Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Thank you. 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. Um, it's the duty of this board to consider requests for relief from the requirements of the city's uh zoning regulations, to consider conditional use permit requests, and to hear administrative appeals. Um, the board conducts business in the following order. Review, amend, and approve minutes of a previous meeting. Um we'll move to unfinished business, take up new business, and conclude with announcements from staff. Um 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 in the planning division. We'll 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 to hear testimony in support of or in opposition to the request. Rules regarding public testimony are as follows. Anyone wishing to testify during the public hearing may do so once recognized by the chair or may in lie of oral testimony submit written testimony to the chair. All recognized speakers must approach the podium, state their name and address for the record, and speak clearly into the microphone. All comments must be addressed to the board. Should be relevant to the application and may not be of a personal nature or personal attacks. All speakers will be limited to 5 minutes. If members of the board have any questions of the speaker, that time will not be counted toward the total 5 minutes. If there is a large number of

speakers, including many who are a part of groups or organizations, we may to avoid repetitive comments, elect to ask for a representative to speak on behalf of the group or organization. Speakers are notified that irrelevant comments or comments of a personal nature or personal attack may result in the speaker forfeiting his her opportunity to participate in the public hearing. We may elect to recognize the applicant agent at the end of the public hearing to provide rebuttal or additional comments which will be limited to an additional 5 minutes. If members of the board have any questions of the applicant agent, that time will not be counted toward the 5 minutes. All after all testimony is heard, I will declare the public hearing closed and no further public comment will be permitted. Univil, unruly, and or disruptive behavior at any time during this meeting is prohibited and will result in removal from this public meeting. State law requires the board to consider findings of fact for each conditional use and variance request. The request cannot be granted unless majority of the quorum present finds in the positive for 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 Monagalia County within 30 days upon receipt of the written notification from planning. Any work done relating to 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. Let's see. Um I don't think

we're no me um minutes to correct meeting minutes will be uh prepared for the December meeting for December. All right. So we will take any meeting minutes that need review up at the next regular meeting in December. So um roll call. Uh Miss Cook here. Mr. Missfelt here. Mr. Bennison's present. Present. Um Mr. Dwit is absent. Uh but we still have a quorum so we can continue. Um, we are moving to unfinished business. There's one piece of unfinished business that is referenced as VR25-074 John Espinosa at 7 or it's referenced as 734 Well Street. Request by John Espinosa for variance relief from section 1365.04 04 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding minimum off- streetet parking requirements city tax district 13 in the fifth ward tax map 25 parcel 370 in the R1A single family residential district uh in the packet as well as on the screen um for B276 here's a aerial view of the parcel in question. Next slide. It just shows a closer view, kind of give uh a better viewing of where the building is. And on the third slide attached is uh images submitted by the applicant to show cons uh the topography and grade of the site. So here is a visual from behind looking down. Uh and then here's a picture from the front uh from the of the front yard grade to the sidewalk.

The applicant seeks to remodel the residential building at the above referenced address. This will be a one-unit structure without any parking spaces currently on the property. The applicant has also submitted a document further clarifying the need for a variance which can be found below the conditions in the packet. Uh refer to relevant sections of code below also referenced in the packet um stating that for a dwelling of single family, two spaces per dwelling unit is required. In summary, the applicant is planning to remodel and use a residential structure at the above reference address. The applicant is requesting variance relief regarding those two off- streetet parking spaces. Please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications. This attachment can be found below those conditions. Um staff do not object to the applicant's request for variance relief as well as if the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant variance relief regarding section 136504 of the city's planning and zoning code. They shall be subject to the following condition which is our standard condition of if any other modifications or changes to the site plan or submitts occur. They have to be compliant with the city's code or we will ask them to return to get variance relief um or correct whatever those changes would be. And that concludes staff report. Do we have a representative for this case? No. Uh remotely. Yeah. A couple of the uh applicants tonight will be online. All right. Um do we have a representative for this case? Yes. Good evening. Jonathan Bridge. Okay. Okay. Can the volume be brought up because Yep. Didn't hear him very well what he said. Turn the volume up here.

Believe I can turn him up specifically if my mouse itself will work. Uh, John, is there any way to get closer to your mic mic or speak louder into the microphone? Um, sure. Let me uh Is this is this better or No, it's a little better, but not a whole lot. If not, I can try to dial in from my my phone. Let me I'll be back in two seconds. Let me let me dial in from my phone. Okay. Maybe I can get a better connection that way. Apologies. I'm switching now. Okay. Well, standby. Try to see if I can use the mixer to turn it off. Yeah. So this is the one we planted on so you could send us pictures of the grade, right? I mean, yeah, but weren't the uh the letters of disagreement too that were were in last week. I think it's should be those references to this case. I don't think so. Can't remember. I don't I don't think there was correspondence for this. We can ask Saber. couple. My mouse is just never working as it usually doesn't. All good. All right, try uh saying something now. Yeah. Can you guys hear me now? Oh, that's much better. Okay. Yep. Significantly better. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, no problem. So, do you

Yeah, Mr. Can you just recap for us what you're proposing and just an a justification for why you have a comp compelling case? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. So, uh so so just a reminder and sailor kind of summarize it well. We're doing a remodel on this particular property. Um, last time I came there was an ask from the board for me to go back and try to contact the neighbors. Um, given some of the physical constraints that we had in building the the parking at some existing property. There's a vacant lot as you can see there on the diagram that's being shared. Um, I have reached out to the neighbors um, Linda and Steven Barnes. Um, I was able to get their contact information just based off of uh, you know, the portal, the internet. Um, and I also send them a letter via the mail. Unfortunately, my outreaches have been unsuccessful to have not responded to my inquiries. In addition to that, I went to the property and in the back of that property, that vacant lot, there is parking that's there, there's a a sign that's managed by Doug's Towing. I guess that's who manages it for that property. I've reached out to Doug's Towing to also try to inquire to get the owner's information and um actually ask that towing company if uh those spots were available for lease. Unfortunately, they were not and they were uh unable to provide me contact information for Mr. uh Steven Barnes or Miss Linda Barnes. Um the second piece that I did was uh I did I did have an engineer come out to the site. So I had uh Windmmer Construction come out, licensed engineer by the name of Unicus Simon actually came out to uh to assess the property. And in the packet, hopefully there's a letter that you guys um received in there that's attached. This was written in conjunction with them and it kind of g it breaks it into like four different

buckets, actually five around just observations that they had. There's real concerns around drainage. Um uh by removing that tree structure, there's like lateral soil support uh that could result in erosion and localized slope failure. I learned a lot more about irrigation than I ever thought I would know. But um the the structural engineer just had concerns around putting in a driveway just because of the excavation that would need to take place, right? Um and the instability that the water that's actually what they were worried about would cause to the soil because that tree structure is creating essentially like a like a barrier. Um and removing that would would be problematic. And so in the in the letter that I attached it kind of gives you the feedback from the engineer very detailed some of it way way deeper than yeah it's on what I was understand it was very the drainage and very detailed. So so in so once that was done um I did attempt so at this point I I got the engineer out there we got the structural engineers feedback that's included in the letter. I reached out to the neighbors next door via phone, via letter in the mail. Um, I then also contacted uh for external parking was kind of the next thing on my list to see if I could secure parking spots elsewhere, you know, and about a block away there's um Crosswood Church. And so I was able to get confirmation from them that they do have spots, but in working with the zoning administrator, unfortunately, it falls outside of that 300 foot requirement to be considered an approved alternative. So that that unfortunately was not a uh a suitable alternative, and there's really no other spots. That one is like literally it's a block away, but um I guess it's outside of that threshold. Um I then proceeded to call um the Morgantown Parking Authority, right, which does have parking. You can see

that in the paper that's supplied there. There's parking spots in front of the property. They did confirm that I have access to two street access parking passes and one visitor pass. So, that's been confirmed. Oh, really? Yep. Did they recommend um marking of the curb? Yeah. So, so and I test a total of seven pictures. Um there's there's two spots directly in front of my house that have like the blue curb. I don't know if you if you guys have access, but yeah, you can see it there. That right in front of that SUV, you can see that there's like blue on there. That's an authorized spot right there, right? And that the one those two cars that are there are in blue areas, too. So, those are Morgan Morgantown Parking Authority spots that are available. All right. For use. Excellent. So, Mr. Tom with regard to that point and the owner property owner Mr. Espinosa confirming with parking authority that those spots exist. Does the request for the variants become moot? No. So even if uh a property has guaranteed off streetet or on street parking for uh a development like this, they would still need to uh be able to provide off streetet parking. And he talked to it a little bit as well. Um some uh locations are close enough to communal parking or other parking spaces where they can lease or you know some a personal uh agreement uh or that could fill in those spots. But as he stated, they're outside of range for any place that uh they'd be able to get that parking from. Um the off- streetet parking standards aren't affected by on street parking, even if it's provided by

