Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Exception Two Family topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants special exception to let 204 North Red Hill Road operate as two‑family dwelling
Summary
The Martinsburg Board of Zoning Appeals on March 4 approved a special exception allowing 204 North Red Hill Road to operate as a two‑family dwelling in the Suburban Residential district.
Get email alerts on the Special Exception Two Family topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Martinsburg Board of Zoning Appeals on March 4 approved a special exception allowing 204 North Red Hill Road to be used as a two‑family dwelling in the Suburban Residential (SR1) district.
Tina Walker, the applicant, told the board she purchased the property in February 2018, saying it had previously functioned as a duplex and that she had converted it to a single‑family residence to care for family members. Walker said she wants to return the house to two units so she can rent the upstairs while living on the main floor to help care for relatives.
Planning staff reported records showing the property operated as a two‑family rental in 2016–2017, and a rental housing inspector had inspected the house and reported it was in a condition suitable to separate into two units. Staff also flagged a potential error in the ordinance text: a supplemental regulation that reads as a maximum lot size of 10,000 square feet for a two‑family dwelling, which staff and the planning director read as likely intended to be a minimum, given the SR1 district minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet.
Several members of the public spoke. Ken Collinson (511 Lincoln Drive) asked the board to condition any approval on owner occupancy to keep rentals from proliferating in a single‑family neighborhood. Barbara Bertina (116 North Tennessee Avenue) said a two‑family dwelling is “not in harmony with the comprehensive plan” and urged denial unless the board required owner occupancy as a condition.
Board members discussed those concerns and considered a motion to approve the special exception with an owner‑occupancy stipulation; that motion failed. A subsequent motion to approve the special exception without an owner‑occupancy condition carried. The board found the application met the statutory points for a special exception, including compatibility with the zoning district, adequate utilities and parking (staff noted the requirement for four parking spaces), and lack of an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The board advised Walker that the city will send a written decision within 30 days and that the decision can be appealed to circuit court within 30 days of the notice.
The approval allows the property to be used as a two‑family dwelling while Walker owns it; the board did not place an automatic reversion requirement on sale. The board noted that any future owner seeking to convert the property again would need to apply for whatever approvals are required at that time.
