MORGANTOWN – Waitman Street residents Carolyn Wojcik and Justin Wojcik are petitioning the Monongalia County Circuit Court to review and reverse the December decision of the Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals regarding a West Virginia Sober Living facility at 201 Waitman Street.
In late September, WVSL came before the BZA seeking variance relief tied to off-street parking for a group residential facility at the address.
While the city’s planning and zoning code does allow such uses in single-family residential zoning districts by right, it requires minimum off-street parking equal to one space per employee and one space per five residents.
In this case, the facility would have eight residents, one of whom would serve in a leadership role, meaning three parking spaces would be needed. The property has no capacity for off-street parking.
The BZA denied the request, explaining the variance would adversely affect public health, safety or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents due to increased congestion and activity in a neighborhood already dealing with issues of density and congestion.
An applicant has 30 days to appeal a BZA decision in circuit court. No appeal was raised by WVSL following the BZA ruling.
Three months later, the matter was back before the BZA, rebranded as a request for “reasonable accommodation” regarding parking requirements under the federal Fair Housing Act, which recognizes recovery from substance abuse disorder as a covered condition.
WVSL pointed out that waiving off-street parking requirements in favor of on-street passes is already common practice for the city in that neighborhood and others.
The BZA granted the request.
In the Feb. 25 filing seeking court review, legal counsel for the Wojciks argues, among other points, that the resubmission was improper and prohibited by city code, which sets parameters for how quickly a variance can be back before the board.
According to city code, “In the case where a variance is denied by the board, said application shall not be eligible for re-submittal for one year from the date of said denial. A new application must be, in the opinion of the Board of Zoning Appeals, substantially different from the application denied, or conditions must have substantially changed for the new proposal to be eligible for consideration within one year …”
The request for court review states there was no evidence provided indicating substantial changes to the property, nor was any discussion held as part of either hearing that the initial application for variance relief had been improperly submitted or reviewed.
“But despite that prohibition, West Virginia Sober Living appears to have simply re-titled its request for a variance as a ‘request for reasonable accommodation’ and sought the exact same relief in an attempt to circumvent local law,” the filing states, questioning how the BZA could find the accommodation request “reasonable and necessary to provide equal housing opportunity” after previously denying variance relief to the same end citing adverse impacts to public health, safety and the rights of adjacent property owners.
