MORGANTOWN
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MINUTES
April 17, 2002
6:30 P.M. City Council Chambers
Members Present: N. Iannone, T. Shamberger, R. Hawkins and J. Rockis
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jim Wood, Planning Director and Lisa Martin, Assistant Planner
MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
T. Shamberger made a motion to approve the February minutes as written, seconded by N. Iannone. Motion approved unanimously.
J. Rockis made a motion to approve the March minutes as amended, seconded by T. Shamberger. Motion approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
CU02-05 / Castle / 1117 University Avenue: Request by Michael Castle for conditional use approval for shared parking at 1117 University Avenue. Tax Map #28A Parcel 2, 3, 4; a B-4, General Business District.
J. Wood read the staff report. He stated that Mr. Castle is concurrently asking for
conditional use approval (CU02-06) for a multi-family dwelling in the B-4, General
Business District. He also added that the proposal involves construction of a 6-story
apartment building on the site of the old Bland’s Auto Wrecking. J. Wood stated that the
building would ordinarily require 78 parking spaces and with the reductions the applicant
potentially qualifies for, the adjusted parking requirement becomes 54 stalls. The applicant is proposing to provide 56 automobile stalls.
J. Rockis inquired on the difference between pedestrian and vehicular B-4 Districts and the function of the Design Review Committee. J. Wood stated that the vehicular district still requires parking. He also stated that the Design Review Committee considers the aesthetics of the downtown area.
Michael Castle presented the request to the Board. He stated that the development would attract young professionals and is not intended for student rentals.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment. There was none. The public portion was closed.
Discussion ensued on the applicant meeting the shared parking requirements.
N. Iannnone made a motion to accept the findings of fact as written, seconded by T. Shamberger. Motion approved unanimously.
T. Shamberger made a motion to approve the request, seconded by J. Rockis. Motion approved unanimously.
CU02-06 / Castle / 1117 University Avenue: Request by Michael Castle for conditional use approval for a multi-family dwelling in a B-4 District. Tax Map #28A Parcel 2, 3, 4; a B-4, General Business District.
J. Wood read the staff report. He stated that Mr. Castle is also seeking conditional use
approval to have a multi-family 6-story apartment building at the same location. He
added that the building would be a combination of stucco and brick with a horseshoe
drive to serve as a pick up and drop off site. It was also stated that the applicant would
have to submit further exterior architectural details to the Design Review Committee with respect to window types and the type of stucco to be used.
Michael Castle presented the request to the Board.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment. There was none. The public portion was closed.
Discussion ensued on the Design Review Committee, and the height of the proposed structure. J. Wood stated that the Façade Review Committee and the Sign Review Committee were combined into one committee with seven members.
N. Iannone made a motion to accept the findings of fact as amended to state, for question six, that transportation, utilities, schools and parks were adequate to accommodate the development and that the development would create business for public transportation, seconded by T. Shamberger. Motion approved unanimously.
J. Rockis made a motion to approve the request, seconded by N. Iannone. Motion approved unanimously.
V02-02/ Moser / 153 Mineral Avenue:
Request by George Moser for variance approval from the Table 2,
Residential Development Standards, minimum front yard setback for property
located at 153 Mineral Avenue. Tax Map
#24 Parcel #327; an R-1A, Single-family Residential District.
J. Wood read the staff
report. He stated that George Moser illegally
constructed a roof over a non-conforming, existing concrete porch pad that is
at or near grade level and partly encroaches into the Mineral street
right-of-way. He added that Mr. Moser’s
application seeks permission to keep the illegally erected roof in place, so
that it would not have to be removed.
But granting such approval would be in violation of not only the front
setback requirement, but also the prohibition against encroaching into a street
right of way. He stated that Mr.
Moser’s variance request was impossible to grant in full because the Board of
Zoning Appeals only has statutory authority to grant relief from the setback
requirement; not to grant permission to encroach into the right of way. J.
Wood stated that original porch had a similar roof many years ago, but it was a
grandfathered, non-conforming structure; and that once a non-conforming
structure is removed, it cannot be rebuilt after the expiration of a 12-month
period. J. Wood stated that despite
the fact that any hardship experienced by the applicant should be considered
self-imposed due to the applicant illegally reconstructing the porch roof,
staff would support the board granting full relief from the front setback. This would allow the porch roof to come up to
the property line, but not beyond it.
David Straface, Attorney, presented the request to the Board and passed
out photos and a petition. Mr. Straface
stated that a low vertical enclosure wall was placed on the concrete slab at
the request of the insurance company.
J.Wood stated that the only relevant zoning issue is related to the
porch roof, and not the aforementioned vertical enclosure.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment.
There was none. The public
portion was closed.
The Board read the Findings of Fact.
For question one, the Board added that the concrete pad was constructed
long ago and is not impeding traffic or causing a safety hazard. For question two, the Board added that in
order to place any type of roof on the pad, a variance would be needed. For question four, it was added that the
roof would improve Mr. Moser’s and surrounding property value.
T. Shamberger made a motion to approve a variance to allow the porch
roof to have a zero set back from the front property line; seconded by J.
Rockis. Motion approved
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CU02-12 / Bossio / 917-925 St. Joseph Street: Request by Bernie Bossio for conditional use approval to construct professional office building in an R-3, Multi-family District at 917-925 St. Joseph Street. Tax Map #11 Parcels #173 & 174; an R-3, Multi-family District.
J. Wood read the staff report. He stated that BHM Developers would like to build a
professional two-story brick/stucco office building in an R-3, multi-family district. He
added that the applicant has proposed 21 parking stalls, including two handicapped
accessible stalls and landscaping that meets the ordinance requirements. J. Wood also stated that the applicant has proposed a plan to improve the alley behind the proposed building to city standards from Oakland Street to the southeast corner of the site, in order to provide access to the rear stalls. He also affirmed that the applicant would return to the Planning Commission for final site plan review.
Bernie Bossio presented the request to the Board.
There were two possible layouts presented for the rear parking stall angle. It was stated that the City Engineer has a preference for the 60-degree stall layout, which has the effect of reducing the total number of parking stalls to nineteen. This still falls within the requirements of the ordinance.
Discussion ensued on the differences between medical and professional offices. It was stated that a medical office would generate more traffic, and would require more parking as per the zoning ordinance. It was stated that staff would have to be vigilant to insure that only professional offices would occupy the building, not medical offices, unless the applicant could provide the additional parking that would be necessary for the latter.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment. There was none. The public portion was closed.
J. Rockis made a motion to accept the findings of fact as written by the applicant, seconded by T. Shamberger. Motion approved unanimously.
T. Shamberger made a motion to approve the request as presented, seconded by J. Rockis. Motion approved unanimously.
CU02-11 / Kiger / 244 Pleasant Street: Request by Vaughn Kiger for conditional use approval for a free-standing sign in the B-4 District at 244 Pleasant Street. Tax Map #28A Parcel #53; a B-4, General Business District.
L. Martin read the staff report. She stated that Mr. Kiger is requesting conditional use
approval to use an existing 16" x 28" hanging sign currently mounted on the wall of the building, as a freestanding sign for Dorsey & Kiger Realtors. She also added that the sign would be placed on a support post in front of the bay window in the existing landscaped area between the window and the sidewalk.
Mr. Kiger was not present for questions.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment. There was none. The public portion was closed.
No discussion ensued.
T. Shamberger made a motion to accept the findings of fact as amended to add that the proposed sign was not lighted; seconded by N. Iannone. Motion approved unanimously.
J. Rockis made a motion to approve the application as presented, seconded by T. Shamberger. Motion approved unanimously.
F02-05 & CU02-13/
nTelos / 456 Spruce Street:
Request by nTelos for façade review and conditional use approval to
install wireless telecommunications antennas and equipment in and on an
existing structure in the B-4 District at 456 Spruce Street. Tax Map #26 Parcel #249; a B-4, General
Business District.
L. Martin read the staff report. She stated that nTelos would like to install a wireless
telecommunications antenna and equipment on the site of the First Presbyterian Church
on Spruce Street, using “stealth antenna” technologies by housing it within the steeple of
the church. She also added that the cabling for the antenna will run partially on the
outside of the building, and will be placed within metal conduit that is painted to match the building. L. Martin also stated that the cabling would lead to an external equipment pad, which will be located and confined in a decorative fenced area behind the church with ample landscaping to further screen the equipment pad.
J. Wood stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, a representative from the adjacent Veterans of Foreign Wars had concerns that video poker machines inside their building would suffer from electronic interference. It was determined at that meeting that the Radio Frequency Engineer for nTelos would perform a thorough analysis and supply that information to the VFW. If that analysis indicated possible interference, the FCC would be notified.
John Campbell, nTelos representative, presented the request to the
Board.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment.
There was none. The public
portion was closed.
N. Iannone made a motion to accept the findings of fact as written by
the applicant, seconded by J. Rockis.
Motion approved unanimously.
T. Shamberger made a motion to approve the request as presented,
seconded by J. Rockis. Motion approved
unanimously.
V02-05 / White / Richwood & Woodridge:
Request by Frank White for variance approval from Table 2,Residential
Development Standards, minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard
setback for property located at the corner of Richwood Avenue and Woodridge Street. Tax Map #24 Parcel 121; an R-1A,
Single-family Residential District.
J. Wood read the staff report. He stated that Mr. White would like a variance from the minimum front yard and one side yard setback in order to construct a house. He added that a side yard variance (Eastern side of property) of three feet and a front yard variance of fifteen (15) feet had been requested. He also added that the lot is approximately 2,565 square feet in size, which is only 64% of the required lot size of 4,000 square feet.
J. Wood stated that he is not comfortable granting a 3-foot side variance for the entire length of the Woodridge side of the property, but could support such a variance for a partial length of that property line, which would grant side setback relief for approximately the rear 15 feet of the proposed structure. He presented sketches he had prepared illustrating various setback options.
Frank White presented his request to the Board.
Discussion ensued on the lot size. J. Wood stated that the lot was a substandard, existing lot of record, which would not be permitted to be created under current standards.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment.
Arthur Hall, 217 Woodridge, adjacent property owner, read a letter in opposition of the request. He stated that his house was built according to current setback rules, and didn’t believe that a variance should be granted to adjacent property. He also expressed concern about the ability of the applicant to park cars on the property.
Steve Lockwood, 1333 Richwood Avenue, spoke in opposition of the request.
Mr. White stated that he intends to put the driveway at the rear of the property.
R. Hawkins closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
J. Wood urged the board to consider the potential ramifications of denying a variance. He stated that if the board was unwilling to grant a variance, then the property would have no viable use; and that the city would be in a position of having “taken” the property via a legislative taking. He added that if a complete taking occurs, the city would be required to compensate the property owner for the loss. He stated that the city must allow some reasonable use of the property, and that one could fairly debate what constitutes “reasonable.” But he stated that allowing no use of the property, via refusal to grant some relief in development standards, would be a compensable taking.
The Findings of Fact were read and all found in the positive.
J. Rockis made a motion to approve the request as presented, seconded by R. Hawkins. Motion approved 3-1; N. Iannone cast the dissenting vote. J. Wood reminded the audience that any decision of the BZA could be appealed to the Circuit Court within 30 days.
BA02-01 / Romanoli: An Administrative Appeal filed by Nicholas
Romanoli to appeal a decision made by the Planning Director that the PRO,
Professional, Residential, and Office District, does not permit hair or tanning
studios/salons or a restaurant business.
L. Martin read the staff report. She stated Mr. Romanoli is appealing a decision made by the Planning Director that the PRO, Professional, Residential, and Office District, does not permit hair or tanning studios/salons or a restaurant business. She added that the intent of the PRO district is “to provide a suitable environment for certain types of uses, primarily professional and office in character, that can be located adjacent to residential uses without undue harmful effects to such residential uses.” She also stated that the ordinance classifies barbers, tattoo artists, cosmetologists, etc. as ‘personal services’, and that the first zoning district that permits the aforementioned is the B-1 district.
Nicholas Romanoli presented the request to the Board. He presented a letter from the Director of Cosmetology and from the West Virginia Attorney General, both affirming that barbers are licensed by the state and are thus deemed to be “professionals.” He stated that because of this, to deny him permission to locate in the PRO district is tantamount to the city saying that he wasn’t a professional.
Discussion ensued on the training and education of barbers cosmetologists. J. Wood added that the Ordinance states that barbers and cosmetologist are described as personal services, which are permitted in the B-1 District. He also rejected Mr. Romanoli’s premise that the city does not consider barbers to be professional; stating that it is common for zoning ordinances to distinguish, via assignment to certain districts and not others, between differing types of professions, or differing types of retail, etc.
R. Hawkins asked for public comment.
Don Trevorrow, 512 Milford, opposed any interpretation that would allow barbers to be added to the list of permitted uses in the PRO District.
Discussion ensued on land use classification and hair styling as a home occupation.
Jim Prete, 1136 Munsey, questioned if the subject area could be considered a PRO District.
N. Iannone added that these individuals or businesses should be looked at from a land-use and traffic intensity standpoint, and not just on professional licensing by the State. It was stated that barbers and cosmetologists should be allowed in a PRO, but not other businesses that are considered personal services.
J. Wood suggested that if it is deemed desirable for all state licensed individuals to be treated the same in the zoning ordinance, the proper way to address the issue would be with an ordinance amendment, not an administrative appeal.
N. Iannone made a motion overturn the decision made by the Planning Director, therefore
stating that barbers and cosmetologists, but not tanning salons and restaurants, are permitted in the PRO District. Motion seconded by J. Rockis. Motion approved 3-1; T. Shamberger cast the dissenting vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Public Comments
Staff Comments
ADJOURNMENT