uh parking authority. Um but but yeah, he he is correct that we've discussed uh alternative offsite parking locations. None of them are close enough for our standards. You'd have to request like an additional variance for for for distance and I don't think that's possible. uh variance wouldn't apply for that. It's just a yes or no. So, they're outside of that range for so we couldn't share propose a condition extending the you know if the church parking if an arrangement could be made is it uh is it the top of my head I don't know off the what it would be and it would have to be more of like a text amendment to my understanding of how it would work. Um you can't just condition difference on it uh for the distance, but that just to my knowledge right now. Uh if the board wanted to make that a condition and then if it's possible uh after the fact, then it would wouldn't necessarily need a board meeting. I guess in terms of the off street, I'd feel more comfortable if Mr. Espinosa could make arrangements with the church so that we'd know so that we could know definitively this is how we need to structure the condition. Well, even if it's cuz it's sounds as if the church parking is probably the most practicable. Uh if it was in the range, yes. Uh we'd also have to confirm if the spaces that they have are enough for their use and then if they're not, it wouldn't be an option anyway. Um but if it's outside of that range, it's kind of outside of that range without without a text amendment to adjust that for the just the ordinance as a whole. Mhm. I don't believe there's any precedent for extending or changing the range to

my knowledge at least. Um, so there's outside of that 300 feet. I mean, we're more or less like legislating at that point. Yeah. If we're attaching a condition to like increase or to remove a requirement under the code. Yeah. Cuz it's a it's in the uh shared parking facility section, which isn't usually a part of uh like R1. It'd be a different section of code. So, so they're in a they just have to apply for a parking pass, the resident, right? Yeah. They those two spaces and one for a guest is is get they get that. That's just But I mean for the street parking. Mhm. Or is that just blue curved or do you have a pass in that neighborhood? So it's they they get passes. It's permitted like South Park. Yep. Yeah. Okay. And Mr. Spinosa, so this propertyy's it the two off street uh requirement is because it's a single family, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's so it's a it's a single family residential dwelling and they are required to have two off- streetet parking spaces for the ordinance. So they had rented this at some point in the future to change that. You can rent single family, right? But if they Okay. Right. But but this is not single family. This is that's the intention. He's going to renovate it for single family use. Yep. I guess I feel I don't I mean for me I feel there's satisfied there is parking some parking available even though I it's not ideally off street right and if the in I guess the intention is is it really uh predictable I mean if the intention is to renovate this for single family what single family is going to be inclined

to All right the the arrangement for our vehicles is at this church, you know, hundreds of feet away. I mean, how could you is that workable? How could you use this property as anything other than a single family residence? Uh, in the district, there's very little that it can be other than than that. Uh, right. So, there's no there's nothing else they can do with this that's going to avoid probably having off- streetet parking requirements. Yeah. other significant work would have to be done and they are in a because they're in the R1A. There's no other dwelling use that would be permitted other than single family residential dwelling. Um yeah, I mean to me to me like the essential element for for the variance is like a structural or some other condition of the property that makes complying. I don't think it's reasonable of us to insist that he develop street given the characteristics of the property cuz we don't want I mean we could well there's another there's another uh feature of the property in this tree that we probably we weren't weren't even aware of last time. So now he's basically got two problems, right? There's the slope consideration. There's if you know if we hold him to the tree room then that that's destabilizing and then you're looking at is it impacting well he's probably the integrity of the structure he's probably just going to sell it if you would have to do all that but then you're looking at well if potentially if I if I remove I'm destabilizing the landform I'm I'm upsetting the hydraology and the drainage patterns and then you're getting into you're you're imp you're impacting the integrity of the of the foundation really. Yeah.

So, and I mean this he look he he called a neighbor he he got a engineer to take a look at this. I mean I think he's made real efforts to to see what could be done about this. Mhm. And I mean I agree that there's between the gradient and this tree, right? He's got there's an element of this property that is makes it impracticable for him to comply with this and the only ways around it are by spending an enormous amount of money which would be I think it's an undue burden burden. Yeah. That's imposing a hardship and it's probably going to throw him like like the report says he'd have to be back here and and other places asking for more variances. Do we have any other questions before we open the public hearing for Mr. Espinosa? I don't. No. All right. Thank you, Mr. Espinosa. We're going to go ahead and open the public hearing for this case. So, anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to case V25-076 731 Well Street, please now is your opportunity to do so. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. Um, anything further to add? Uh, nope. Other than uh the one condition read uh in the staff report uh planning the staff report doesn't have any objections to the request. Right. All right. So I'd like to ask another question of the um Mr. Espininoza and what was your intention uh to have take up residency there? What was the uh intent there?

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time hearing you, but but my intention for what? I apologize. Yeah. What was your intent um for occupancy there? Please restate that again. I just three three three people three three people is is the expected occupancy for that residence. So you are intending it as a student rental or correct. Okay. Student rental is is the target audience. Correct. We could require that they uh any tenants apply for that parking pass as a condition. Yeah, I did ask the Mark Morgantown parking authority that that's part of the conversation I had with them and they are able to access those. All they need for me is a copy of the lease um and a utility bill. So So and which we can furnish both. Yeah. And sailor. So how many how many places how many spaces do they need again for three? Two. It's it's not by number of uh so in the ordinance for a single family residential dwelling it has a number of unrelated u residents to still maintain a family unit and it's two regardless cuz there's that cap the number of tenants it's two so the the cap is two two people or two space two okay now what about occupants I thought there was some um ordinance regarding number of unrelated or related that's that's where the three is coming from and that's the maximum allow max. Yeah. Extra people couldn't live in this property or he he even if he were to make like an addition or something um to have like a bunch of bedrooms no more than the three unrelated can be there. So there's a slight mismatch there. Maximum available two two parking spaces. So doesn't maximum Mr. Taylor, doesn't the um

I thought the city required so many That applies to every dwelling type except for single family. Single family is flat, too, regardless of the number of people who are in that family. So, a related family of seven could move in there and only need two spaces and or they're unrelated children if they adopt or a big expansion on like the family term. Um but a traditional family unit of seven or so would would also only have two uh required spots. But in terms of rental occupancy, three is the maximum allowed. Okay. So per single family definition unit. Yeah. Okay. Now, what about the um so they get two passes plus a guest pass. How long does a guest pass go? I'm not sure. Uh, Espinosa might be able to speak more to it. U, it's limited by some metric. Yeah. If it's like, but if it's south like South Park, it's only like you can't be there for more than like two nights or something like that. It's not Yeah, it's not very long. You'd have to keep You'd have to keep moving it. I mean, I would I would vote to approve with the condition that tenants apply for the uh the Yeah. both Oregon Town Housing Authority parking pass, street parking pass. I'm inclined to be open to entertaining. Okay. Granting it, too. Now, if there were no park, if there was no parking at all on street or off street, I would not be inclined because that's not workable, right? But because there's So yeah. All right. Do we have questions about findings? In fact, they seem

I'm good with those. Fairly straightforward. I just would like to add not granting the variance would represent the imposition of a heart, you know, a non self-created hardship in a in a manner that would not allow Mr. Espinosa to develop his property and use it in a reasonable manner. Yeah, it'd be stuck because it'd be cost prohibitive to try to do all that leveling and all that. Yep. And it would compromise I potentially compromise the integrity of the structure. Really? Yeah. I move to accept the findings of fact. I second. So we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for V25-076 with a second by Mr. Misfell. How do we vote? I I I. So we've accepted the findings of fact. Um, I move to grant the requested variance for VR25-076 subject to the standard condition um, referenced by planning by Mr. Thompson. Would the additional condition that we'll reference them as tenants be required to apply for the parking permits? um either permanent or guest um from the Morgantown Planning Authority as a condition for granting the variance but also can we also you know as a condition of tenency

really um is that not appropriate I mean I don't want to speak for the landlord but how should we word that uh I think tenants are required to apply uh for parking uh spaces on street is would be a fine condition, right? Um because then to maintain their co they'd have to for their tenants that are there, they'd have to show if we were to ask that they have those passes available for, you know, in their car, however they would maintain them. All right, I'll second. So we have a motion to grant the the requested variance for V25-076 subject to the standard condition and the additional um condition bearing on application for parking permit from the parking authority. We have a second by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I I. So Mr. Espinosa. Um we have granted your requested uh variance with regard to the parking requirements. Um you will receive written correspondence from planning. Generally it's about a week or so. Um, please keep in mind that the decision we just rendered can be appealed to the circuit court of Monagalia County and any work that you undertake during that generally 30-day appeals window you do at your sole financial risk. Acknowledged. I appreciate you guys. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right, guys. Have a good Have a good evening. All right. Um, moving on to new business. Um the first case is conditional use um references co 25-099

Ray Burns 2167th Street request by Ray Burns on behalf of Kumar Chandran for conditional use and compliance with section 1331.05 05 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding a dwelling multif family use city tax district 12 third ward tax map 15 parcel 128 in the R2 single and two family residential district for conditional use 2599 uh on the screen as well as in the packet uh similar aerial to the previous one showing the parcels uh in question there at the corner next slide showing it more zoomed in showing that it's a vacant lot currently just to give a bit closer image. And then the third third slide shows the uh site plan on the left as well as a the interior uh kind of floor plan for one of the floors on the right. Uh the applicant has submitted a excuse me the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit regarding a proposed dwelling multif family at the above reference address. It is currently a vacant uh lot with no structures located on it as shown previously. Plan submitted show 15 parking spaces as well as layouts for each uh of the units. Uh the applicant has submitted a site plan referenced above as well as a uh exterior floor plan or an interior floor plan, excuse me, found below the conditions. refer to the sections of code below the structure just stating that for a multif family use they need to require conditional uh use through the board of zoning appeals. In summary, the applicant wishes to get a conditional use approval for an apartment building at 2167 street. Please see the attached application review the finding the fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to those. Uh staff as well have no objections to this request for conditional use. If the board of zoning appeals grants the applicant conditional

use approval in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, the use shall be subject to the following conditions being that standard condition referenced on the previous case. Uh, additionally, this is just for the use of a multif family use at this location. A uh type 2 site plan will need to be applied for as well as normal building permits and reviews by the city. Uh, this is just for the use going there. Um, and it will be based off uh plans submitted in in the uh permit. If they are to change through that review process or that type two uh site plan review and it puts them in uh against the ordinance, meaning that if they have to lose a parking space or something else that would make them non-conforming, they would have to return to the board of zoning appeals and acquire a variance for that um if that was to occur. And that concludes staff report. Right. Do we have a representative for this case or the applicant I should say? Yes, this is Ray Burns with Triad Engineering um sitting in on behalf of Kumar for uh his project here. So would you like to just provide an overview for what your you and your client are proposing? Yeah, Kumar is his plan um as as Sailor stated there is is he's got this vacant lot and he wishes to build a multifamily apartment building on it. Um he's looking at somewhere between right around eight units. Um two sto three three stories. The first level would be off street parking and the second and the third story would be um the apartments. The first story is going to be what?

Could you repeat what what the first uh floor story will be? It'll be um off streetet parking and like a um utility room. Oh, so they're parking stalls. Well, there'll be parking like a garage under the structure or are you just referencing the spaces out out behind the building? There'll be um out of the 15 spaces, um half of them will be kind of I don't want to call it a garage. It's going to be underneath that second level and then it'll be stacked with um street off the street parking. And then for the second and third levels, what's the total number of units or total occupancy? Four units on each floor with 10 beds. So how many spaces is that Mr. Sailor? It is 15 there. It's 14 uh standard and then one accessible space for that. And that's uh looking at this these seven will be the one I think he's referencing as as partially under the structure and then these seven will be here and then the accessible space is 15th space here um on the side by where this proposed sidewalk is. Is that is that accurate? Correct. Okay. And seven. So, where does the parking exit to the street from what it looks like it would be into this alley here? Yeah. On alley C. So, if they'll come out the alley and

then I Okay. Yeah. out the alley on the 7th. Is that an alley or a street? Uh, I believe it is actually an alley that says it's Grant A, but on this it says it's Grant Avenue, but I I think he is correct saying it's an alley, but I'm not entirely sure. Sailor, is there any cap if if you're if you're a if there's a conditional use for multi um is there like a cap on how many how many units and like occupants? Yeah. How many units you put? It's not necessarily a cap. It just changes what level of review the city will do. So, if they're above 14, it'll it changes what type of review we do. Um but it's type two currently. if they were to add more, it could potentially become a type three site plan. Um but um with them being at at where they're at now, that's just a type two since it's uh one building. So like a tra like a traffic or congestion impact from like that parking and the way tenants are going to come in and out of there that would come later. uh if engineer like that might be an engineering uh concern or Morgantown uh parking authority engineering will have a section of their review and when we do a type two uh the parking authority is uh like they're a part of that invite for that meeting. Um but the engineer uh department will review it and see if the parking is appropriate and that might have to change depending on what engineering thinks is uh appropriate reasonable uh for it. Um I'm not sure what exactly if they do like a study or how they they result their reviews cuz that's part of engineering's concerns, but planning won't we we won't look at uh anything involving like congestion of

parking or stuff like that. I mean, this is going to be sort of out of character with that area, right? I mean, there's nothing but houses around there. So, that's a multi What zone does a multif family unit typically dwelling go into? Uh R2 and three. The This is a conditional use in R2. There's other multif family uh uh dwellings on that in that area. Uhhuh. There are other This is an R2 area. This is an R2 district. And there are other uh multif family rentals in that vicinity. This might be one of the more dense ones to my understanding, but there are other ones on that uh on that kind of area here. It's not um very uncommon. Maybe the density might be, but otherwise it is a use that's uh has other examples in that neighborhood. I don't know. Given the character of that area, I think the parking is on the in terms of the parking density, it's kind of on the high side given the nature of the streets over there. Yeah. I mean, the parking lot, they've got adequate off street, right? But it's still going to be more traffic, right? That's what I mean. On the other hand, the parking is not out of it's not unbalanced with the with the number of And on the other hand, he does have the number of tenants. He does have parking as as this is just like this is just above beachur. I mean, that's all students, right, in that neighborhood. That's what I mean. It's this is kind of a little out of character for that area over there. It's just going to it's going to look weird probably. the the board could also uh

table it until a type two review can be done in additional meeting scheduled. Okay, that's that would be appropriate if uh the board doesn't want to approve or deny it tonight. That was sort of my thought is like a lot of these questions in terms of cuz you know for conditional use what we're supposed to be preoccupied with is uh you know basically increased congestion cuz it will increased you know burn on utilities overcrowding and a lot of this to me is like TBD until there's site plan reviews well and TBD TBD in terms of evalu valuating maybe if we wait on the what did you call that uh the type two site plan review so they can go forward with that without the conditional use variance. Yeah. Uh it usually we just line them up to be about the same time but just because of this one me being out with my hand and some other factors. It's just happening a little bit before um they do the normal type two plan review. Okay. And the type two might in terms of the findings of fact provide a higher level of detail because the findings of fact are a little thin. Yeah. It just says proposed use similar to neighboring properties. Proposed use similar to neighboring properties. But it it's not similar to neighboring properties. No, it's not. I mean, why don't we How long does it take to um could that be um completed in a month's time frame? Um just so that we're not Most likely we could schedule a type two review. Probably wouldn't have it completely finished by then, but at least have the process beginning just cuz it's the holiday season. And if it wasn't the holiday season, I'd say probably most most likely it'd be uh

resolved uh by then. Um but that could be a contingent of uh tableabling it condition and returning it at the next available meeting once a type two plan review has been been drafted because yeah I I I would I guess this a question for the applicant have in terms of the findings of fact and uh you know particularly the last ones regarding congestion safety from fire panic adequate light and air overcrowding undue congestion etc. I mean as the engineer have did you do have have any studies or reports been done to date on that on your end prior to any that speak municipal review? Yeah. speak to the unique characteristics of what you're proposing here because I mean in the in that table the case summary report it's proposed you similar to neighboring properties um with regard to six or seven characteristics and we're supposed to be um considering the merits of your what your request is based upon on the unique characteristics of your specific site and we're not seeing that cuz it may we did we haven't done any studies on traffic or you know what that would if what added congestion it would would add to the area um in terms of to the neighboring properties um like the the house next to the vacant lot is that's all student housing through there. And I I mean, if you just look at the aerial image right now, I think there's, you know, six cars parked behind that house. So, it's that's where we're that's where he was coming from

