Board of Zoning Appeals

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 City Council Chambers 3 300 Park Avenue 4 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 5 Thursday, January 12, 2012 6 7 1. CALL TO ORDER: All right. I call the January 12, 2012, meeting of the 8 City of Falls Church Board of Zoning Appeals to order. 9 10 2. ROLL CALL: 11 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Can I have a roll call please. 12 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Murphy. 13 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Here. 14 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 15 MR. STOODLEY: Here. 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 17 Mr. Taylor. 18 MR. TAYLOR: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. 21 22 4. OTHER BUSINESS: 23 A. Election of officers 24 25 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. Our first order of business this evening is 26 approval of minutes and resolutions. 27 MR. STOODLEY: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a proposal. 28 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yes. 29 MR. STOODLEY: I'd like to move the election of officers under the 30 final, under New Business. 31 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I don't know if I agree but do we have a second? 32 MR. TAYLOR: I second. 33 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All right. We have a motion to move 4 A to under 34 Item 7. 35 MR. STOODLEY: Yes. 36 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So election of officers will be under Item 7, New 37 Business. 38 I guess a voice vote is acceptable on that or do we need a roll 39 call? 40 MR. STOODLEY: No. 41 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Voice vote. All those in favor? 42 Let the record show that Mr. Castillo is now present. 43 We have a motion from Mr. Stoodley, seconded by Mr. Taylor to move 44 election of officers, Item 7, under New Business. All those in favor. 45 (A chorus of "ayes.") 46 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Opposed. 47 None. 48 Election of officers will be conducted under Item 7. 49 50 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND RESOLUTIONS: 51 52 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Moving back then to Item 3, discussions of minutes 53 and resolutions, I propose that the >> we go through the September 15th MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 54 minutes first. The resolution for V 1525 >11 which is in our packages was 55 approved in October so we probably don't need to do that again. 56 Let's go through the minutes then for the September 15, 2001, 57 meeting. 58 (Discussion of the minutes.) 59 MR. STOODLEY: I move to approve the minutes as amended. 60 MR. TAYLOR: Second. 61 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Motion to approve the September 15, 2001, minutes 62 as amended from Mr. Stoodley, seconded by Mr. Taylor. All those in favor. 63 (A chorus of "ayes.") 64 Opposed. None. 65 The September 15 minutes are approved. 66 We move onto the minutes of the October 13, 2011, meeting. 67 (Discussion of the minutes.) 68 MR. STOODLEY: Move to approve the minutes as amended. 69 MR. CASTILLO: Second. 70 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Stoodley, seconded 71 by Mr. Castillo to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2011, meeting as 72 amended. 73 All those in favor. 74 (A chorus of ayes.) 75 Opposed. None. 76 The next item we have is the resolution for the variance V 1526 >11. 77 Any comments, changes? 78 Hearing none, do I have a motion? A motion from Mr. Taylor. 79 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. 80 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Seconded by Mr. Stoodley to approve the resolution 81 for V 1526 >11. All those in favor? 82 (A chorus of ayes.") 83 Opposed? None. 84 Okay. Minutes and resolutions, Mr. Boyle, I do have a question I 85 guess based on the content of the minutes from October 13th and the 86 resolution. 87 Did the building permit that was issued for 900 Parker line up with 88 the resolution, the variance that was granted to extend the second floor on 89 the existing but not to extend laterally any of the porches? 90 MR. BOYLE: Yes. It's been awhile since I reviewed it but I believe 91 she revised her plans to less than what was presented to the Board. But, 92 yes. 93 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. I had a question and I called, and didn't 94 necessarily get a response so I went down and looked at the plans. And it 95 appears that the front porch as approved expands laterally by I don't know 96 how many feet, several feet, but beyond the 22 feet that's allowed from the 97 30 foot setback which the Board voted 4 >1 not to approve. 98 So I just want to make sure that everything's in compliance. If 99 there's problems, that they're straightened out, resolved, what have you. 100 MR. BOYLE: Does the porch >> 101 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I lent my truck to someone and walked over there 102 to pick it up and noticed that it looked like the front porch and the front 103 porch roof on the Parker Avenue side had been expanded laterally. 104 MR. BOYLE: On the Parker Avenue side? 105 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yeah. 106 MR. BOYLE: Okay. I'll compare with what was approved and what they MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 107 submitted. 108 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I do have a copy of what was approved and that's 109 what my concern is, is that the existing bump out was expanded laterally 110 probably two to three times the size that it was and it does extend out to 111 the 20 foot line. So if you can look into that, that would be greatly 112 appreciated. 