Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES 6:30 p.m. July 20, 2022 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Benison, Logan Shamberger, Heidi Cook MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: Rodney Bahner, Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Benison called the meeting to order and read the pre- meeting announcement. II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: Approval of meeting minutes of June 15, 2022. Being no discrepancy, minutes were accepted into the record as approved. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V 22-17 / Slight Indulgence / 3200 Collins Ferry Road Request by Susan Warman for variance relief from Article 1347.04 regarding B-2 District setback standards; Morgantown Tax District 15, Tax Map 55, Parcel 32.1; B-2, Service Business District. Bahner presented the staff report and noted the petitioner was present. Suzanne Warman, Slight Indulgence, 3200 Collins Ferry Road. Ms. Warman explained that they have a mural on the walls that is fading and would like to request a roof to help protect this. She further mentioned they would like to have tastings out on the deck and would like to make it more comfortable for guests. Benison asked about adding any exterior lighting. Ms Warman indicated that there would only be ambient lighting and a ceiling fan. She further noted there were no plans to enclose the deck. Benison noted there were letters in support, and that they are included in the packet. Public hearing was opened. Being no one, the public hearing was closed. Bahner clarified that the R1 zoning is opposite and to the side of the deck being covered, which is buffered by the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a variance by reaching a positive determination for the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the petitioner. If the Board disagrees with the petitioner’s “Findings of Fact” and Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 3 June 15, 2022 Minutes  determines the proposed request does not meet the standard criteria for a variance, then the Board must state findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it bases its decision(s) to deny the subject variance petitions. [See WV State Code 8A-8-11(e) and 8A-7-11(b)]. After review, staff had no additions, corrections or modifications to the Findings of Fact presented in the application (attached hereto). Based on the abutting zoning (B-2); the modest scale of the improvement; and considering that the roof would not introduce any new off-site impacts such as noise, glare, or odor, staff recommends that that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the variance request as submitted, provided the porch not extended any further toward the rear property line. Cook moved to accept the findings of fact as stated in the packet, seconded by Shamberger. Vote was unanimous. Shamberger moved to grant the variance as proposed, and that it does not extend further. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. Benison noted that the variance has been approved, the petitioner should receive a letter from the City within seven days. Decisions may be appealed to the board within thirty days and any improvements made within that time are at the financial risk of the petitioner. Bahner explained the appeal process to the petitioner. B. V 22-14 / Corwin / 217 Beechurst Avenue V 22-16 / Corwin / 217 Beechurst Avenue Request by Don Corwin for variance relief from Article 1361.04 of the City’s Planning and Zoning Code regarding Sunnyside Overlay District design standards and for variance relief from Article 1347.04 regarding B-2 District setback standards; City Tax District 12, Tax Map 19, Parcel 15; B-2, Service Business District with Sunnyside Central Overlay District and Beechurst Corridor Overlay District. Bahner presented the combined staff report and noted the petitioner was present. Don Corwin, 251 Beechurst Avenue. Corwin stated this property was built around 1910 close to the WVU Campus. He notes the property is structurally sound with a cut stone foundation. Corwin states it is a three unit building and will stay this way. He states the property is in dire need of an upgrade. Corwin states that the attic space is not really a usable space due to the roofline structure. He states he is not adding square footage but making usable square footage to existing structure. Public hearing was opened. Being no one, hearing was closed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board, without objection from members of the Board, the petitioner, or the public, combine the public hearings for the variance petitions presented herein. However, each respective petition must be considered and acted upon by the Board separately. The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a variance by reaching a positive determination for the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the petitioner. If the Board disagrees with the petitioner’s “Findings of Fact” and Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 3 June 15, 2022 Minutes  determines the proposed request does not meet the standard criteria for a variance, then the Board must state findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it bases its decision(s) to deny the subject variance petitions. [See WV State Code 8A-8-11(e) and 8A-7-11(b)]. After review, staff had no additions, corrections or modifications to the Findings of Fact presented in the applications (attached hereto) and recommends that that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the variance requests as submitted, provided the intended enclosure and remodel is not extended any further toward the front or side lot lines. Motion to approve the findings of fact for V22-14 by Cook, seconded by Shamberger. Vote was unanimous. Cook moved to grant the variance as presented in the packet, seconded by Shamberger. Vote was unanimous. Motion to approve the findings of fact for V22-16 by Cook, seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. Motion by Cook to approve the variance as stated in the packet, seconded by Shamberger. Vote was unanimous. Benison noted that the variance has been approved, the petitioner should receive a letter from the City within seven days. Decisions may be appealed to the board within thirty days and any improvements made within that time are at the financial risk of the petitioner. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Bahner discussed downtown improvements through the ARPA funds granted the City. A few of the applications have been approved and hopefully those projects will be moving forward in the near future. Bahner noted that older meeting minutes for approval will be brought one at a time to the meetings until completed. VI. ADJOURNMENT: Cook made motion to adjourn seconded by Benison. Meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Rodney Bahner, Planner Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 3 June 15, 2022 Minutes