with the the use of the neighboring properties. It's it's all pretty much studio rentals in there, right? I mean, I understand that, but that but then there's also a lot more units. There's going to be a lot more people here. The going to be higher, and they're going to have friends who are going to come over and park on the streets. Y I mean my I guess my issue is just that we're supposed to make determinations of these things and we don't really have any data to look at to review. Yeah. We don't have the findings of what we're trying to say is with respect to making our determinate. We have to base our determination based upon a certain level of specificity with regard to the findings of fact that we're referencing to base our determination on. And we don't have that level of we don't have that level of that level of specificity that we typically look for. We are not seeing in the provided materials. So maybe we should wait on the type one study. Type two, I'm sorry, type two study that hopefully can be conducted and completed with within a month's time. Yeah, the type two uh so yeah, having them return in a month's time with a type two site plan uh review either kind of on its way or finished as well as them updating their findings of fact to be more uh in detail a higher level of specificity. Okay, with regard to the unique characteristics of your parcel, I mean we just need some to review. we've got like I mean a plan for how it's going to look but nothing in nothing that speaks to like those findings of fact. So whether it comes from you know a city review of a type plan or if they like that's why I had asked before if they had looked into these issues at all

you know we just need something to look at. So my vote would be to table it and Yeah. Okay. So do you want to make a motion and I'll Yeah. I would move to table table this application to um the next meeting pending completion of the type two study and uh changes to their findings of fact to be more thorough. Yes. So I second Mr. Miss Felts um motion to table this case until until our next regular at least until the next regular meeting for co25-099. We have a motion. We have a second. How do we vote? I I I. So sir, we are going to table consideration of your case till the next regular meeting. Okay, thank you guys so much. Thank you. Okay. Um, next case is sorry. Um, co 25-101 Seth Timberman at 65 Beach Street request by Seth Timberman for conditional use in compliance with section 1331.05 05 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding a dwelling multif family use city tax district 10 in the six ward tax map 35 parcel 62 in the R2 single and two family residential district Mr. Thompson for co 251. Uh as with the previous uh ones on the screen as well as in the packet, here's an aerial view kind of showing where this property is located. The next one is a closer zoomed in aerial of that property. The applicant is seeking a

conditional use permit uh regarding a proposed dwelling multif family at the above referenced address. The structure is already existing but was vacant uh for a time and now requires a new certificate of occupancy to begin operations. 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 an apartment building at 65 Beach Street. Uh see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed as staff have had no comments or modifications to it. as well as staff have no objections to the applicant's request for this conditional use. If the board does grant the application conditional use uh in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, it will be st uh subject to the following condition which is our standard condition of if any other modifications or changes to the site plan uh occur. It shall be compliant with the city's planning and zoning code or the applicant shall return uh to the board of zoning appeals for a variance request. And that concludes staff report. All right. Thank you. Um, do we have a representative for this case? CO25-101. Yes, this is September. Um, do you want to provide an overview for what you're proposing and justification? Yes. So, 65 Beach Street, um, the area view doesn't show. It's a three-story building. Um each floor has a three-bedroom, one bath apartment about 980 square ft for each apartment. Um so it was built as a multif family threetory unit and um it sat vacant for too long and lost its grandfather status. So we we've gone through and we've already um applied to change the zoning into R2. Um but because it's

three units, I believe that there needs to be this conditional use. Um, I know that working with Ricky and the planning um commission that the what was it M uh or light multif family or I don't remember the exact term. I apologize. Um, but the future plan is for this to be not just all one R1A in this area. There's also been found multiple residences that are multif family in the area. Um, so it's just that this property kind of lost its status and trying to get back. Right. How long has it been vacant? It it sat vacant for a very long time and was condemned and um my partner and I realtor partners is the the owner of the company. I'm I'm one of the uh partners involved with Realves investor partners. We put significant amounts of renovations into the property and it's it is ready to be occupied. All new electrical, all new plumbing, everything was permitted, everything was inspected. Um, it has a fire uh suppression sprinkler system in there that's been inspected by the fire marshal. Um, so we got we actually had D through Kansas and Morningtown Code involved from the very beginning and I was notified very early on that it had lost its status and um but because of this structure being built the way it was as a three-unit building, one apartment on top of another on top of another and not a converted single family, I was told that um it absolutely makes sense to get this but to go ahead, you know, let's let's go through the process and make sure that all the the tees are crossed and eyes are dotted and

this is to my knowledge this is the last step in that process. So the parking is off street parking is that like that gravel area to the left of the overhead image. Yeah, if you're looking at that overhead right there on the left hand side, that's the front of the building and there's enough parking there for four to five cars. And then actually on the rear um the the right hand side of that building, there's another place to get at least two cars um in that area as well. Mhm. I like the findings of fact and it's it's solid. There's a bed of gravel underneath the ground and stuff like that in the back there, too. So, it's it's not like you're parking in the grass back there. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Timberman. Thank you. We may have other questions for you. Any do you have any questions? Okay, we're going to open the public hearing. Um, anyone wishing to speak in um support of or in opposition to CO2-101. Thank you opportunity to do so. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. Um, I make a motion to accept the findings of fact for this case. Second. Um, what he's proposing, it's not it's consistent with the characteristics of the area, I would say. Yeah. Well, I mean, this is below Brockway. I mean, any any development down there is an

improvement, right? Well, what what he's propos I mean it's just it's it was vacant. Um it's used before the grandfather status lapsed and after I mean there hasn't he's looking to um change the the zoning um classification um in a in a in a manner that's consistent with the nature of the area. I I don't see I don't see any issues with this. Their zoning was that was changed. It's already that uh part of that district, right? But that change Yeah. But that change doesn't it's not doesn't represent something that's inconsistent with the character of what's gone before. Yeah. Just stating that it went from an R uh you can correct me if I'm wrong. It was R1 previously, wasn't it? Yes. Correct. Yeah. So, it was R1 and then they've gone through the planning commission to get that area reszoneed to R2. R1 would have just been single family. Yep. Wow. And that went to the planning commission and then it was approved uh to change that for for basically just the cutout of where their property is uh to make it an R2 because it's multi. Yeah. Right. Because of the previously existing structure, not you know. So, in other words, their property didn't didn't wasn't zoned as the rest of the area was because it was still under the So, that area was all zoned as an R1 and probably who knows when that was done. And then to remodel this into the multif family for the building that's already there, that wasn't possible cuz it's in an it was in an R1 zone where it's not even a condition. You can't correct. there was no way for a multif

family uh residential dwelling to be there. Um the building has been there who knows how long. Um so to have to get a co or any use in there, they would have to have it reszone. So they went through that process and and then and got it reszoned to be R2. Just that parcel. Mhm. I mean the whole area should I thought you said the whole I thought you said the whole area was reszoned to R2. That's what I thought he said. Yeah. the whole area being that square of where their property is located. So this is all still R1. Oh, this is R2 cuz to do the whole area that would have to be legislated. So from the way they would have to get all property owners involved um for it. I thought you from what you said I thought you said that the that's what I zoning commission had changed the whole area to our I must have misspoke. I just meant there reference property zoning, not the use for the property. The zoning district for that property is now R2 instead of R1. Okay. So, what's the density in R1? R1 is only allowed for single family dwellings. Okay. Yeah. So, you couldn't have So, like in an R1, you couldn't do this even as a conditional use cuz it's a mult they're trying to make it a multif family, right? In R2, it's a conditional use. So, it's not allowed outright, but you still have to But for R1, you can't even apply it for a conditional use. Correct. Correct. Yeah. And they didn't go with R3 um with concerns that if down the road something else wants to be done with this property, that would allow it to be a lot more dense. Whereas, if they only up it to an R2, they can get uh a multif family residential dwelling conditionally. Um, and it limits what if you know, who knows down the road if they sell the property and someone was to come in and demo, excuse me, demo the property, they wouldn't have as many uh dense options like an R3.

