[00:00:03]
OKAY.WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
CAN I GET A ROLL CALL PLEASE? MARY DIER? PRESENT.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
OKAY.WE GOT APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 5TH, 2025.
'CAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
IF EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT AND READ AHEAD, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COULD THEY TURN THEIR MICROPHONES ON PLEASE? NO.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
[5. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS]
BUSINESS.WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.
PROJECT NUMBER 2025 DASH 83 DASH V.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON DELMAR ORCHARD ROAD IN IDENTIFIED ON BERKELEY COUNTY TAX MAP EIGHT AS PARCEL 61.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3.08, FIGURE THREE DASH NINE F1 TO ALLOW FOR FRONT PARKING IN MUC DASH THREE.
TREVOR LLOYD IS THE APPLICANT.
WHO IS TREVOR LLOYD, IF YOU WILL COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, 5 74 NEY DRIVE, MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA.
ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE THAT'S GONNA BE SPEAKING TONIGHT? YES.
IF YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, CAN I SWEAR YOU IN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE INFORMATION YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
IF YOU CAN GIVE US A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
SO, UM, THIS IS A, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, UH, ON THE ADDRESS, UM, ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND, UH, FOR THE TOWN HOMES.
UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO DO ONE STREET, UM, WITH TOWN HOMES ON BOTH SIDES.
I CAN SEE UP THERE ON THE, ON THERE.
AND, UM, THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN FOR UC THREE STATES THAT THERE HAS TO BE YOU, YOU CAN ONLY ACCESS PARKING FROM THE REAR.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THOUGH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE BUILDING TWO ROADS AND SANDWICHING SANDWICHING THE TOWN HOMES IN BETWEEN TWO FULL ROADS.
IT WOULD ALSO PUT A VEHICULAR TRAFFIC INTO PEOPLE'S, YOU KNOW, BACKYARDS THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING.
UM, SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE JUST BUILD THE ONE ROAD AND BUILD, PUT, UH, DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT, UM, AND THE STANDARD, YOU KNOW, STANDARD CONFIGURATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ARE THEY GONNA BE ALLOWED TO PARK ON THE, ON THE ROAD AS OPPOSED TO ONLY IN THE DRIVEWAY? OR IS THAT GONNA NOT GONNA BE A STIPULATION? OH, NO, THE, THIS WILL NOT BE, THERE WON'T, UH, THERE WON'T BE ANY STREET PARKING.
IT'LL JUST BE IN THE DRIVEWAY.
IS THIS A, AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE DEVELOPER? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED AND THE, AND, AND THE ORDINANCE FOR PARKING IN THE REAR, RIGHT? NO.
UM, THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS MORE OF A BUILDING EFFICIENCY, UM, REQUEST.
UH, THE, AND ALSO THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.
SO THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, UM, INDICATES, AND I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, BUT IT INDICATES THAT, UH, IT WAS WRITTEN FOR A CITY THAT HAD ALLEYS.
AND IF YOU HAVE AN ALLEY, THEN YOU SHOULD ACCESS THE PARKING FROM THAT ALLEY.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS IS A NEW, THIS IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT.
SO COULD IT BE ENGINEERED TO HAVE ALLEYS? YEAH.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHAT, THAT WAS MY, UH, PREVIOUS POINT.
SO YES, I COULD, I, I STILL HAVE TO DO A STREET IN FRONT.
AND THEN IF I WERE TO PUT A STREET IN THE BACK, THAT WOULD BE TWO PARALLEL STREETS SERVING THE SAME PROPERTIES.
THAT INCREASES, THAT DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA, WHICH PUTS A BURDEN ON OUR, YOU KNOW, UH, MORE OF A BURDEN ON THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR, YOU KNOW, THE AREA.
SO WE'RE DOING TWICE AS MUCH PAVEMENT AND INSTEAD OF BACKYARDS BACKING UP INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S EXISTING BACKYARDS, NOW WE HAVE A BUNCH OF CARS.
SO WE'D HAVE A BUNCH OF CARS BACK BEHIND THE UNITS AND A BUNCH OF CARS ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE UNITS.
