Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Consolidation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morgantown planning staff wins approval to consolidate three parcels; variance for accessory structure height still required
Summary
The Morgantown Planning Commission approved an applicant’s request to consolidate three parcels into one lot, subject to staff conditions including that the owner seek a height variance for a rear accessory structure from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The Morgantown Planning Commission voted to approve an application to consolidate three parcels into a single lot, with the condition that the property owner seek variance relief for the height of an accessory structure.
Staff told the commission the application would consolidate three parcels (including parcels numbered 388387 and 830,533) so that the principal structure fronting Maple would remain the primary residence and the structure in the rear yard would become an accessory structure. Staff recommended approval “with the conditions listed in your packet, which includes seeking variance relief from the board of zoning appeals for the height of the new accessory structure in the rear yard,” Planning staff (Ricky) said.
Why it matters: The consolidation would change the zoning status of an existing outbuilding and require the owner to obtain a height variance because the accessory structure exceeds the district’s maximum height recommendation.
The applicant’s representative described the rear structure as never occupied as a residence and used only for storage and as a garage. Planning staff (Ricky) said, “it was never occupied as a residence. It's only been used really, for storage and for a garage.” Staff confirmed setbacks meet code “assuming the variance,” and added the height is the only nonconforming item staff identified.
Commission discussion focused on what the rear building contains and the magnitude of the height variance. One commissioner asked whether the building is a garage with storage above or a house with an attached garage; the applicant’s representative replied there is “no kitchen or anything inside the property.” Planning staff quantified the variance question: “The maximum requirement or height requirement is 18. I believe this is 20 or 22 foot tall. So it's it's it's both, but they still need to seek that.”
A motion to approve the consolidation subject to staff conditions passed. Commissioners voiced both ayes and nays during roll call; the commission chair declared the item approved and noted the applicant must pursue the variance with the Board of Zoning Appeals before the accessory structure’s height issue is resolved.
The approval is conditioned on the items listed in the staff packet; staff specifically identified seeking variance relief for the accessory structure’s height as a requirement. The commission did not adopt any other revisions to zoning or development standards as part of this action.
The commission moved on to the next agenda item after approval.
Votes at a glance: Motion to approve lot consolidation subject to staff conditions (including seeking a height variance) — outcome: approved (majority yes, two commissioners recorded as dissenting).