So, what is the density capacity of a multif family unit there? Uh, as uh he stated, and he can correct me if I remembered him wrong, it's three per unit. So, it's nine total. Is that is that correct? Are are you asking me? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is is the the number of units and occupants in those units. It's three per. Correct. Is that correct? It's each one of them each floor is a threebedroom, oneb apartment. Yep. So nine uh nine bedrooms total. Nine bedroom is the max. Correct. Yep. And then in terms of three unrelated it doesn't now have to be a family or it doesn't uh it does not apply because this is a multif family uh residential dwelling. The uh the occupant limit for a single family dwelling only applies to single family dwellings located in R1 and R1A. Otherwise it's state code which isn't applicable here uh for their number of occupants that they're requesting. Three is fine. They could have four or more. Um, but if they did that, they'd have to provide parking and, you know, get that permitted. Wait a minute. You're saying so for each level each they could have four or more occupants? There there isn't for planning wise. There isn't uh on our ordinance uh a max to how much you could have per occupant in a multif family dwelling like apartment complex. Uh it would be like code would have a the code has a requirements to how many people can live in a place together. Um for multif family fire has a standard um with that planning we don't have a definition. We have one for the single family um and then when it goes above that we look at it by unit

which is more or less to keep you know you from having eight tenants in a single family house. Mhm. Mhm. And then standards of uh if it's above single family, fire and uh code enforcement kick in for their occupant limits. So for example, uh planning doesn't really need an occupant max for multif family cuz fire has one that would trump any of our stuff anyway because it's a life safety standard. So what is the do you know what the max is for fire? No. I do not know. No. And it would be based on like building codes too. Like you can't have a bedroom without, you know. Yeah. Fire and code I know has regulations for how big a bedroom has to be, if it's of a certain size, how you would access it, sprinkler coverage, stuff like that. So the cap is like structural more so than like a Yeah. zoning or or just a hard cap on people. Well, I think you moved for the funings to fact in that second we didn't vote on that yet. We didn't vote on it. Do we have additional questions relating to the findings of fact? So, are we and are we good with regard to the parking requirements? Can you speak to that before we Yeah. If um so if it's if it's multi-unit. Yeah. Yeah. So, their number of space it would be 75 uh per uh occupant in each unit. So it would be um would be one. So not even a whole person per unit, but you're per occupant, not per unit, but it's measured. So there's three floors and there's three occupants in each. For each of those occupants, it's 75. And then they're added up within their unit and then added up to the total, which is what is the total for space? Uh it would be sounds like about six. About seven, probably six. And then

round it up. Round it up. to that seventh um spot there, which uh you stated um they'd be able to make parking in the front and the rear um for it. Mhm. Well, is that problematic? Cuz there's the asphalted area on the plan, but the and then there's the the adjacent driveway. Is that problematic? So, we're saying he's got enough parking there just based on the square footage of that like lot versus what a parking space. surprised you guys didn't measure it out. Well, divy it up. As far as this one is as well, if when cuz if this is approved, they don't just get to, you know, go gung-ho kind of, you know, get the co instantly. it still would be reviewed and if upon review they need more parking spots and they would come back and ask for a variance, but they should be able to put it in um based on conversations um that I've been told and are aware of cuz this uh was submitted when I was out with my injury um or at least positioned to be put on here uh during that time. So, to my understanding, they're they're good per city uh or city regulations other than getting it conditionally approved. So, they like it's good enough that he's just got this gravel there next to it. Is there there aren't requirements on like lines? Well, there there are requirements to have it paved uh and concreted. Uh the applicability of that will be up to engineering's determination. Oh, okay. For this to my understanding. Gotcha. I guess the question is to what extent is the parking is that integral to making a determination as to whether a condition could be put on to the approval that if the city's review determines it needs to be paved and asphalted they would do that. Well, the city's already going to make them do that. Correct. Yeah.

Right. Well, I just find it interesting that we we in one of our prior cases this evening, um they were saying, "Well, we couldn't we couldn't um have that other multif family or whatever it was be given, you know, a few feet more down for a for church parking to provide parking. But then we're going through with this and then we're adding with multi multif family. There's an unlimited number of people. How do you know they're not going to have 20 in there? That's a good point because it's it's for so they've applied saying that they're going to have nine people. If upon an inspection they have more than that, they would lose their CO. How often do they inspect? every I think I they might actually he might know it more accurately than mine because code does that every two it's two or three years it's two or three and then the fire department also does their own inspections as well and that first application they didn't have off streetet parking he's got off right that he does some your point is because it's not single family they're rent they're tenants seems to seems who are more likely to be unrelated. And because they're unrelated, the likelihood that there are going to be more vehicles is higher. Yes. And a person that's a single family typically, well, a lot of times there's home ownership and things, so they're they're more um concerned with their usually their dwelling and things like that, but you know, anyway. Well, maybe I mean maybe we could make him reapply for a certificate of I mean I don't know that we could do that. What is there is there a way to condition like more frequent applications for certificate of occupancy to verify how many tenants there are?

That's crazy. Once the CO is issued to them, they'll just inspect it every two years to validate it kind of thing. That's what I mean. So if if what if like we if we wanted them to do it every year if you're concerned about you know do it every year cuz it's not just the I guess for this case it's not just the resident density it's also the vehicular density which is going to have an impact on that that just you know and I'm like my god they put such a a cap on a single family and then it's like you go to this other one and there is no there are no outer limits Right. That just really concerns me. That's just a part of our ordinance though is is what I'm the single f so dwelling multif family um for that provided that all such freestanding buildings contain three or more dwelling units and then for single I mean it almost sounds to me like they're putting a you know frat house you can have as many bedrooms you stuff in there. Right. Well, that's also why in those in districts where it's conditional, they have to come to the board. So, if he was presenting the example being, you know, seven units with seven people in each of them, if that was uncomfortable to the board or the public, you would vote that way. Um, and if the future they wanted to expand the number of units or things like that, they would have to get that updated with the city properly, which could potentially cause them to come back to the board for the conditional use or a variance or something to that effect. Mhm. Yeah. So, so if they wanted to increase the unit, if they added a unit to this, would they have to come back for another conditional use or will that run? If they get approved for the use being multif family and in the future they wanted to expand the number of units and occupants, they probably wouldn't have

to come. They wouldn't have to come back unless upon review like with setbacks or parking if they were to go beyond that. Um but yeah, otherwise no. Well, why don't we we could make them we could make them re reapply if they increase uh the number of units. Yes. Yep. That's a condition that that could be put on if they want to expand the number of units or occupants in the future that they have to return to get uh conditional use approval. That would be possible. And then also can we add as a separate condition the reapplying renewing the CNO on an annual basis. Uh I'm unsure because that's a code enforcement part of their code which is based on the IBC and IRC I believe. So we can't I'm I'm unsure. I don't have that knowledge. uh that would maybe be something to table and we can return with that information, but right now there's no way I would know. I mean, this this this keeps it so that if if they're going to be if they're going to increase the number of units, they'll have to come back here and we can make them add parking. The the CNL thing is really just to catch somebody if they're I mean, if they're break if they're going to break the law, they're going to break the law, you know. Mhm. I don't and I don't even know that if we could legal legally make them do that, right? Certificate of occupancy. Yeah, but I think if we just make a condition that if they're going to increase the number of units, they'll have to come come back here to also uh address um concerns earlier. Um per our ordinance, single family residential zoning districts R1 is where we get the family definition. Otherwise within all other zoning districts, meaning not single family residential, um dwelling unit occupancy will be determined by WV state building code as adopted and implemented by the city,

which is code enforcement. Um that's the building code. So uh it wouldn't be um something that would come to the board anyway. It would be if code enforcement deems structurally they and uh with fire building code not reasonable then they wouldn't get permitted and they'd have to go through the uh the code board which is a separate uh board entity that I'm not as familiar with. I just I'm just aware that it exists. It's not zoning. No. Nope. It's state building code which is uh our code enforcement department. Yeah. Because single family is for functional family units. I mean on balance I I'm in agreement with the findings of fact. Do you want to have a I mean we do kind of have a motion seconded. Yeah, we can just vote on it. Um I would I mean I don't disagree with the findings of fact. I think what's being proposed um this is a this is a fair representation. It doesn't misrepresent what's with what's being proposed here. Well, I I think one of them actually do does um the one that says um consistent the first one. Yeah. Consistent with density and character of the surrounding development provides adequate access and parking. I mean the first part consistent with density and character. I mean they just told us it was reszoned in this area and now so that is the only dwelling in that whole area. R2. That's R2. Yep. And then um and when it's R2,