113 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 114 115 4. OTHER BUSINESS: 116 B. Approval of Rules of Procedure 117 118 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. The next item we have then is Item 4, Other 119 Business, Approval of Rules of Procedure. 120 Earlier today I sent out a, I guess a reminder to the Board of a 121 discussion we had in October of last year regarding submission of materials 122 in advance of hearings. 123 I went back to the minutes and looked at what our concerns were with 124 that and made appropriate changes and sent it forward. 125 Mr. Castillo provided some comments as well so you have a copy of it 126 in front of you, without all the nice, pretty City of Falls Church 127 letterhead and things like that. 128 To summarize the changes, it's basically wording changes. In B 129 instead of "defendant" it said "respondent" or their representatives is in 130 parenthesis. I put a second change in where defendant came up again, I 131 replaced it with respondent. 132 And then Mr. Castillo suggested that we add "or shall provide 133 certificate of service." 134 MR. CASTILLO: It means they said they gave it to whoever they're 135 supposed to. 136 MR. STOODLEY: Got it. 137 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I guess a signed letter is essentially the same 138 thing. My only concern, I don't know what particular requirements there 139 may be legally as far as a certificate of service. Is a statement of 140 service acceptable? 141 We don't need a notarized certificate of service or anything along 142 those lines? That would seem to be a bit much. 143 MR. BOYLE: They'll be under oath. They'll be under oath when you 144 ask. 145 MR. STOODLEY: So we change certificate to statement. 146 MR. WILLIAMSON: I like that. I like that, statement of service. 147 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I have no concerns. Statement of service. 148 Statement of service. 149 MR. STOODLEY: That was a good change by the way. 150 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Mr. Boyle, does this, since we're on the record, 151 address your recollection of the concerns that the Board had and that you 152 had as far as making sure that the person who submits the material is the 153 one who's responsible for circulating it and that the descriptions are 154 properly defined? 155 I know you had a concern with the appellants as listed in the 156 application and that specific language was put in there. And the property 157 owner, subject the decision being appealed, again I think that's just a 158 matter of fairness. My understanding is that an appeal of the decision of 159 the Zoning Administrator is actually an action between the Zoning MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 160 Administrator and the appellant. 161 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 162 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: But it would, could affect property owners 163 depending on what it is so I thought that was a good inclusion to have in 164 there and it is now on the responsibility of whoever submits materials. 165 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah, I like that. 166 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think that covers everything the Board had 167 concerns with and everything from the minutes from that meeting that you 168 had concerns with. 169 MR. BOYLE: Yes, I believe it does. 170 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. In that case we have a proposal to amend 171 Part 4 of Rule 11 as presented and modified. 172 Do I have a motion? 173 MR. STOODLEY: I move to approve it as amended. So we take 174 "certificate" out and put "statement" in. 175 MR. WILLIAMSON: Second. 176 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We have a motion by Mr. Stoodley, seconded by Mr. 177 Williamson. 178 All those in favor. 179 (A chorus of "ayes.") 180 Opposed? None. 181 Okay. So that will move into our Rules of Procedure for the coming 182 year. 183 Mr. Taylor indicated that he would like to have a discussion of 184 packages. I'm not sure that is technically part of our Rules of Procedure 185 but if we're going to talk about how we do things, this is as good a time 186 as any to have a discussion of that matter so I'll ask Mr. Taylor to make 187 his proposals. 188 MR. TAYLOR: I don't have a proposal. I have just pointed out that 189 we get e >mailed a package, we get sent a package to our doorstep, very 190 convenient, and then there is a package when we get here waiting for us and 191 it may be one of those packages is extraneous. 192 MR. WILLIAMSON: I agree. 193 MR. TAYLOR: I'm thinking the one that's dropped on the doorstop 194 would be >> 195 MR. STOODLEY: I think that would be the greatest saving. 196 MR. TAYLOR: If someone does get something e >mailed that they really 197 need to go through on hard copy, they can print it. 198 MR. WILLIAMSON: I agree. 199 MR. STOODLEY: John, you don't like it. 200 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: No, I don't particularly like it because I go 201 through the minutes on paper. And the minutes are a big issue for 202 printing. Most of the materials are a few pages here or there, it's not a 203 big deal. 204 MR. TAYLOR: Perhaps we can opt out of the delivery of the package. 205 So you could continue to receive a package. 