The Morgantown Planning Commission voted to forward a zoning map amendment (MAP 2588) for 452 — filed by Jacob Godfrey and Edgar Babylonia — to City Council with a recommendation of approval after staff said the request is consistent with the city’s Land Use Management Plan.

The request is significant to the neighborhood and the city because the applicant seeks to return an existing, pre‑existing nonconforming structure to its historic multi‑family use, which proponents said will add affordable infill housing near a school bus stop and repair a long‑vacant nuisance property.

Planning staff described the site and surrounding zoning, noting much of the neighborhood is zoned R1A but contains multiple preexisting two‑family and multifamily structures. Staff said the Land Use Management Plan identifies the location as medium‑intensity residential, a category that can include single‑family, two‑family and multi‑family at a neighborhood scale.

Applicant Jacob Godfrey (identified in the agenda as the applicant) told commissioners the building has been vacant for more than 10 years, suffered vandalism and drug use, and that he has invested in repairs including new windows, new HVAC and new utilities. Godfrey said the structure was built as a three‑plex with three separate water meters and that his goal is to provide affordable housing. He said the middle and top units are nearly ready and estimated all three could be completed within about four months.

Several neighbors and community members spoke in support. Scott Frederick, a 35‑year First Ward resident, said the property was built for multifamily use and urged the commission to allow the owner to restore that use. Other speakers including Tyler Rudesh and a staff member identified as Zach spoke in favor, saying rehabilitation would be preferable to leaving the building vacant.

A staff member noted a letter from a neighbor expressing concern about construction and resident parking on Globe (a nearby street). Commissioners and staff acknowledged citywide parking constraints and said final parking and building code compliance will be determined during site‑plan review. Commissioner discussion also flagged concern about repeated spot rezonings for long‑standing, vacant nonconforming uses; a commissioner reported that the city attorney has drafted an optional nonconforming‑use revival process so future revivals might proceed without full rezoning in every case.

After discussion a commissioner moved to forward the application to City Council with a recommendation of approval as consistent with the comprehensive plan; another commissioner seconded the motion and the commission voted in favor. The recommendation will proceed to City Council for final action.