IF THERE'S NO STREET PARKING IN FRONT OF THE UNITS, WHY WOULD THERE BE CARS IN FRONT OF THE UNITS DRIVING? JUST DRIVING ON THE, THE ROAD? OH, YOU MEAN JUST FOR ACCESS ONLY? YEAH.
[00:05:01]
QUESTIONS? NOT CURRENTLY.WE'LL MOVE ON TO STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE FIGURE THREE DASH NINE MU C3 F1 TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE FRONT.
THIS PLAN IS FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION AT THE END OF LEGATO DRIVE.
THE PLAN INCLUDES 132 TOWN HOME UNITS, NINE QUADPLEX APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN 70 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
ON A SEPARATE PARCEL, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN EXTENSION OF LEGATO DRIVE TO ACCESS THE SUBDIVISION AND WOULD LIKE RELIEF FROM CONSTRUCTING A REAR ACCESS TO EACH TOWN HOME UNIT.
TOWNHOUSES ARE A BY RIGHT USE IN THE MU C3 ZONING DISTRICT AND NORMALLY HAVE GARAGES IN THE FRONT ACCESSING OFF THE STREET, CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITIONAL REAR ACCESS WOULD INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA AND THE GARAGE WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSES BY ORDINANCE IS, IS 2.0 SPACES PER UNIT.
SO WOULD IT STILL ALLOW THE PROPER, UH, IMPERVIOUS, THE PROPER PERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE LOT? SO IF, IF THEY HAD YOU PUT, UM, STREETS IN THE BACK OF THE TOWNHOUSES? 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE, THE, THE SIZES OF THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN ONLY EXCEED SO MUCH WITH BUILDING IMPER AND IMPERVIOUS AREA.
YEAH, BUT THE, THE ALLEY WOULD BE IN ITS OWN RIGHT AWAY, SO IT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE LOT.
BUT YOU WOULD HAVE CARS, BUT IT WOULD DOWNSIZE THE LOTS.
SO WOULD THE HOUSES THEN EXCEED THE PERCENTAGE ALLOWED ON THE LOT? I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT FOOTPRINT OF, OF THE TOWN HOME.
UH, WHAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, LIKE WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE TOWNHOUSES? ARE THEY 20 BY 40? 20? I THINK I HAVE 20 BY 40, UM, DRAWN HERE THERE, 20 BY 40, VERY BIG.
SO I THINK THAT'S MY BIGGEST QUESTION.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO PUT ALLEYS IN THE BACK IS THAT THAT'S TAKEN AWAY FROM PERVIOUS, UH, LAND, WHICH I KNOW THE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE STIPULATES HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS CAN BE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AS WELL.
AND I DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOWED IS 80% MAXIMUM.
AND WITHOUT AN ALTERNATIVE FOR US TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH ALLEYWAYS BUILT, BUILT INTO IT, WOULD WE'D BE KIND OF, I GUESS GUESSING A LITTLE BIT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH LEFT FOR YEAH, MY THOUGHT IS, UM, IT, OKAY, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, IT DOES SEEM TO INDICATE THAT, I MEAN, IT, IT REALLY SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE ALLEYS, IF THERE IS AN EXISTING ALLEY, YOU WOULD USE AN EXISTING ALLEY.
IT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND MY THOUGHT IS, OKAY, IF I LIVED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD FIND IT, IT WOULD SEEM ODD TO ME THAT THERE IS A ROAD IN FRONT AND THEN THERE'S A ROAD IN BACK.
I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU WERE NEEDLESSLY ADDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, UM, AND ALSO HAVING A ROAD IN THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTY, UM, AS IF YOU, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE OPTION TO BACK UP TO ANOTHER PROPERTY.
I'M THINKING, UH, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WOULD BE, OH, I'D RATHER HAVE A BACKYARD AS OPPOSED TO ANOTHER ROAD BEHIND ME.
UM, AND WHEN YOU HAVE, I'M NOT TO SAY ANY, NOT, I'M NOT AGAINST ALLEYS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WHEN YOU DO HAVE KIND OF A HIDDEN ROAD IN BETWEEN BACKYARDS, A PARTICULARLY LONG NARROW, UM, IT CAN LEAD TO SOME ISSUES.
SO I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, PUTTING THAT ALLEY IN, UM, LEAVING THE NOT HAVING AN ALLEY WOULD BE A BETTER DEVELOPMENT THAN PUTTING AN ALLEY IN.