206 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah. 207 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Or the other alternative is to make one available 208 here and get rid of that one because we have the minutes electronically and 209 we have the package delivered. 210 MR. TAYLOR: Well, if someone forgets their documentation. 211 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Delivery is most expensive. 212 MR. BOYLE: I have no problem continuing what we're doing but my MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 213 concern was not placing a burden on you all for printing. Some of these 214 documents are huge or they're of a size or detail that not everyone wants 215 to burn their ink or toner cartridge for. So I have no problem continuing 216 with what we're doing but whatever the Board's preference is. 217 MR. WILLIAMSON:I like the opt out. I think that's very good. 218 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 219 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. So we don't necessarily have to have a 220 change of our Rules of Procedure. 221 MR. STOODLEY: No. 222 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: However I would request that each member notify 223 Mr. Boyle and probably Mr. Wade if they chose to opt out of delivery of the 224 package. We can do that now or you can send them an e >mail, whichever is 225 the preference of the members of the Board and staff present. 226 MR. CASTILLO: Would it be helpful to circulate initially the 227 documents electronically and then have a follow >up saying, yes, would you 228 send along a hard copy after previewing it electronically? Does that make 229 sense? I don't want to get too baroque here. 230 MR. STOODLEY: No, it does make sense. 231 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It makes sense but I also don't want to have a 232 variable procedure that staff has to go through each and every month to 233 ensure, did I hear back from all people, should I deliver them, shouldn't I 234 deliver them? I would say, yeah, we make a decision to skip delivery of 235 the package that is valid until revoked in order to keep it straight for 236 staff. 237 MR. STOODLEY: You want that now, John, or do you want it by when? 238 MR. BOYLE: So your proposal would be to not to have home deliveries 239 until you see the >> you see an exception that comes over your e >mail, and 240 you say you know what, I think I better get this delivered, is that >> 241 MR. STOODLEY: No, I don't think that's what he said. 242 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think we were saying that everything would come 243 electronically and as is currently the case, delivery of a package and 244 materials here unless a member opts out of delivery of the package. 245 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 246 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: In order to keep that consistent, I don't think we 247 should vary it on a month by month basis. 248 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 249 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It should just be that's the decision and they can 250 contact another Board member if they need a hard copy or they can print it 251 out, or whatever. 252 My other concern frankly is that all the materials that are in the 253 package are also fully available electronically. In some cases we've had 254 photocopies of large sets of plans and things like that that either is 255 going to create lots of fun for you scanning in, lots of fun for anybody 256 trying to look at them. They lose scale and everything else when that 257 happens. 258 MR. BOYLE: That's true, special use permits usually come with site 259 plans. 260 Well, we're flexible enough to work with it. The deliveries are no 261 burden on staff certainly. But I understand what you're saying, there is a 262 >> everything is produced in triplicate and one of those electronically. 263 Ideally what would be great is everything got posted to a >> 264 MR. STOODLEY: Web site. 265 MR. BOYLE: >> a web site that the Board had access to. And we're MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 266 getting into that a little bit with an off site staffer that we contract 267 with. He lives in Norfolk. He has access to the public drives. So he can 268 access the >> the way the City's storage system is set up, there's public 269 and private drives, private for staff only. The public drives, if you're 270 given access, you can see them remotely. So maybe that's something we can 271 consider too, is have a folder of all materials for the Board. 272 Whatever your preference is. 273 MR. STOODLEY: John raises a good point and although I was much in 274 favor of doing away with one packet, having the drawings prior to the 275 meeting are important. 276 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. 277 MR. STOODLEY: And they're an important consideration of the Board 278 and if I were going to vote, I'd ask everybody to bring a packet, just do 279 away with this mess. 280 MR. TAYLOR: All right. How about e >mail and packets and you print 281 an extra set in case somebody forgets theirs. 282 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah, one extra set. 283 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Or some of us can share. 284 MR. BOYLE: That's an idea. Another idea might be anything of an 285 unusual size. Anything that's not this, definitely I think needs to be 286 dropped off on your doorstep because we really >> you're not going to see 287 it printed. You might see it scanned in electronic but you're not going to 288 get a hard copy of that until the meeting. 