that means they could basically have as many as you know as they could whatever. Um so I don't I don't agree with that finding of fact. Um and then it says the proposed I could go on with the next one. The proposed use align with existing infrastructure capacity. Um again it does not align with existing surrounding capacity. Yeah. Um it it I don't agree with that because we just heard testimony to the contrary. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding properties. Um I would agree that some of the surrounding properties it's resident it's all residential in nature. It's it's residential in nature and with a residence of course you have a cap and you also have I think it's um one uh unrelated party if you have a residence you can have one other unrelated. So Mhm. with a family. So, but here you're you're you're saying each floor can have three separate different residents who are unrelated. Yeah. Who are unrelated? Um, which the unrelated doesn't apply to multifamily or I understand, but I'm just saying so they keep saying it's it's consistent with with the neighborhood. It is not. Uh, are I've not done the research on it. Are you aware if there's other uh duplexes or triplexes or bigger in that area? I mean, look where we are. We're below Bro. I am. Yes. Could you speak to that in the slides for the zoning to change it to an R2? Ricky did point out that a

a city official drove through and noted um multiple units with multiple um power meters. Actually, if to the left of to the left of our building, if you go to the closer uh overview, to the left of our building and up the street, that building there at the corner um across the way. Um so, kind of diagonal up around 10:00 or so that I know for right there. And then on the right hand right hand side there on um I believe that is Rockway. Don't don't quote me on the name of the road. Um but two or three street uh houses down there with two duplexes side by side right there as far as having multiple meters um from mom to power on to the building. So the city when they drove by I think they pinned on the the picture that they had they pinned five or six units that had multiple um units in there. Yeah. five or six buildings that had multiple units in uh in it. Correct. Correct. And that whole area is still R1, but I guess those hadn't lost their grandfather um because they hadn't stopped vacationing whereas this one had. All we're trying to do is just bring it back to its original purpose. Built as a threetory building, right? We like it to be three building. That's how it began as a threetory with, you know, technically it's R1, but in terms of the nature of the use, I guess that's where I'm coming from. Yeah. And then he says, well, and and then it's it's threetory, but it was zoned R1. So, a threetory in R1 does not get nine residents. Well, that building, right, heightwise can't exist in an R1 if it was built today. There's a heightened

story limit in R1 districts. Three, that's not permitted anyway. Yeah. So even it just defaulted to an R1 when it lost conditional use. But I mean this this building was never the city should know if it was in terms of the the nature of it use. It's more of a use of a individual building and the zoning district don't always align each other um to it. So there uh a like some other cases come in here uh or get reszoned um for that. An example being um some places down uh on the southwest side of Morgantown. Uh a couple of those like kind of little cutouts of just individual properties that were caught that were turned into like B2. So it's one parcel um for like a beauty salon that whenever they did the resoning they caught and recognized that this is a little cutout. This was one that must have been overlooked when that was done because this when this area was reszoned it that use would never have been appropriate um for that building. Uh and that's just cuz of all the buildings in Morgantown when they reszone they probably don't see every one of them. Some of them just get overlooked. Um but that building as a structure couldn't exist in the district it was previously before it was changed um to the new district. Okay. So back to the findings of fact. Um do you want to propose amendations? So, according to according to the city's ordinance code, um there would be no I know that there would be no um checking it out like a year or whatever. So, if you guys want to vote for it and I can vote no, that's okay.

Yeah, they don't all have to be unanimous. So, it's it's okay if a vote goes, you know. Are you comfortable with the findings of fact? Um, yeah. I mean, with regard to this this individual parcel, I think I'm comfortable with the find. I see your I understand your point. Yeah. The surrounding properties, there's there is inconsistency. Yeah, it seems like we've uh it seems like we're changing the character of a lot of neighborhoods. interesting that I mean they're saying we can't give somebody parking but it seems like we may be messing up neighborhoods that you know anyway well if uh the planning commission when they reszoned it and uh the applicant can maybe speak more to this that was a public meeting correct and was there anybody in the neighborhood that was bothered by the R2 zoning change or that is correct. It was a public meeting and no, nobody nobody voted or or spoken contest. I I've talked to many of the neighbors in that neighborhood as well. They they they like the fact that it's not a blight on the neighborhood, right? Because it was a vacant condemned building for a very long time. So seeing investment into that property and making it a livable structure instead of having people breaking in and things like that is definitely a positive. Well, there's no there's nothing else to do. I mean otherwise you'd have to knock this down and no one is going to do that there. we like look where we're talking about right where this neighbor with this neighborhood and as the applicant also alluded to for the uh city's future uh planning comprehensive map that area is looking to be more dense not a lot more dense so it's trending R2 R3 anyway

out yeah it's a lot of the areas in the city future looking are trending to be more dense this is one of the the areas that um uh on that f uh during that planning commission meeting they that was referenced in the staff report uh by Ricky. Uh I can't remember what exactly that is named, but it is in our our future plan. Um that that area is looking to be a more dense uh area and that that that is uh in line with with your understanding of it, right? Too, Mr. Timberman. Yes, absolutely. I believe it was medium density, but don't quote me on that. I'm not sure that actually and I wasn't with respect to I mean I I mean I have concerns too about density and it impacting the character of the neighborhood. Can we propose conditions? Like we can't really do that because that's it. It depends on what condition you you want to you know for each unit no more than I don't know four occupants. I wouldn't even want to go. board the board could impose a condition of uh if they want to increase above X number of occupants they have to return and get a conditional use approval um because that's within our that would be a part of kind of the planning review acceptance off of um saying hey the board has conditioned that above three per level yeah yeah that's what we discussed before wasn't it if they want to increase the number of units they have to come back and reapply to reapply for and that would be a part of the the planning condition for it and you wouldn't be changing, you know, the text for for what would be permitted or not. That would just be kind of in terms of, you know, the the or we could just make it the condition is that the condition you have the very you have the conditional use permit while this is a three unit Mhm. building. So if he if he wanted to increase it to four, well then this

conditional use would no longer be valid. So he would have to come back uh for planning. Well, maybe I guess he wouldn't, but so yeah, let's make that again. I think we should make that more and then that takes care of the the parking concerns, too, because again, it's the unrelated the likelihood for more vehicles is higher. All right. So, we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for this case um CON25-101 with a second by Mr. Mr. Misfelt. How do we vote? I I I So you're just changing the variance. Go ahead. Yep. Okay. So now we I'm going to move to grant the requested variance for the reference case 25-101 subject to the standard planning condition with the additional condition that if the owner occupant owner or the owner if the occupancy of the building increases increases either with regard to the individual units or if the owner um intends to extend the number of units in the subject property. The owner must come before the board of zoning appeals for an updated variance. Conditional use. Conditional use. Sorry. I'll second. So, we have a motion subject to those two principal conditions. Seconded by Miss Cook. Uh, how do we vote? I I I.

So, um sir, we have granted your requested variance. um planning will send out written notification um within a week or so. Um please keep in mind that the determination we just rendered can be appealed to the uh circuit court of Monagelia County and any work that you undertake in that 30-day appeals window. You do it your sole financial risk. I understand and thank you very much for your time and consideration tonight. Thank you. Have a good evening. Okay. So, um, next case is, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Thompson. Um, V um 25-104. This is for uh or request by uh Abby M for variance relief from section 1369.08 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding encroachments into setbacks city tax district 11 in the first ward tax map 28A parcel 27 in the B4 general business district. Uh the request was from Adam Shiveley for 752 Weaver Street but otherwise correct. Okay. I'm sorry. Uh all good. Uh as with the previous uh requests uh found on this uh packet as well as on screen will be just the standard aerial uh showing that 200 ft buffer for uh notice uh notices zoomed in um is the property and reference. It is not this one with the arrow. It is actually this property referenced here

uh more centered in the photo. Um it that just wouldn't adjust. Um then on the next slide on the packet is showing a site plan um of the kind of home, sidewalk, porch, and a driveway as well as the asphalt uh in question and followed up by uh three images on screen as well in the packet showing the work that was completed. The applicant is seeking a variance regarding parking and the setback of the above referenced address. This property received permits to pave a driveway on the side of the home with complete work referenced in the pictures being uh this side uh paving portion here. Uh it was noted during that permit process that paving and parking in front of the home would not be permitted. The applicant paved the front of the property and is requesting a variance as an alternative to removal of work done beyond the scope of the issued permit. Refer to the sections of code below as well as the layout of the structure. Um section of code below being 133705. Uh stating uh permitting in the front setback is not permitted only approved on driveways constructed to the standards of Sydney engineering department. Uh in summary, uh the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding parking in the front setback of the property addressed 752 Weaver. Uh please see the attached application to review the findings of fact listed if staff have had no comments or modifications to this as well. Staff planning staff uh do not object uh to the applicant's request for this variance. If the board of zoning appeals grants the conditional uh excuse me uh applicant variance relief in accordance with the city's planning and zoning code, these shall be subject to the following condition just being our standard condition um similar to the previous ones. And then that'll conclude staff report. Thank you very much. Do we have a representative for this case? All right.

