, inquiry, but no formal correspondence was submitted relating to either one of these cases. Okay. So let's, does anyone have questions about any of the findings of fact? No, I answered all my questions. Okay. So we, I move to, we're going to do each of the cases separately. I move to accept the findings of fact for VAR 26-046. This again relates to the setback Okay, so we have a motion to accept and a second by Ms. Cook to accept the findings of fact specifically for VAR 26-046. How do we vote? Aye. I move to grant the requested variance for VAR 26-046. I second that. We have a second by Mr. DeWitt. How do we vote?

Hold on. Is there a conditional on point of order?

Yes. Yes. Please do reference the condition.

With the condition, the one condition the city usually states.

Yes. Which is any changes to the proposal, the applicant will return to the... Board for an additional .

I would like to maybe add one more condition to that, that these, you know, based on the engineering review, that they don't establish any issues with sight lines. I mean, maybe that's a different procedure, but.

You guys can add, yeah, like a condition that just says engineering, you know, make sure that engineering does a vision triangle review, you know, that could be referenced as a condition. Okay.

Do you want to propose that for verbiage? Just to make sure that the engineering does a site triangle review of the property.

So we have a motion to grant the variance for VAR 26-046. It's been seconded, subject to the standard condition. The additional condition that planning conduct a site triangle, or engineering conduct a site triangle, just to make sure there are no. Okay. So we have a second on the additional condition. How do we vote?

Aye.

Aye. Okay, so we've granted your variance request for the one case. We're moving on to the second variance, which is the findings of fact bearing on VAR 26-047. I move to... accept the findings of fact for this specific case.

I'll second.

Or variance.

Are we accepting it at the face value of 42.5% or 43.5%?

Do we need to reconcile that?

Because it is going into Yeah, it will be based on what was submitted in the findings of fact. I would just

Okay, so let's say 43 so that they don't have to come back. Yeah, I want to avoid that if possible. Yeah, right. If we say 42 and it's suddenly 43, then we have to come back.

Okay, so we're going to amend that specific. We're going to amend requesting to use 42.5% of property footprint. We're amending that to 43%. Plus or minus a percent. Just so we don't have to come back.

Okay. Okay. I don't know.

No, I think we should do that because you were referencing the 43.5, but in the findings of fact, it's 42.5. Okay, so we have a motion. to accept the findings of fact for VAR 26-047 with the emendation regarding the percentage of area used or developed. Do we have a second? Okay, so we have a second by Mr. DeWitt. And again, this is subject to the conditions that have already been referenced. Okay, so we have a motion to accept. Seconded by Mr. DeWitt. How do we vote? Aye. I move to grant the requested variance for VAR 26-047. I second. We have a second by Ms. Cook.

Second with the, again, with the...

The amended piece of boiler plate.

Well, with the amended, but with the boiler plate, one condition that the city always puts on it.

And also because it has, it relates to the sight lines.

This is separate from the sight lines. This is this percent area, right? Yeah.

Well, but the developed area that could potentially impact sight lines. Okay. We're not going to reference that condition there. Okay. So we have a motion to grant the variance seconded by Ms. Cook. How do we vote?

Aye.

Okay. So we've granted your to both of your requested variances. Again, you will receive written notification for planning. It's generally seven to 10 business days, but the determination we just rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Montegalia County. It's a 30-day appeals window, and any work you undertake in that window, you do at your sole financial risk. Thank you very much for your application. Have a good evening. Okay, so we have one other case. This is, sorry, this is, actually, no, we don't. That's it, I'm sorry. Okay, so we're not gonna reference that. Do we have any announcements from staff? There's a change of ownership. Oh, that's right. Yeah, I was gonna say, we have one more.

They came back. Remember, they left last time.

Oh, I see. Thank you very much. So this is a request for ownership transfer for the bank into Yellow Banana regarding 344 High Street. This is City Tax District 11, 2nd Ward Tax Map 26A. parcel 107 in the B4 general business district downtown.

As reference, this is for a change of ownership on the packet, just the aerial of where it's located, downtown location. In the packet, there will be an example of the menu as well as the intended hours of operation, so refer to those. if you have questions related to that. Otherwise, the applicant is seeking to take over a restaurant private club at the referenced address. There is no major interior work planned at this time. A name change and menu change is presented. The previous approval for the business, the bank, had the BZA clause that required a return to the BZA if a change of ownership ever occurred, being it's non-transferable. Refer to the sections of code below as well as the layout of the structure. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a conditional use approval for a restaurant private club change of ownership at 334 High Street. Please see the attached findings of fact. Well, excuse me. Little error there in the packet. There are no findings of fact for this because it's just a change of ownership. Staff don't have any objections to this request for the conditional use owner transfer. If the board does grant the applicant conditional use approval for that change of ownership, the only conditions are the standard one, where if any modification or anything that would be against the ordinance, they'd have to come back for it, as well as all conditions previously approved of by the BZA when it was here previously. Just to name some of those is just like hours of operation being open for lunch. They're already intending to do that.