BUT THAT IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION.
KIM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR REPORT.
YOUR REPORT SAYS THAT HE WENT, IF HE REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SAYS THAT THERE HAS TO BE REAR ENTRANCE TO THE, TO THE UNIT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS
[00:10:01]
THE GARAGES? NO, BECAUSE THE GARAGES WOULD BE IN THE FRONT OF THE UNIT.I MEAN, WELL, I MEAN IT WOULD BE, I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU REDESIGN IT SO THAT THE GARAGE IS FACING THE BACK.
WELL, YES, BUT THE UNITS, BUT THE UNITS HE'S PROPOSING THE GARAGES ARE IN THE FRONT.
BUT NORMALLY THE BUT IF THEY HAD TO, NORMALLY GARAGES ARE NOT IN, IN IN TOWN HOMES NORMALLY.
NORMALLY THE GARAGES ARE NOT IN THE BACK.
UNLESS THERE'S REAR ACCESS ALL WAY TO IT.
UNLESS AN ORDINANCE SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE RIGHT.
BUT THE NOR IT SEEMS LIKE THE WAY YOU'VE WRITTEN THE REPORT, I MEAN, I IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REDESIGN THE HOME YES.
SO THAT THE GARAGES WOULD FACE REAR.
IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT WE PUT THE REQUIRE THE BACK ROAD THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE, EVEN IF IT WAS ANGLED CORRECTLY, IT WOULDN'T.
I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CURRENTLY? NO.
WE WILL, UH, OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
OH, OPPOSED, ARE YOU IN FAVOR? UM, I'M NOT REALLY OPPOSED.
YOU'RE NOT? OKAY, THEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I WAS ABOUT TO SAY OPPOSED, BUT GO AHEAD,
YEAH, SO I, I DON'T HAVE A, A DOG IN THIS FIGHT NECESSARILY.
UM, UH, MY NAME IS, UH, BLAKE MASSEY.
I'M A REGISTERED ARCHITECT IN WEST VIRGINIA, AND I ACTUALLY AM A HOMEOWNER ON LEGATO DRIVE.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS REAL QUICK FOR THE RECORD? UH, FOUR 40 LEGATO DRIVE.
UM, SO MY ONLY QUESTIONS WOULD BE, UM, THAT LEGATO DRIVE AS IT EXISTS NOW IS ONLY REALLY SUITABLE FOR ONE CAR, UM, IN TERMS OF WIDTH.
SO, UH, PART OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE WIDENING LEGATO DRIVE FOR TWO VEHICLES TO BYPASS EACH OTHER.
UM, SO HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED? IS LODO DRIVE A PUBLIC ROAD THAT WOULD, THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC FUNDS? UM, AND THEN KIND OF SECONDING THAT? I'M NOT SURE WHO THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS PROPOSED LAND IS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOWN HOMES TO THE WEST, BUT THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING DRIVE, UM, KIND OF, UM, DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF WHERE THE ACCESS IS FROM LEGATO.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S, UM, MORE ECONOMICAL JUST TO CONNECT TO THAT EXISTING ROAD.
UM, THOSE ARE JUST KIND OF QUESTIONS AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES NEAR THE AREA AND IS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
UM, AND THEN, YEAH, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE, THE, THE TOWN HOME, THE GARAGE SITUATION IN THE FRONT, IT SEEMS LIKE A, A PART OF THE ZONING THAT'S WRITTEN FOR A MORE URBAN CONTEXT WHERE THIS AREA OF MARTINSBURG IS REALLY MUCH MORE SUBURBAN AND IS NOT, UM, AN URBAN KIND OF HISTORICAL DOWNTOWN AREA.
SO, UM, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY, UM, COMMONLY DONE WHERE THE GARAGES ARE IN THE FRONT AND, UM, YEAH, THE DRIVEWAY'S THERE IN THE FRONT OF THE TOWN HOME.
SO, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC PORTION, SO GIMME A SECOND.
ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
LET THE RECORD SHOW NOBODY COMING FORWARD.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THE PUBLIC PORTION IS NOW CLOSED.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU CAN COME UP SURE.
UH, YES, THE GENTLEMAN BROUGHT UP A VERY GOOD POINT.
LEGATO DRIVE CURRENTLY IS VERY NARROW.
HOWEVER, I, HOWEVER, UM, IT DOES POSSESS A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
THE WIDENING OF THAT STREET WOULD BE FULLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.
AND THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT BE PUBLIC FUNDS.
WE WOULD HAVE TO IMPROVE THAT ROAD TO ACCEPT THE, UM, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC.
AND THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ON US TO DO THAT.
AND IT WILL, AND THE NEW ROAD WILL FIT WITHIN THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THE ACCESS THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE IT.
IT APPEARS JUST DRIVING AND JUST LOOKING, IF YOU WERE TO STAND OUT THERE AND LOOK AND LOOK AT A MAP, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A RIGHT OF WAY OR A DRIVEWAY THAT COMES DOWN TO WHERE THE GENTLEMAN, UM, SAID, WHERE IT ALREADY, IT LOOKS LIKE AN EXISTING ACCESS, THE REALITY OF IT AND, AND THE, AND THE LEGAL SENSE OF IT.
WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THERE.
OUR RIGHT OF WAY GOES THROUGH LEGATO, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE FORCED TO TAKE THE
[00:15:01]
ROAD.ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD FOR APPLICANT OR STAFF? NOPE.
SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE POINTS FOR VARIANCE BEFORE WE CAN GRANT THE VARIANCE AND LET ME GET THOSE OUT REAL QUICK.
A, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE RIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR RESIDENCE.
IT 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.
AND THAT MY RATIONALE, MY RATIONALE FOR THAT WOULD BE THAT THIS IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THERE IS NO EXISTING ALLEY, THERE'S NO EXISTING ALLEY TO UTILIZE AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THEN CREATE ANOTHER ALLEY TO CREATE MORE IMPERVIOUS.
THE THE WAY I SEE IT IS BECAUSE IT'S NEW.
I MEAN, AT ONE, WHEN I FIRST GLANCED AT THE LAYOUT, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GOING FOR MAXIMUM DENSITY.
THEY'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE AS MANY IN THERE AS POSSIBLE, AND THEY'RE SEEKING OUR APPROVAL ON A VARIANCE, UH, FOR EFFICIENCY ONLY.
I'M NOT, I'M JUST, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? YOU SEEMED LIKE YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.
WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT, SO WE MAY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING MEMBERS TO SAY THAT IT IS OR ISN'T.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARISING FROM THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEN GIVE RISE TO THE FACT THAT THEY NEED A VARIANCE FROM THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO EXISTING IN THESE PROPERTY? BUT YOU KNOW THAT THE JOB OF THE BOARD IS TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT CREATED BY THE PERSON ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE.
MAKE SENSE? THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT WE NEED TO GET ON THE RECORD THE VOTE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A FULL BOARD.
SO NO ALTERNATES ARE VOTING ERODING.
SO I GUESS WE HAVE TO DO A ROLL CALL.
OKAY? SO IT 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.
SHERRY PRASAD, YES, THERE WASN'T ONE.
I JUST THINK IT'S AWFUL CROWDED, BUT I'LL GO WITH THE MAJORITY.
MY, MY EAR IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT USED TO BE.
I THOUGHT I HEARD DISAGREEMENT.
IT WOULD ELIMINATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND PERMIT A REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
BRENDA CASABONA? UM, I, I WOULD SAY YES.
MARY, I AGREE IT WILL ALLOW THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, IF THEY MEET ALL THE CRITERIA, THEN THERE'S ONLY ONE, WELL, THERE'S ONE OF TWO MOTIONS TO BE MADE.
ONE IS TO APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED OR ONE TO APPROVE IT, UH, WITH CONDITIONS.
[00:20:01]
SO THAT'S THE NEXT STEP.ALRIGHT, SO, UM, WE'VE WENT THROUGH ALL THE POINTS.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PROJECT 20 25 83 DASH V OF VARIANCE, UH, PROPERTY LOCATED ON DELMAR ORCHARD ROAD AND IDENTIFIED ON BERKELEY COUNTY TAX MAP EIGHT AS PARTIAL 61.
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3.08, FIGURE THREE DASH NINE F1 TO ALLOW FOR FRONT PARKING IN MUC DASH THREE DIS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, WE SHOULD DO A ROLL CALL.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS.
OKAY, PROJECT NUMBER 2025 DASH 84 DASH V VARIANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2,500 HOSPITAL DRIVE AND IDENTIFIED ON BERKELEY COUNTY TAX MAP FOUR E AS PARCEL ONE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 3.09, FIGURE THREE DASH 10 B TO EXCEED THE BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF STORIES AND HEIGHT OF EACH FLOOR.
GREENWAY ENGINEERING IS THE APPLICANT.
IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
YES, I'M RANDY KEPLER OF GREENWAY ENGINEERING AT 1 51 WINDY HILL LANE, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA.
YOU THE ONLY ONE SPEAKING TONIGHT? I AM.
JUST MAKING SURE THEN RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND CAN I SWEAR YOU IN? HOLD ON.
RAISE YOUR RIGHT TO GIVE US THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT YOUR TRUTH.
ALRIGHT, NOW YOU CAN GIVE US A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
UH, GREEN ENGINEERING IS WORKING WITH BERKELEY MEDICAL CENTER TO DO A, UM, A BUILDING ADDITION, UH, UM, A BED TOWER ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOS HOSPITAL FACILITY.
AND IN DOING THAT, UH, WE ARE REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES.
UH, I BELIEVE YOU READ THEM OUT ALREADY.
UH, ONE IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
UM, THE SECOND IS, UH, FLOOR HEIGHT.
THE THIRD IS THE NUMBER OF FLOORS.
NOW THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 111 FEET, EIGHT FLOORS.
UM, BACK IN THE DAY IN THE SIXTIES WHEN THE HOSPITAL WAS BUILT, DIFFERENT DESIGN STANDARDS, DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU NEED FOR FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT AND THE NUMBER OF FLOORS, UH, ALLOWED FOR NARROWER FLOORS, UH, TIGHTER CONDITIONS.
UH, CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR A HOSPITAL TOP, UH, TOP OF THE LINE HOSPITAL FACILITY.
UH, YOU NEED TO HAVE, UH, BIGGER CEILING HEIGHTS, UH, FOR AIRFLOW, FOR, UM, EQUIPMENT, FOR AIR HANDLING, ALL THAT KIND OF THING.
UH, THERE'S A, UH, FLOOR TO CEILING ELEVATION AND THEN THERE'S AN ELEVATION, A SECTION ABOUT THREE FEET FROM THE CEILING TO THE FLOOR THAT HAS, UH, STEEL STRUCTURES, HAS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, UH, VENTILATION, ALL THAT KIND OF THING.
SO, UH, WE, WE COULDN'T DESIGN THE BUILDING TO MATCH THE FLOOR TO FOUR ELEVATION.
UM, SO WE'VE GOTTA HAVE BIGGER THAN WHAT IS IN THE CODE.
UM, THE SECOND VARIANCE IS THE, UM, NUMBER OF FLOORS.
WE HAVE FIVE FLOORS, INCLUDING A MECHANICAL BUILDING UP ON TOP.
UM, THE FIRST FLOOR, BECAUSE OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE, UH, WE HAD TO ELEVATE THE, THE FLOORS WHERE THE BEDS ARE.
UH, WE HAVE A MECHANICAL ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THEN WE HAVE A DRIVE UNDERNEATH IT SO WE CAN GET ACCESS TO THE FRONT DOOR, UM, AND THEN DRIVE THROUGH.
SO WE HAVE A, A DRIVEWAY PER SE UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING, AND THEN THE FOUR FLOORS ABOVE THAT.
UM, AND THEN THE THIRD ONE'S THE BUILDING HEIGHT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE FLOOR ELEVATIONS.
UH, AND TO GET THE FOUR FLOORS OF BEDS IN, UH, WE HAD TO GO TO, IT'S 101 FEET, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UH, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE EXISTING FACILITY.
SO, UM, WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT OF THE FACILITY THERE.
A ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOPE.
BRENDA, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE THINKING OKAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES PURSUANT TO MARTINSBURG ZONING ORDINANCE FIGURE THREE DASH NINE
[00:25:01]
MIN DASH THREE F1 TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 102 FEET, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FLOORS TO BE SIX, AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM FLOOR TO STEEL TO BE 16 FEET FIVE INCHES.THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF A PARKING LOT AND TWO PATIENT BED TOWERS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, ROADS, UTILITIES, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
A SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND IS UNDER REVIEW.
THE PLAN IS IN TUNE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND CITY FACILITIES TO MEET CURRENT NEEDS AND PROJECTED NEEDS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC PORTION.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
YES, MY NAME'S DR. RICHARD LRA, 900 HONEYSUCKLE DRIVE, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA 2 5 4 0 1.
WILL THIS BUILDING HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE FLIGHT PATH OF, UH, MEDEVAC, UH, HELICOPTERS? HE SAID IT WAS GONNA BE THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE OTHER BUILDING, SO I WOULD SAY NO.
BECAUSE I LIVE, RIGHT, UH, I LIVE RIGHT BEHIND THE, UH, WHERE THE HELICOPTER PAD IS RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE, AND SOMETIMES THEY COME IN FROM EITHER THE SOUTH OR THE NORTH, WHICH IS FINE.
SOMETIMES THEY FLY OVER THE HOUSES.
NOW IS THAT, IS THAT AN FAA VIOLATION OR FAA ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN OR DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
I, I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT.
SO AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR FLIGHT PATH NORTH OR SOUTH INGRESS AND EGRESS YOU, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN A SITE PLAN, NOT THE MARRIAGE BECAUSE I, I WAS ON STAFF THERE FOR 24 YEARS AND I WAS TALKING TO, UH, THERESA MCCABE ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND SHE DID MENTION, MENTION IT TO THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF THE, UH, ER AND THAT THEY KIND OF CONTROLLED THE FLIGHT OVER THE, THE EXISTING HOUSES THERE, WHICH IS, UH, MUCH APPRECIATED BECAUSE I JUST PUT A NEW ROOF ON MY HOUSE FOR THE, AT THE COST OF $25,000 AND I DON'T WANT THE DOWNDRAFT FROM THE ROTOR BLADES TO, UH, CAUSE ANY PROBLEM WITH MY ROOFING.
ANYBODY ELSE? WISHING, WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, LET THE RECORDS SHOW NOBODY COMING FORWARD.
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE APPLICANT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THE PUBLIC PORTION IS NOW CLOSED.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS THAT? YOU CAN COME UP AND ADDRESS THAT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS ABOUT FAA REGULATIONS ABOUT WHAT CAN AND CAN'T HAPPEN, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING TOWERS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, SO IT'S CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY THAN IT IS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION.
THE BUILDING'S GONNA BE LOWER AND IS IN THE SAME GENERAL PROXIMITY OF THE EXISTING FACILITY.
SO ANY HELICOPTERS COMING IN AREN'T GONNA BE AFFECTED BY IT.
AND REALLY THE EXISTING, EXISTING BUILDING THAT THE TOWER THAT'S THERE NOW IS IN EFFECT THE SAME FOOTPRINT OR THE SAME HEIGHT AND, UH, UH, AREA THAT WOULD BE IN EFFECT FOR, UH, UM, HELICOPTER.
SO FLYING IN FROM THE SOUTH OR FLYING IN FROM THE NORTH, AGAIN, IT'S ON THE OTHER, IT'S ON THE WEST SIDE, SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE AN IMPACT.
AND WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE TOWER.
AND SO IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT, UM, ANY OF THOSE FLIGHT PATHS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? NOPE.
NOBODY HAVING ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO MEET THE SAME VARIANCE, UH, JUSTIFICATION.
SO NUMBER, UH, NUMBER LETTER A, IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE RIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR RESIDENT.
IT 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.
IT WOULD ELIMINATE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND PERMIT A REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
IT WILL ALLOW THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.
OKAY, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR THE UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, INC.
PROJECT 2 0 2 5 DASH 84 DASH V TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 102 FEET, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FLOORS TO BE SIX AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM
[00:30:01]
FLOOR TO STEEL TO BE 16 FEET FIVE INCHES.DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
ALL IN FAVOR? SIGN A F BY SAYING AYE.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION ITEMS. NO OTHER, OTHER, OTHER BUSINESS.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.