Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. November 23, 2020 Virtual/Electronic Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: Harrison Case, Chris Benison, Garrett Tomblin MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Meehan, Heidi Cook STAFF: John Whitmore, City of Morgantown I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Case explained that as there were no speakers signed up for public comment, the pre-meeting announcement may be waived. The Board concurred. II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: Minutes from October 21, 2020 were unanimously approved. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V20-21 / Trimar, LLC / 1111 Van Voorhis Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, on behalf of Trimar, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax District 15, Tax Map 6, Parcel 40; B-2, Service Business District. Crystal Miller with City Neon discussed the signage requested and is asking for a variance regarding the size of the sign. Bennison asked a question regarding the signage, asking about the illumination of the signage and Miller stated there is no problem with the illumination. No other questions being heard from the committee or the public, Case then closed the public hearing. Whitmore presented the Staff Report, with no recommendation submitted by Staff concerning whether variance relief should be granted. Case asked for a motion to approve the Findings of Fact, Tomblin motioned and seconded by Bennison. Vote was unanimous. 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: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  There are signs in this particular area that are the same size or much larger. These signs have had no adverse effects upon the public or property owners. 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 building sets approximately 200 feet from the very busy five lane roadway of Van Voorhis Drive. A larger sign would have better visibility for potential customers. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The business would have higher visibility along a very busy roadway. The business will be able to utilize a sign that was at a previous location. This would be cost effective for them and more environmentally friendly than manufacturing a new sign that would less than 10 sq. ft. smaller to meet the standard. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The business would be able to safely and effectively advertise without added cost of manufacturing a new sign. Motion to grant the variance. Tomblin made the motion and Bennison seconded. Vote was unanimous. Miller was informed she would receive notice in writing of the board’s decision and that the decision may be appealed within thirty days. B. CU20-05 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for approval of a conditional “Multi-Use Nonresidential Building” use; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the combined Staff Report. Sherry Bowmar with HardyWorld LLC and with McMillen Engineering. Petitioners had no problem with combining these. Sherry Bowmar, HardyWorld LLC stated that they propose a multiuse nonresidential building located in the 1000 block of University Avenue across from Sheetz. Bowmar stated they are working with a national coffee chain to do a drive through and retail and restaurant uses on the bottom floor and office/retail on the second floor. She stated that we have four variances requested including building setback, lighting, landscaping and the parking area not being screened. Bowmar stated that these requests conform with the neighborhood, City Planning and in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Bowmar stated that this property is a unique circumstance considering the property locations. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  Loren Wright with Piper O’Brien Architects discussed the plans for the site. Wright discussed the challenges presented and how they have worked around these issues with the design. He discussed the pedestrian traffic and how they have adjusted for this including outside seating and walk up service, as well as accommodating traffic from University Avenue. Ron Herrington with McMillen Engineering discussed the landscaping issues. He stated that there would be a five-foot buffer with shrubbery with also trees and shrubs around the parking isles. He stated that the variance would be for the reduced width and area the buffer zone. He discussed the screening and referred to the trees and shrubbery to be able to maximize . Wright addressed the increased pedestrian traffic and how they have worked this into the plan with the design of the building. Wright also addressed the dumpster areas and how they would not interfere with business, traffic and pedestrian, but would still be accessible. Tammy Stenson was also on the line, David Howell with Piper O’Brien as well, but they feel that everything has been covered. Case asked if this was a Phase I or if there were other projects in the future. Bowmar stated that this is the entire plan. Case mentioned that this is an entire city block with what is relatively a small building with mostly parking. He questioned if the parking was regulation. Bowmar stated that from a realistic standpoint the tenants would require more parking. Considering the drive through, parking would be needed. Case mentioned that he thinks there is too much parking and wonders if there is a way around this. Bowmar stated that Shawn Fortney is on the line, and that he was involved in some of the prior proposals and feel that his would be best for this development. Bowmar stated that the parking in the back would be for the retail tenants proposed and feel this would satisfy the tenants in the best way possible. Shawn Fortney stated that there was a proposal at one point for a 19-story building with no parking which caused a lot of panic downtown. He stated that this is a tough site to develop. They have spent a lot of time removing underground tanks and cleaning up the property. Fortney stated that they have spent a lot of time to develop this property in an acceptable way for the downtown district. Benison stated that he appreciated the discussion regarding parking, and his questions were all answered. Benison did ask if the design took into consideration the adjacent property owners may have about the development. Bowmar stated that this has been addressed with landscaping. Fortney stated that the adjacent property owner will work with them in keeping with the project proposed. Fortney stated that Shumans own the property adjacent and they need it for a parking area. Tomblin stated that he had no questions for the applicant. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  Case asked for more explanation regarding the screening. He asked if there was a view of the landscaping they are putting in. The applicant referred to section 4A of the site plan which represents the landscaping. Case stated that there were no objections to consolidation. Case opened the consolidated public hearing for CU20-05, V20-22,23,24,25. Being no one from the public on the line, the public hearing was closed. Whitmore provided the Staff Recommendation section of the report indicating that staff provides no recommendation for any of the cases presented in this staff report [CU20- 05, V20-22, V20-23, V20-24, V20-25]. Case stated that since the Variances for this case have been approved, time to move forward with CU-25. Benison wanted to commend the applicants on the traffic impact study. Case stated that this has been a careful process with the case and has been through several other entities for approval. Case moved to adopt the proposed findings of fact presented in the packet. Seconded by Tomblin. Vote was unanimous. Finding of Fact No. 1 – Congestion in the streets is not increased, in that: The applicant has considered the traffic along University and has decided to access from the City streets to lessen the impact on the state highway. A traffic impact study, as requested by the City and various other entities, was submitted. The applicant considered the surrounding developments and adjusted their site accordingly. By providing off street parking for customers, it will deter the customers for illegal parking. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: The applicant considered the comments provided during the Technical Review Committee and the DDRC to create a safe development. One concern mentioned several times was the proposed drive-thru tunnel which was necessary to access to the second story; whereas, the Site has been adjusted for a pedestrian walkway for access to the second story, thus, eliminating the safety concern. The drive-thru remains at the rear of the building with a second- story pedestrian walkway across to access the upper tenants. There are three pedestrian walkways. Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: The proposed tenants are commercial, as allowed in the B-4 District, and no uses that generate pollutants of the air or light. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: The applicant is proposing a 14,536 square feet two-story building which is not the entire build- out of the property. The applicant is providing some off street parking to compliment the development, along with improvements to sidewalks around the property. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: There is no residential construction proposed with this development. Finding of Fact No. 6 – Granting this request will not create inadequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, or other public requirements, in that: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  The City encourages and provides all modes of transportation to which the proposed project is addressing pedestrian walk-ability, on-site parking, and there is public parking garages within close proximity All utilities are available for this redevelopment project on a parcel that is currently a parking lot along a main corridor. The developer is not placing a burden on City resources. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: At a minimum the value of existing buildings in the surrounding areas will be conserved, the property values may increase given this new development proposed. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: The property is an existing B-4 Zoning District which specifically encourages this type of development. The applicant's request is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Case moved for approval of the conditional use CU20-05 with conditions set forth in the meeting packet. Benison seconded. Vote was unanimous. CU20-05 conditional use is granted with conditions as provided in the staff report. Applicant will receive correspondence in writing form the Planning Office in the next several days. This may be appealed within the next thirty days. C. V20-22 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1349 concerning setbacks; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case stated the variance in this case relates primarily to the parking situation and these have all been discussed. Case asked the board if there were any other questions from the board. Case moved to accept the findings of fact. Tomblin seconded. Vote was unanimous. 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 increased setback is requested to be granted as a variance to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare of adjacent property owners or residents to allow for safe mobility of both vehicles and pedestrians. The Developer is proposing on-site parking to increase the safety and welfare of individuals for both customers and tenants of the proposed development. In addition the Developer is proposing an outside seating area which under the code section 1349.04 ((3) (c). The drive-thru tenant is permissible under the B-4 Zoning District and by allowing this use, the regulation of a maximum setback of this property (20 feet) is unable to be met on the mere fact the property is surrounded by public rights-of-way. During site layout, there has been detailed discussions on a drive-thru, the number of vehicles in the stacking lane, and impact on all public rights-of-way. A traffic Impact Study was submitted to the City Planning and Engineering Departments for approval. A purpose of the City’s Zoning Ordinance is to minimize or avoid congestion in the public streets and to ensure safe, convenient and efficient traffic circulation. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  In addition, property owners across the street from the subject parcel were granted similar variances for the Sheetz development. The granted of such variance will not negatively impact surrounding property owners and will provide a transition corridor from University Avenue which is less walkable to the Downtown area in accordance with the overall comprehensive plan. There are no signs in this particular area that are the same size or much larger. These signs have had no adverse effects upon the public or property owners. 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: 1. The Site is surrounded by public rights-of-way resulting in four front setbacks with a maximum of a 20 feet setback. 2. The proposed setback is more in line with the adjacent property (Sheetz) which is a newer development in the corridor. 3. By having a greater setback, it allows the access off of Kirk Street to be shifted to decrease the likelihood of vehicles waiting to turn into the property. 4. The topography of the site also presents unique challenges for the development of the site and adhearing to code maximum setbacks. The building sets approximately 200 feet from the very busy five lane roadway of Van Voorhis Road. A larger sign would have better visibility for potential customers. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The business would have higher visibility along a very busy roadway. The business will be able to utilize a sign that was at a previous location. This would be cost effective for them and more environmentally friendly than manufacturing a new sign that would less than 10 sq. ft. smaller to meet the standard. The B-4 allows for the proposed use as a Conditional Use. By the natural topography and existing adjacent land uses, the Developer is seeking relief to allow for the two-story building to be constructed, as indicated on the Ste Plan, to allow for the best use of the property. The proposed layout is not overcrowding the use of the land and will allow for the natural flow of air and light in the immediate area. The purpose of the B-4 Zoning District includes: (1) promote a diverse mix of residential, business, commercial, office, institutional, education, and cultural and entertainment activities for workers, visitors, and residents; (2) encourage pedestrian-oriented development within walking distance of public transit opportunities at densities and intensities that will help support transit usage and business; (3) promote the health and well being of residents by encouraging physical activity, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction; and (4) enhance the community’s character and historical significance through the promotion of high-quality urban design. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  The variance request in light of the topography and frontage along four public right of ways would eliminate the hardship of the land and allow for the successful development of the property in accordance with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The business would be able to safely and effectively advertise without added cost of manufacturing a new sign. The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development, with the public planning process specifically asking for infill development/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the “green/open space/agricultural” areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in downtown along University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding uses; (2) permitted in the B-4 Zoning District as a Conditional Use; and (3) development of an underutilized property. The intent of the B-4 Zoning District is still being met even if the setbacks are greater as a result of being surrounded by public rights-of-way and the unique topography of the site. The Developer worked with the Technical Review Committee and the Downtown Design Review Committee to address their comments and concerns, including the submission of a Traffic Impact Study based on the proposed tenants, to assure this proposed development is meeting the intent of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and adopted Zoning Ordinance. As provided, the development still achieves a healthy, beautiful and safe community. The proposed development is in accordance with other developments in the general vicinity and in line with other variances granted. Case moved to approve V20-22 with the conditions set forth in the packet. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. D. V20-23 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1367 concerning landscaping and screening requirements; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case stated that the issues have been addressed with this request. Being no other discussion the chair moved to accept the Findings of Fact in case V20-23. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. 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: Many times a landscape bufferyard is to prevent the damaging effects of one of land use to another. The landscape buffer area provides aesthetics, while still maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of residents, vehicles, and pedestrians walking to/from the site. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  The site plan does incorporate some landscaping into the plan. The landscape plan is consistent with other property owners and will not negatively impact the neighbors. 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: 1. Due to the geometric shape of the lot, there is a lack of depth necessitating the reduced landscape buffer. 2. This property is unique due to the fact that it is surrounded by roadways on all four sides of the property. 3. The topography of the site presents unique challenges to adhere to certain standards and code requirements at times. However, the topography can also help as well due to the building layout. The building design will block the view of a certain parking lot at the development depending on where you are at. If you are on Chestnut Street, the building will block your view of the front, lower-level parking lot area of the development. If you are on University Avenue, the building will block the back, upper-level parking area of the development. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The requested variance still meets the definition of landscaped buffer: "an area of landscaping separating two distinct land uses, or a land use and a public right-of-way, and acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. As the property is surrounded by public rights- of-way, if the variance were granted, ii still mitigates efforts and is no impact on surrounding properties. The requirement, even if a variance is granted, ensures pedestrian safety, enhances the quality of development, and by providing a landscape buffer with new sidewalk there is screening of the development's parking area with the public streets. The variance request in light of the topography and frontage along four public right of ways would eliminate the hardship of the land and allow for the successful development of the property in accordance with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development with the public planning process specifically asking for infill/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the "green/ open space/ agricultural" areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in the downtown along the University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding uses; (2) permitted under the B-4 District as a Conditional Use; and, (3) developing an underutilized property; (4) providing an aesthetically pleasing development as compared to the existing use. The Developer worked with the Technical Review Committee and Downtown Design Review Committee on the visual impact the proposed site layout has to the area, the proposed materials and colors, and the visual/aesthetic component of surrounding properties. The proposed development still achieves a healthy, beautiful, and safe community. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  There still would be an enhanced value of public and private property by this development, along with the reconstruction of existing sidewalk to allow this corridor to become more pedestrian friendly. Case moved to approve the variance sought in case V20-23, seconded by Tomblin. Vote was unanimous with the conditions set forth in the packet. E. V20-24 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1371 concerning exterior lighting; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case asked the board if there were any questions. Case moved to accept the Findings of Fact set forth in the packet concerning case V20-24. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. 