Was the bank open for lunch?

Based on the conditional use that I saw previously, it should be. I'm not sure, I didn't double check to see if it currently is, but the applicant is intending to do that anyway. So they have referenced operating hours of lunch hours start at 11.30 and then it kind of goes until they close at one. which would be in line with the previous conditions of when you can be open, stuff like that. They're already hitting it based on what they presented, so their intent is to follow it either by their own choice or maybe they already read the conditions beforehand, but otherwise their business model that they're presenting is in compliance with all conditions previously. So they're just handing over what was done, handed in previously.

Yep.

And yeah, any conditions related to that can be amended or changed based on the board. Example being you could drop the ownership transfer not being a part of it or you can keep it in as well as those restrictions of like allowing for lunch, stuff like that is up to you guys. But those were previously conditioned a long time ago. But otherwise that concludes staff report.

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

Yeah, hello, my name is Alan Zhang. Regarding 344 High Street, currently the bank, I would like it to make it into a private club restaurant. I intend to name it Yellow Banana. It's more fun. Right now, it's not exactly a restaurant, I don't think, in my belief, but... There was going to be, I haven't submitted yet. I think most of it will comply with whatever standard it is. Yeah, based on our conversations, you're already hitting pretty much everything. I intend to, the interior isn't exactly kept in a very well standard. So I need to make it, I need to redo the kitchen, especially if I intend on serving food. The bathroom, in my belief, needs to be redone. Some, I'm kind of tight on time too. I would like to open up in the beginning of August. FOR THE INCOMING SCHOOL YEAR.

MY NAME IS ZACH. I OWN MANY OF THE OTHER COLLEGE BARS DOWNTOWN AND I OWN THE BACKYARD BARBECUE OUT IN CHEEK LAKE. ALLEN HAS BEEN A LONG TIME FRIEND OF MINE AND HE ASKED ME TO HELP HIM fail like the one that's there now.

So you're going to mentor him? What's that? You're going to mentor him in this project?

Yeah, I want to help. I'm going to work with him a lot and let him use my staff and my chefs and my cooks. I have 200 employees in Morgantown.

Wow.

So I want to bring my resources to bear to make sure that he's successful. But the plans he's going to do inside, we haven't submitted permits for them or planning for it because the business would fail as a food-only establishment or beer-only. Liquor, everyone in the restaurant business knows that the reason you serve food is so you can sell booze. That's where the money sits. The booze costs a fortune, and right now food costs so much it's absolutely astronomical. But the remodel of that interior, that building, is going to cost well into the six figures to get done. So without a liquor license, there's no reason to even do the paperwork about it. So that's why it's important to make sure you pass that. Not make sure you pass, but make sure that we obtain a liquor license for it. or else it just will never pay for itself and he'll just be, that business will go bankrupt. So, but I mean, I'm happy to answer any questions about any of that kind of information if you don't know it.

No, that's an important point to make because it's not viability just for what he's proposing. for anyone.

So that's your investment. So you're making sure your investment.

Yeah, it's got to be able to be profitable.

Cool, because I've seen a lot of these kind of come and go downtown. Even Promethean Brothers, the big name, tried something and it fell on its face.

Their costs were astronomical. They did the worst possible thing. They put a quarter million dollars in their air conditioner. Sure. That was insane. How do you go pay for that?

And then they abandon it, and then they owe a bunch of money. They owe a million bucks or something. But I just don't want to see a young kid go down that road that some of the kids are trying.

So just to give you an example, when you go buy a hamburger at my restaurant, you pay $14 for it. It costs about $8 to make that. Plus you have to pay the guy that makes that. And then pay for the material to serve it on and then pay to get that dish washed and all that stuff. So you make about $2 off of that. If you buy a Cosmopolitan, you pay $8 for it. It costs $0.70 to make, wash, and do the dish.

That's your cash cow.

So that's where you make it. People buy two drinks and one hamburger. You see why you need to sell drinks to be profitable. Same with a soda. A soda costs around nine cents at McDonald's. They charge $2.50 for it. The money's in the soda, not in the burger.

Right. Good metrics.

Yeah. So that's why you have to do that math. Even beer is a loss leader as far as drink goes.

You lose more money on...

You consistently make more money on bottled beer at a lower price than you do at draft beer at a higher price because of waste and storage costs. And then you also have to spend money to clean the lines every two weeks, which costs around $200 every time you clean them. If you don't clean them yourself, which costs $70.

Well, these are great figures.

So there's a lot of math that goes along into it, but the only way to make that specifically viable, because it's not an easily accessible area where you could have a drive-thru or a thing like that, because you have to park and mean to go there. There's a parking garage here that's monitored constantly for tickets that people avoid because of that. And then the street parking has been knocked in half, which, by the way, I agree with what you did for Gibby's. That was fantastic. But that street parking has been halved on High Street because three-quarters of it is don't park here at night, and the other part of it is just down past Walnut Street because we're able to park. So to get to his location, you have to set out to go there. It's not going to be, you're not going to happen by it. So he has to make it nice enough to be able to go there and be enjoyable for hours at a time, not just a quick meal.

Is this like a TV bar theme type of thing, or island theme? It's a more sports bar. The name's just kind of a... Well, you're competing with Spage across the street.

Yeah, that's one of them, but that's also, he is... He's been really struggling.

Nick has? Nick has, yeah.

But his is also for sale as well. But that's a grandfather license, so that won't come up to you guys.

Oh, okay. Well, I mean, I think it's a cool idea. Your target audience is just the college crowd. College, young adults.

I'll serve lunch, but I think... Like you said, it's not a super accessible thing, so I don't think people passing by are going to stop. It's more for someone that plans to go somewhere or something.

Who'll get the lawyers and the city orchestra at lunch? And the order is drink, so that's helpful.

And then you have to, I don't know if you're aware, there was also a transfer of license down at where BW3's and Art Bar was also proposing the same type of thing.

And the same thing that they're asking for applies for this.

Right, sure, but they don't have somebody like you helping with the project, which I think is going to be maybe your saving grace in this.

I mean, I like the kid, so I want him to do really well on this.

Not that I would deny it anyways, I would just say that I don't have the grounds, but I kind of urge the other person against it because I think there's a lot of that and you have to compete against the people who are further up the street, at least you are further up the street.

Yeah, and I know five of them. So it's a, you know, but I usually don't help anybody else because there's a competition, but I've known him since he was a freshman and, you know, he's helped me out with some other stuff and it's, you know, he has, Alan has really good connections with manufacturing. So he's helped me get things in for my businesses that I needed. So at times I was, you know.

Oh, who works for Cisco or something.

Goes back and forth. Yeah.

Cool. Appreciate all that information. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We may have more questions.

This one.

Well, yeah, we're going to open the public hearing for this proposed name change, change in ownership for 344 High Street, formerly the bank, becoming the yellow banana. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this request, now's your chance to do so.

And for the record, no correspondence? No, I have not received any correspondence involving this change of ownership.

All right. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. We do want to note, because this is a name change ownership transfer, there are no findings of fact to make a motion on. Discussion?

I would have had things to complain about, but less to complain about now. Just in terms of like, it's like another vape shop downtown, another bar downtown, but it's like you don't, I want to make sure that it comes with the right, you know, angle or mentorship, it sounds like. It sounds like it has at least some guidance, whereas I think there's been a lot of failure because they have the wrong end game in mind or don't know what it costs. So it's just, that's all I have to say about it. No objections.

Yeah, I think I'd have concerns if there were significant changes in the nature of the operation. It's, I mean, it's just a You can't do worse than the bank. It's primarily just a, you know, a name change, change in ownership. So I don't know.

So I move we grant the change in ownership and from the bank to the yellow banana.

I would like to retain the clause so that if there's another change in ownership.

With that, and this is my only thought, is that because we're handing over we're handing over to somebody who's already proven that they can do this, right? And this is an exception to that rule, whereas I think when we handed off our bar to the other person, they couldn't really control that. But in those circumstances, I wasn't confident that the person taking over had experience doing the thing that they were saying. So a lot of our new, when somebody applies for this, they have to start off by serving food first to get that liquor license, correct? Is that normally how that takes place?

Uh, it like, it, it changes depending on like the history of the owner. Like if you've, um, like the bonafide business part applies, but it, it, yeah. Like effectively short answer. Yes. But if you have, you know, if you own another restaurant somewhere, that's what I mean.

You've got, you've got that kind of like whatever equal, equal marriage. But I, when we approved that last one, I was a little hesitant on the idea of it just because the person had, has no experience running a business like that. And so, right. And also with the liability that comes from serving minors in this situation in downtown. Once you get below that block, that is the minor block. That's where the kids, the freshmen go to drink beer. This is past, what is that? What street is that? Right where... Pleasant? Not Pleasant. Walnut? Walnut. Yeah, right past Walnut is like... where you go to drink, that's where I went to go, drink beer while I was fresh. So I just know that further and further down you get the less they look at IDs and stuff. And so I just, if you don't know those things and you start letting people in and you're just running a business just to run it. So I appreciate that you're mentoring, that we're helping with this situation. But I want to make sure that if this comes up again, that we don't just blanketly give somebody the keys to the castle.