I'm Adam Shiveley. I own a company called Shively Family Properties, which consists of my wife and my two boys. Uh, one of my kids is a sophomore here at WBU. And uh, we bought this house. It was Can you reference your uh, home address? My home address is 383 Turner Road in Shephardd'stown, West Virginia. And uh, this house is 752 Street. Right. Thank you. Sure. Um, so we bought the house for my son and um, it was at the time a three-unit. We put uh about $140,000 into renovations. It was in awful awful shape. Um, everything was permitted through Precision One Builders. Um, they did a great job and it was kind of my mistake on this driveway. I was we went through a lot of um, headaches because at the time we were putting the driveway in the side Mhm. It was, if you go back to the the picture you had there, that's an old picture. It's gravel. And what they did the house up the street from us and them, they've had kind of a handshake agreement, a gentleman's agreement for four or five years now. Um, that they would kind of share, work together on using because parking on a street is very, very, very tight. We don't have parking in the front of us because of that alley that goes up the hill there. Mhm. And then so it's a yellow line in front of us coming up Weaver Street from like Little G's area. it is. You have to like almost go into the bushes to get around some of the cars that are parked on the street. So, it's very dangerous. And so, when we approached the permit phase and we went in for permits, they said that the new ordinance said I had to have the 75 uh spots um per 75 per residence. Yeah, it' be 75 per two. Yeah, per two. So it was so I needed I needed to have 52 ft of of driveway and the I would have had to get a variance to leave it um gravel. So I had to ask f because the variance at the time the variance hearing would have been 2 months and I had to get kids in school.

So I wouldn't I've made it to the variance hearing before to get project going. So I said okay fine we'll asphalt it. So I spent $12,000 on asphalt. Um the guy came up, gave me his estimate and um and when they were out there, he said, "Hey, the spot that everybody's parking out in the front, see the orange car? That was a gravel spot at the time." He said, "Do you want us just to do this while we're here?" I've only charged another 700 bucks, right? And I said, "Sure." Because it was already being used as a parking spot. So, I really didn't associate the problem. You know, I didn't see I didn't see the disconnect where there would be an issue until after we did it. And then now we're got hit with the uh with the fail. And I said, I mean, my my thought process at the time was I want to keep the kids off the street because there's so many cars there and they're packed in and it's dangerous. Honestly, it's a two-way street. It should never be a two-way street. Honestly, um it's very tough. So, I wanted to I wanted to create a safer environment for the kids and make sure that mirrors weren't getting knocked off cars and stuff. And I was like, great, that gives me one extra spot. and now sharing with the neighbor, we can kind of still maintain that handshake agreement so that that the kids can get their cars off the street. That was the goal was to create as much parking as we could in spots that were already defined by gravel. Right. Okay. So, that was my my disconnect. Um, and I do apologize that I've talked to Sailor about this numerous times. I just disconnected the gravel versus the asphalt and that we weren't allowed to do asphalt in between the sidewalk and the house. I just didn't understand at the time because it's already being used as a part. Right. Okay. So, that's kind of the the story in a nutshell. So, I just am requesting that you not make me come up with an asphalt saw and remove that um and take away a spot and put another put put a kid essentially out on the road on the street. Yeah, that's kind of my thought. So, thanks.

No problem. Any questions, guys? Nope. Thank you very much. Welcome, sailor. So, is it is it just this this little section that's that's the way to set back? Yeah. So, where the truck is on the driveway was fine. The driveway I'm sorry, the driveway is 52 ft just like they asked for and all that. So, yeah, the driveway on the side is the correct length for their parking spaces required. the front asphalt area there wasn't uh considered for parking um because it's the setback correct um so there for this use for his use at that dorming unit it's met by that parking on the side how far is the setback there uh it's located in an R3 I can look it up in a second off the top of my head I'm not sure but I'll 10 ft is the neighbor in violation too Right. Uh if it's not a new use, it's not held to the current standards, but probably I've not my my um my understanding of that question is that as soon as you apply for a building permit and make changes, you need to get in with the new with the new code. Correct. And that's that's why I had to pave it and I couldn't just leave and travel. For pre-existing non-conforming, if they're not doing anything, there's no justification to go in. And um for for them parking there, they might not be uh permitted to do it, but we'd have to catch them doing it as well. And if you're not doing work, we you know, you wouldn't know um go by. But yeah, it's pre-existing non-conforming um stuff. The setbacks, by the way, for this district um for for an R3 uh is uh minimum front is 10, a maximum front setback is 20. Yeah. Right. So what was the city's preference to leave it gravel there? Yeah, they wanted me to rip out the asphalt, turn it back into gravel again. Okay. And I think it would look worse. We We actually There's actually some

stabilization, too, that was done because if you notice that front porch wall um that's leaning a little bit. Um there was there's a lot of gravel from the road, right, that was w that was being pushed down through snow and other things into into my area under my porch, right? And when when Alpha Engineering went out there and um we were working on all this, they were measuring, they did my survey and all that. They said, "That's road gravel." And I said, "I thought it was just gravel from a parking pad." And they were like, "No, that's being pushed out from the road." So, so putting that asphalt that part of the thought was too that it would stabilize some of the gravel from washing down under the house. So, that was the other issue. I was like, "Oh, that's even better reason for for doing it." So, does that drain all the way to your porch now though with No, it's it has a little It just kind of shoots right off. I mean, I I understand where the city's coming from. I would uh real quick also, uh Okay. to get this up. Um yeah, the city's uh guidance for what to do if uh the variance isn't approved with with the concrete or the asphalt in the front is to remove it and make it a uh an appropriate surface being either reseeding it um with grass a lawn or um like one of those like faux lawn kind of things to my understanding with conversations with engineering um that was their suggestion. So, why didn't they want it paved to begin with? Is it a drainage issue? Uh, the reason it they didn't want it paved originally was parking. It wasn't a It wouldn't be an approved uh parking location based on engineering's review of it. Could it be though an approved parking? uh engineering uh because it does from a

public safety and vehicular traffic standpoint. And the reason you make a compelling argument for I mean somebody's going to be parking there. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If you look back you look back at the old Google maps that we had there, it was being it was being parked in anyways and up and down the street people are doing that because they don't fit on the street. So people are pulling into houses up the street and down the street. There's multiple apartments on this road where they have front parking right off the sidewalk and they're trying, you know, but those are all those are all older uses that haven't applied for permits. The lack of paving is stop cars from parking there. Correct. From the standpoint of the setbacks, I'm all for I mean I appreciate the wisdom of we need setbacks because you need to break up that you can't be on top of each other. Well, you just surfaced this. It's not as if you put a cabana an you know what I'm saying? an enclosed structure in this setback area that would be undermining the purpose of setback. My mistake, my mistake. You're not breaking up, you know, the space between your property and the one I mean it's even across the street, but even neighbors either side. It's not as if you're filling that setback area with a structure, right? That's not what you're doing in terms of a special. You're act you're you're m he you're m you're kind of maintaining the setback by just putting a vehicle there. And the other positive upside to letting this or granting the variance is it's a public safety enhancement

improvement. Mhm. Well, it seems to be the norm for that street based on how narrowed. I mean, there's a lot of street. I've made my recommendations to the city to make that a longer street because it really it's dangerous when cars come down the hill. They have to pull over and face cars that are parked facing up the hill and stuff because there's no room on the right side to pull. There's no other room. It's It should be going straight up the hill one way and that's it. It really needs to be. It's not It's not safe going both ways. Um but uh it was more just I made my mistake was thinking that common sense out there code and it it made sense to me when they did this when he asked me if we should do this I was like yeah makes much more sense but I didn't think to reference code at that time I was like oh more parking now so that's my mistake you know kind of screwed that up Yeah. Thoughts. That's That's how I see it. Safety and it's not as if you've you didn't Well, I mean, it wouldn't have been You would have had to get a building permit, but it again, you didn't fill that setback with a structure. It's Yeah, it's it's still a setback. Yeah. I mean, it's not to code with regard to how it's engineered back, but it's still a step back. Looks really nice. All right, I'm going to uh public Oh, we need a public hearing. That's right. We need to do that. Oh, sorry. To Yes. Procedurally, we have to open that. Yeah, go right ahead.