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 code requires the reconstruction of the existing sidewalks around the site. Due to the unique characterics of the site, nearly the entire property is surrounded by sidewalks. In reviewing the project and the proposed comprehensive plan to provide a pedestrian friendly corridor, the developer has considered the safety of the property, tenants, and customers by allowing the light from the site onto the sidewalk areas. The proposed lighting allows safety of pedestrians utilizing the sidewalks during night time/early morning hours. The proposed lighting also represents the minimal requested variance of such overflow while still maintaining a safe atmosphere. 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 indicated above, the property subject to the variance is bordered by University Avenue (proposed front), Kirk Street (southern side entrance), Chestnut Street (western side) and Moreland Street (northern boundary). The property is unique inasmuch as it has four streets as borders. The lighting design is to provide adequate lighting for pedestrians on the Site and the use of the surrounding sidewalks since this area is to become a pedestrian-friendly corridor. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The lighting illuminating from the property line is minimal along the sidewalks. The lighting does not negatively impact any surrounding proeprty owners. The lighting that emits onto the right of way represents the minimal necessary variance in order to achieve the overall goals of the City's comprehensive plan and objectives to make the area safe for pedestrian travel. The lighting The City is encouraging pedestrian traffic along the corridor and this lighting is making it safe for individuals in the immediate area using the sidewalks. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development, with the public planning process specifically asking for infill/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the "green/ open space/ agricultural" areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in downtown along University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding areas; (2) provides for the safety of pedestrians; (3) developing an underutilized property; and, (4) working with the Technical Review Committee and Downtown Design Review Committee comments and concerns for both safety and aesthetics along the corridor. The proposed development still achieves a healthy, beautiful, and safe community. Case moved to approve the variance, seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. Case V20-24 is approved with the conditions set forth. F. V20-25 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1349 concerning parking lot screening; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case feels that all these issues have been adequately addressed. Case moved to accept the findings of fact in this case, seconded by Tomblin. Vote was unanimous. 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 requested variance, if granted, still ensures pedestrian safety, enhances the quality of the development, and provides a landscape buffer with the new sidewalks and screening of development's parking area with the public streets. In addition, the building will act as a screen to the parking lot depending on the location of the pedestrian. Other neighboring property owners, were granted similiar variances and the character of the neighborhood would not be changed by the grant of the variance. 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: 1. This property is unique due to the fact that it is surrounded by roadways on all four sides of the property. 2. There is no rear property line to allow for parking on site as the Site has four front setback lines to meet landscaping to screen the parking. 3. The placement of a wall/barrier would be around the entire property which distracts from not only this development but surrounding developments in the corridor and may impact property values or open for unsavory activity when no tenants/businesses are operating. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT  4. The topography of the site presents unique challenges to adhere to certain standards and code requirements. However, the topography can also help as well due to the building layout. The building design will block the view of a certain parking lot at the development depending on where you are at. If you are on Chestnut Street, the building will block your view of the front, lower-level parking lot area of the development. If you are on University Avenue, the building will block the back, upper-level parking area of the development. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The requested variance still meets the definition of landscaped buffer: "an area of landscaping separating two distinct land uses, or a land use and a public right-of-way, and acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. As the property is surrounded by public rights- of-way, if the variance were granted, it still mitigates efforts and is no impact on surrounding properties. The requirement, even if a variance is granted, ensures pedestrian safety, enhances the quality of development, and by providing a landscape buffer with new sidewalk there is screening of the development's parking area with the public streets. The variance request in light of the topography and frontage along four public right of ways would eliminate the hardship of the land and allow for the successful development of the property in accordance with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development, with the public planning process specifically asking for infill/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the "green/ open space/ agricultural" areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in downtown along University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding uses; (2) permitted under the B-4 District as a Conditional Use; and, (3) developing an underutilized property. The Technical Review Committee and the Downtown Design Review Committee did review the site layout and visual impact the development has on surrounding uses and the corridor. The material and color for construction was submitted and approved, along with an acceptable layout including the landscape plan. As provided, the development still achieves a healthy, beautiful, and safe community. Case moves for approval in case V20-25 based on conditions set forth in the packet. Tomblin seconded. Vote was unanimous, Case V20-25 has been approved. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Whitmore discussed the City of Morgantown’s 2021 calendar for Planning and Zoning hearings. Currently the BZA meets on Wednesdays. February’s meeting falls on Ash Wednesday and asked if there were any concerns with this date, or any other issues. The Board stated there were no current issues with the Ash Wednesday date, but are flexible to changes if needed. Whitmore noted the next meeting will be December 16,. Tomblin noted that he will not be available for this meeting. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 11 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT Whitmore stated that the new City Manager is slated to start next week. Development and Finance director positions are still being looked at. ADJOURNMENT: 7:39 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ John Whitmore, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 12 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT