Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Board continues fraternity conditional‑use and multiple parking‑variance cases to next regular meeting

September 18, 2025 | Morgantown, Monongalia County, West Virginia


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board continues fraternity conditional‑use and multiple parking‑variance cases to next regular meeting
The City of Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals continued several agenda items to the next regular meeting, including a conditional‑use request to reestablish a fraternity house at 709 High Street and multiple parking‑variance applications where applicants or sufficient technical information were not present.

On the conditional‑use matter (case C0N25‑070, applicant James Morrison for 709 High Street), planning staff said the property had historically housed a fraternity and that the applicant seeks a certificate of occupancy for fraternity use in an R‑2 district. Staff reported no objection and recommended a standard condition that any future site modifications comply with the zoning code. The board continued the matter because no representative for the applicant attended and members wanted more information about charters, occupancy and potential traffic impacts.

Board members moved to continue the case to the next regular meeting; the motion carried with a second.

The board also continued multiple off‑street parking variance requests for residential parcels: a remodeling/remodel use at 731 Wells Street (John Espinosa), where steep topography and grading were cited as limiting the site’s ability to add two off‑street spaces; and a multifamily parcel where the applicant sought relief for three spaces but could provide only one. Planning staff said historical use suggested these parcels had been occupied without meeting modern parking standards and that detailed site plans and a representative were needed for proper review. Public participants raised neighborhood parking concerns during the hearing but the absence of applicants prevented full fact‑finding.

For each continued item the board instructed planning staff to notify applicants of required supplemental materials and to place the items on the next regular meeting agenda.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee