Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. October 16, 2019 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Benison, Harrison Case, Heidi Cook, and Kevin Meehan MEMBERS ABSENT: Garrett Tomblin STAFF: John Whitmore, AICP I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Case called the meeting to order and read the standard explanation of the how the Board conducts business and rules for public comments. II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Minutes for the September 18, 2019 hearing were postponed. III. NEW BUSINESS: A. V19-36 / Verizon / 1159 Van Voorhis Road: Request by Jeffrey Friedl of Atlas Sign & Lighting, on behalf of Verizon, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Seventh Ward Tax District, Tax Map 6, Parcel 38; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report for V19-36. Case recognized Jeffrey Friedl of Atlas Sign and Lighting representing Verizon. Friedl provided explanation of the proposed signage and the nature of the signage proposed to the existing structure’s roadway walls. Case questioned the changes to the post and panel sign. Friedl and Whitmore explained the previous Domino’s application in the adjacent tenant space changed multiple elements of signage and exterior improvements. Additionally, Whitmore explained a potential discrepancy in the tenant frontage. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petitions. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed. Whitmore read the staff recommendation. Cook asked about window side façade and the allowance for the signage. Whitmore provided the Board with the Planning and Zoning Code provision Section 1369.07(I)(4) permitting the wall signage. Case noted that the location of the signage on the Burroughs Street side made sense. Benison questioned if the post and panel signage and if Verizon would also be advertised on the ground sign. Friedl noted that they would have signage on the post and panel sign. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 6 October 16, 2019 Minutes Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V19-36 as presented; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: Sign #1 and #2 are an appropriate size to fit the building which should help passersby more easily identify the Verizon in that extremely busy traffic area. These signs should not adversely affect the adjacent (tenant) as they have a similar wall signs int his area. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: As this building sits at a busy intersection, in terms of traffic volume and visual noise, it is important to the success of the business as well as the safety of the public to have signs of an adequate number, size, location on the building and illumination that allows the public to make necessary adjustments ahead of reaching the Verizon store. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The signage requested will eliminate the commercial messaging challenges of the Verizon site, given the constraints existing within the surrounding built environment, including the scale of the building in relation to the arterial frontage roadway, the volume of vehicular traffic, the obstruction by the neighboring gas station and the other visual noise created by traffic signs, utility poles, etc., without harming the public or adjoining property owners. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The signs that requested by this variance will correspond with the other commercial signage within the immediate area in terms of sign type, size, location, and illumination. Cook moved to approve 20 square foot wall sign area variance under Case No. V19-36 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case advised Friedl that the Board’s decisions can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. B. V19-37 / Wilson / 2032 Eugeniva Avenue: Request by Stephen Wilson, for variance relief from Article 1355.05 concerning a setback encroachment; Sixth Ward Tax District, Tax Map 44, Parcel 119; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report for V19-37. Case recognized the applicant Stephen Wilson, who provided further explanation of the project and the location of the proposed deck. Case discussed the location of the deck in relationship to the property line, which Wilson indicated that a survey plat had not been completed establishing the location of the parcel boundary. Whitmore indicated that staff established the approximate location of the deck based on Monongalia County Tax Assessor data. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 6 October 16, 2019 Minutes Benison asked if the deck would be built to the fence line, Mr. Wilson noted that the deck would be located inches away from the fence. Cook asked for the reason of placing the deck on the side of the structure. Wilson noted that the location of the deck also functions as a walkway to access the lower portion of the structure due to slope. Case asked about the total usable space of the deck in relationship to the application. Case and Whitmore discussed the building permit application. Case expressed concern for justification of the encroachment and the location of the property boundary. Whitmore advised the Board that conditions to establish the location of the boundary could be included with the Board’s action. Case asked Wilson if the neighboring property owner was aware of the project. Wilson noted the affirmative. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petitions. There being no comment, Case declared the public hearing closed. Whitmore provided the staff recommendation. Case asked Whitmore about the intent of the setback for the deck. Whitmore explained that the encroachment is permitted by the Planning and Zoning Code and that the physical space permits a person to physically enter the property and then allow access to the feature. Case discussed the pathway of the deck and neighboring property. Cook noted that a deck that meets the Planning and Zoning Code requirements would still be a usable space. Case, Meehan and the applicant discussed the actual functional space that would be possible with a Planning and Zoning Code compliant deck. Whitmore discussed the parcel layout of the neighborhood and issues associated with structure locations and topography. Benison and Meehan noted the topography does provide context for access purposes. Case reviewed the finding of facts with the Board. Cook questioned if a survey would be required. Whitmore explained the basis of the tax map data. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact Number 1 for V19-37 as presented; seconded by Benison. The motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The proposed deck and stairs will be contained within the petitioner’s property and does not appear to create a blight in the neighborhood. Meehan made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact Number 2 for V19-37 as presented; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 6 October 16, 2019 Minutes NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: The space available for the proposed deck borders the property boundary. The structure is located on one of the smaller parcels of land on the block. The physical space permitted for the deck with stair feature is not conducive to the built environment on Eugeniva Avenue. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact Number 3 for V19-37 as presented; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: According to the petitioner, the proposed deck will make the distance travelled from street level to bottom floor of the house safer as well as provide additional level space for utility. Benison made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact Number 4 for V19-37 as presented; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The house and surrounding land will be more in keeping with adjacent residential properties in the neighborhood. Cook moved to grant the variance for V19-36 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Wilson that the Board’s decisions can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. C. V19-38 / Amedro / 400 Evans Street: Request by Jeff Amedro, for variance relief from Article 1343.04 concerning a setback encroachment; Forth Ward Tax District, Tax Map 14, Parcel 12.2; OI, Office and Institutional District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Jeff Amedro, agent for the property owner. Amedro identified improvements that historically occurred in the area and to the structure. Amedro explained that the location of the existing eastern deck was affected by snowfall and had a tendency to become unsafe, necessitating the roof improvement. Amedro also noted correspondence from the adjacent property owner in favor of the project as proposed. Benison sought clarification on the location of the deck feature. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 6 October 16, 2019 Minutes There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petitions. Whitmore read a letter from Kevin Conlon, the owner of 424 Evans Street in favor of the variance. There being no additional public comment, Case declared the public hearing closed. Whitmore read the staff recommendation. The Board discussed the merits of the variance with attention made to site characteristics and safety. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for Findings of Fact for V19-38 as presented below; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The impact of the roof construction will only affect the subject property and will not have a negative impact on surrounding neighbors. The setback infringement is only minimal and next-door neighbor has given his permission for the roof extension. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: Property was purchased without existing entrance roof. This modification is to offer safety for existing and future tenants. Current and past tenants have expressed concerns for the slippery nature of the entrance. This modification will correct those concerns. Subject property and neighbor property were once owned by the same person which may have contributed to the dwelling being so closely constructed near the property line. A covering for the other side (Side A) of the duplex will be constructed soon and having a roof over both entrances will offer symmetry and better curbside appeal for the neighborhood. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The purpose of construction is to provide safety for individuals to protect against someone slipping and falling and getting hurt. It will also make for a more balanced and uniform look to the property. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: This process confirms that the next-door neighbor is aware of this build. Justice will be done by allowing a slight modification (approximately a six-inch extension) for the safety of the inhabitants and guests of the property and an improvement to the neighborhood. Cook moved to approve Case No. V19-37 granting variance for the improvements as requested with the following conditions: 1. The variance shall be limited to roofing; 2. The applicant may not enclose the deck areas; and 3. The variance may not result in an increase in habitable area without first obtaining prior Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The motion was seconded by Benison and carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 6 October 16, 2019 Minutes Case reminded Amedro that the Board’s decisions can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Whitmore informed the Board that the November meeting may be canceled due to a small agenda. [The Board of Zoning Appeals November, 2019 meeting was not canceled] ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: December 12, 2019 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 6 October 16, 2019 Minutes