Um so we need to open um public hearing for this case. Again this is uh B25-104 Adam Shriveley 752 Weaver Street. Anyone wishing to speak in uh support of or in opposition to this case, please do so. Now, seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. And then we just want to state no cor there's no correspondence for this case. No. Right. Okay. And then none that I've seen or received. Okay. Um so we have we want to restate that we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for this case. And we have a I'll second that motion to accept the findings of fact. All those in favor say I. I. I I um I am going to make a motion to um grant the requested variance for V25-104 for Mr. Adam Shiveley, 752 Weaver Street. Do we have a second? Second. So we have a motion to grant the variance with a second by Mr. Misfeld. Um how do we vote? And actually before we vote, no conditions except for the standard condition. Correct. All right. Um we have a motion to grant the variance. Um seconded by Mr. Misfelt. How do we vote? I I I So we've granted your variance. Um you will receive correspondence from planning 7 to 10 business days generally. Um, the decision we just rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Miguel County. Please keep in mind there's a 30-day appeals window and any further work you do, you do your soul financial risk. But thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay, we are going to

move that we take a break. Yes, we are going to sign. Sure, please do. Yeah, that's a long drive. It's foggy tonight. Yeah. Okay. Five minutes. Take your time. Five minutes. Yep. Okay. Yeah, take your time. No rush. So, we'll take about a 5 minute or so. Yeah. We're going to pause for Yep. 5 minutes. Do we have somebody for the last one? Yep. They're uh digital. Okay. Thanks, guys. I appreciate you very much. Take care. A great time. Yep. I'll try to get that out before Thanksgiving, but 7 to 10 business days, you'll get a letter that it's Thanksgiving.

similar. Yeah, that's just a state. Uh, it's our I'm not sure. I think it's our city requirements, but the new city planner. What's his name? Uh, Seth. I don't remember his last name, but he'll be and he's coming coming in from away or uh I'm not I think uh he'll be in attendance at the next BCA meeting, so I No, but I mean like Yeah, I don't know where he's from. I've not really had the pleasure to talk to him much. Um I was out yesterday for personal reasons so I've really talked to him. Um good. But yeah, just a little update on city planner. So excellent. You'll get to know him. But all right, we're going to resume after a brief recess for our final case. Mhm. And this is for V2106 Abby M uh 1038 University Avenue. And this one is, again, correct me if I'm wrong, um, for variance relief from section 13 37.05 of the city's planning and zoning code regarding lighting and design standard. Sorry about that. City tax district 13, fifth word, tax map 26, parcel 421 in the R2 single and multifamily residential district. Thank uh VR2106 seen on the screen as well as the packet. Here's just a similar aerial view, excuse me, to the ones previously mentioned. And then on the next slide, as well as the next page is just the design and kind of showing the sign in question. Um where it'll be located on the building, it size, what the message will be. Um the applicant is seeking a variance regarding internal illumination for a sign at the above reference address. The dimensions and material of the sign above uh shown above are compliant for the district standards. Uh they're only needing a variance for the illuminated channel letters. There's no other variance necessary for this sign. Uh refer to the sections of code below

as well as the layout of the structure. Uh the sections of code below just reference that in their district internal illumination is not permitted. Um in summary, the applicant wishes to get a variance regarding such uh internal sign illumination standards at the property referenced at 1038 University. have uh please see the attached application to review findings of fact listed. Staff have had no comments or modifications to this as well as staff do not object to this request for variance relief. If the board grants uh um the variance for the applicant, the only uh condition listed is our standard condition. That will conclude staff report. Thank you very much. And then do we have a representative for thisa for this last case bar 25-106? Yes. Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, sir. Hello. Hi. Um, good evening and thank you uh for staying so late. Um, so this is u uh my name is Abi. I represent the landlord and this is um for Tik Tok which is a franchise and we have that um who's the franchise owner and all we are seeking is the elimination of this sign. um on the building itself. Um the neighboring tenants um have had similar signs um which are um either same size or or bigger than this. Um uh we have already gotten approval for this sign and that's um uh you know code compliant. Um and then um other signs are illuminated in a similar way on this building and across the neighbors as well. We have shades right next door whose sign is um very well lit as well. And then on the back street freedom um all across university avenue. So um all we see today is just the illumination of the sign which is currently not allowed in the zoning u but um other tenants and um other neighboring uh tenants in the building have had that same uh sign approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Could you speak to the the nature of the illumination? Is it will the light be projected onto the signage surface or it's just a backlit signally illuminated right? Thank you. Is it LED? Yes. We should just do like a standing order to grant, right? Anytime it's a LED versus a I mean that's that's in the works, right? Yeah. Uh to kind of get ahead of it a little bit uh with our city planner position filled. Uh me, Ricky, and Seth will be trying to get that done as quickly as we can. It's a pretty big undertaking because we'll just be redoing the whole sign ordinance. So until that's done, there's, you know, nothing that can really be done about it. But it is under review and um uh to change to be updated to be more sure in due time applicable. It'll take a couple months to do that. So yeah. So at least otherwise, yeah, it's being changed and reviewed uh currently through administration. Is the is this is for the a question for the applicant. Is the sign going going to be on a timer or Thank you. uh late 24 hours. What's it going to be? It will be on a switch and it turn um like the tenant can control it. So at at close the you'll turn the illumination off. In other words, is that at close they would turn it off, right? Yes. Okay. That's kind of above and beyond really. Yeah. All right. Thank you, sir. Did any other questions? I think that's I mean I am going to make a motion to accept the fines of fact. It's very straightforward. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry, sir. We

need to do a public hearing. I'm Thank you. So, we need to open a public hearing for this case. V25-106. Anyone wishing to speak in support of or in opposition to this case, please do so. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. Sorry about that, folks. Okay. Um, and then we want to note there's no correspondence bearing on this case. Nope. All right. None that I've received or seen. So, having done the public hearing, is this moving into something else? This is like where the Starbucks is and everything, right? Yeah. I I believe that this is a new It was a gun store. Uh, to my understanding, it never actually became one, but that was one they built for it and and and so now they're occupying it. Okay. Yeah. To my understanding. But I thought there was something there now, isn't there? I think it's believe. So I think the Starbucks cross on the other side of the building. Yeah, you're right, though. Um, that's right. Maybe it was a Starbucks before. I'm not entirely sure. I don't I don't believe so. No, it's the other end of that. It's the other side of that building. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What's the question? Uh just just asking the the Starbucks in that building's on the other side, correct? That's like Yes. I thought this was at the other end of university. I didn't realize it was this. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah. So, I'm going to move that we accept the findings of fact for case V25-106. I I second. Okay. Um, so we have a motion to accept the findings of fact for the case. We have a second by Miss Cook. How do we vote? I I I. And I move to grant the requested variance with regard to the illumination requirement for the signage. Um, second

subject to that one condition. We have a second by Mr. Misfelt. How do we vote? I I I All right. So sir, uh we have granted your requested variance for your signage with respect to the illumination. Um you will receive written notification from planning. Um the decision we just rendered can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Melia County. Please keep in mind that any work that you do in the 30-day appeals window you do yourself financial risk. But thank you very much. Thank you and have a have a good evening. Thank you. You as well. Thank you. All right. Do we have any announcements? Uh we got a little ahead of it, but one announcement was that we do have a new city planner with the city um who will be in attendance at the next board of zoning appeals meeting to sit in kind of meet you guys um get more familiar since uh you'll be involved kind of with the bit of the signing um overhaul. Uh he'll be involved in that and then when we all kind of communally discuss um other than that um should be planning for a regularly uh scheduled December meeting. We have some some applicants on there. Um and then otherwise just have a good Thanksgiving. Um, you too. We have Have there been any applicants other applicants for the board? Uh, to my knowledge, no. Not Not that I've been told about. I think Dave's going to be gone for a while. Didn't he say the last meeting? I think it's 3 months or something in the spring. So, it's it's it's up to us. Yeah. Yeah. I'll I'll put uh another I'll ask Ricky about it again and see if um there's any uh applicants that he's aware of. I do know that um uh I think that they're we're involved with something December where we're going to try and do a recruitment thing, but I'm not right. I don't I'm not sure because Yeah, because with Mr. Dwit if

something came up then quorum wouldn't be made. Yeah, we wouldn't have an alternate um we'll just have to we'll consider it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And it's not as if we could draw on another committee to have. Yeah. In terms of an alternate. Yeah, I think we'd have to apply. Reapply. Any other announcements? Nope. None from staff. All right. We adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn. Seconded. And we are How do we vote? We are so adjourned.