No, I agree, which is why I think we need to retain the ownership clause. Yes, that does that.

you are more than welcome to do that. Additionally, the city is not aware of any official breach of any legal servicings anywhere in the city. Otherwise, if you are aware of any, more than welcome to let us know.

Otherwise, you guys are more than welcome to continue that. Well, that's pretty standard protocol for change in name change, change of ownership. If there's a change But I think we...

He was referring to my talking about people going downtown to drink. I was saying that that's... In a certain block. When you don't have them... When you're not aged enough to really know how often that takes place in that area, then I just wanted to make sure that you've got all your T's crossed and I's done and stuff. That's all. And I wanted to make sure that we have, you know, what you're saying, we've retained the ability to...

Right. I think if there's a change, even a name change, which you would...

I'm not concerned about a name change. I'm more concerned about ownership change.

Ownership change. Just so we can have that exercise, that right of... have it in our purview to, all right, what are you proposing? As the new owner, what are you proposing? Can you speak to that? So that we know that we're doing our due diligence and being responsible.

Another way to look at it, there's a reason the previous business failed, right? So if we're just handing over the same business model to the next person that was a failed model, then what are you doing that they're not doing differently in that failed model? So that's kind of my point. Right.

I'd like to retain that and I'd like to add that as a specific condition. If we're going to make a motion to grant what you're requesting in this change of ownership, but if there are future changes in name, but more importantly ownership, that new owner must come before the Board of Zoning Appeals to make application for a specific new variance. So I'm gonna present that, propose that as a condition. So we have, I guess we have a motion to grant the name change, change of ownership.

With three conditions now?

You can just do two. All previous conditions approved by the BCA covers change of ownership.

Because that's what they're having to operate under. So we're just going to retain the running conditions with regard to the change of ownership. So we have the motion to grant with the running conditions. We have a second by Ms. Cook. So we have a motion to grant the change of ownership, change of name. Seconded by Ms. Cook. How do we vote? Aye. Okay. Thank you very much. You will receive written notification from planning from Mr. Thompson's office 7 to 10 business days. Is this subject, can this be appealed or no, it can't?

Yeah.

It can be appealed? Correct. So it can be appealed if there's a 30-day appeals window. So just keep that in mind. Maybe hold off until that appeals window has expired. But thank you for your application and good luck with your endeavor.

Thanks for coming down this season.

Thank you. Okay. So that we have moved through all the cases, new and old business. Do we have any additional announcements from staff at this point?

We've got a letter from Justin Wojcik. Is that you? Yeah. And just to his questions, the previous applicant that came in, did the city receive these as well?

No, I never received a copy of it. I will note that that application, I assume it's in reference to the previous sober living application. They've actually just withdrawn their application.

This is the Wilson's? Correct.

Yeah, that one which was heard previously that was tabled, they have withdrawn their application indefinitely. So at this time, the city has no... reasonable accommodation request from them. Are they still running that business out of that home then? They still exist as an entity, but the reasonable accommodation they were requesting last time, it just has been withdrawn. So they shouldn't occupy it. It should just be whatever it is currently. But yeah, because they didn't receive their reasonable accommodation. Last time it was tabled, as was referenced, and then they have since withdrawn since the previous meeting to now their application, and that is as much information as I have. They just request to withdraw, and then that's where it's at. So there's no... reasonable accommodations to read it into the record for because it just doesn't exist anymore.

They withdrew it. At this time. My only comment would be just to direct an additional message letter to the city as well as to us so that they have a copy. Otherwise, they don't know what we're talking about. Thank you.

Any other announcements at this time?

No other real major announcements at this time. There will be a regularly scheduled July hearing as per normal. I will just note that it is a short kind of timeframe into the next one. So those actually will be going out, the legal notices and stuff will be going out next week. So we'll be pretty quickly back here in July for a couple cases. Do you want my letter just in case?

Sure. The one case that we tabled, is there a legal requirement to re-advertise that?

Yeah, they were advertised in the previous meeting as well as the one before that with a legal notice in the paper as well as signage at the property as well as neighbor notices sent out. Table cases, if they go back and they are in the corresponding requirement type, like a variance or conditional use, they need to be re-advertised. Right. It will be in the legal notice as old business as well as neighbor notice as well.

Right. All right. No, there being no other announcements, I move to adjourn. This is for the June 17th, 2026 meeting. We have a motion seconded by the board to adjourn. We are so adjourned.