289 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Scanned items then are generally not to scale or 290 can't be printed out to scale where it's important to know whether that 291 parking space is 16 feet long or 18 feet long. 292 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. So all standard size items could be easily 293 e>mailed, and then just brought to the meeting. Hard copies presented at 294 the meeting like minutes so you don't have to print a thousand lines of 295 minutes. 296 MR. STOODLEY: Typically, we give you electronic feedback prior to 297 the >> 298 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Maybe that's a good tipping point then, anything 299 that's larger than a standard page, we'll deliver. And then you can always 300 request, if we see the minutes electronically and don't want to burn 301 through your toner, you can request that that be delivered too. 302 MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds like a good solution to me. 303 MR. BOYLE: Would that be consistent enough? So you won't see 304 anything on your doorstep unless you request it or it's an unusual size. 305 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think I'd prefer the opt out to getting it on 306 your doorstep. I much prefer the opt out, if it's going to be provided 307 here or we get the electronic and the package and we bring one copy to the 308 meeting rather than reprinting everything for everybody. That would be my 309 preference. I do like the materials up front. 310 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 311 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I do like, maybe not this month, maybe when the 312 weather is a little nicer, to sit out on the porch and go through them. 313 And I would prefer an electronic delivery and an upfront delivery with one 314 copy here, if necessary. But that's my opinion on the matter. 315 MR. WILLIAMSON: I agree with that. That's the approach I like too. 316 317 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 318 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We've eliminated the better part of one package. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 319 MR. WILLIAMSON: We've eliminated 80 percent, and 40 percent, yeah. 320 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It's a cost savings. 321 MR. WILLIAMSON: Right, chalk it up. 322 MR. STOODLEY: Not only a cost savings but time savings too. That's 323 a cost savings, also a time saving. 324 MR. BOYLE: Yes. It wouldn't take long to print or photocopy 325 everything. So if something unusual occurred on the day of the meeting, 326 we're just up a half flight of stairs so we can retrieve it. 327 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So what I'd like to do then is make sure we're all 328 in agreement. It's not a change in the Rules of Procedure but the position 329 of the Board or the understanding of the Board is the following: Packages 330 will be presented electronically and delivered. It's up to the Board 331 members to bring those packages with them when they come because there will 332 only be one copy of the materials available on the night of the hearing. 333 They won't be provided to each of us on the night's appearance. 334 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 335 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Everybody agree? 336 MR. CASTILLO: Agree. 337 MR. WILLIAMSON: Like it. 338 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Do we have anything else in the Rules of Procedure 339 that we need to address? 340 Seeing none, I think we're done with our Rules of Procedure and 341 process discussions and things along those lines. 342 MR. BOYLE: And I'll be making those changes to the copies you have 343 so those are now out of date and you'll receive fresh copies. 344 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: And, Brandon, you have the copy there, with the 345 second set, the red and blue and the multi >colored one. 346 MR. WADE: Yes. 347 MR. BOYLE:That will be delivered to your doorstep but not brought 348 to the meeting. One set. 349 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: E >mail and posting on the web site will be 350 sufficient. 351 352 4. OTHER BUSINESS: 353 (After publication of the agenda, the Board received a copy of 354 TO11>23 Property Maintenance Code from City Council for comment.) 355 356 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: The other thing we have in our Other Business, and 357 I don't know if we actually had a motion to include this under Other 358 Business so we may be to do that, is a discussion of the property 359 maintenance ordinance that Mr. Boyle sent around to us after the City 360 Council meeting on Monday night. I assume Other Business is the place to 361 >> 362 MR. STOODLEY: I think it is but >> 363 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: >> to handle that. 364 MR. STOODLEY: >> has everyone submitted their comments to John or 365 not? 366 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I have not. 367 MR. STOODLEY: I have. So those that have not already submitted 368 electronically, let's have a discussion now. 369 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. So at least for the record under Item 4 C, 370 we will discuss Ordinance T011 >23 which is an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, 371 buildings, Chapter 14, environment, create Chapter 33, property MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 372 maintenance, and amend Chapter 48, zoning, to provide property maintenance 373 code Falls Church civil penalties. 374 I had a couple of questions on this and I'm not sure whether they're 375 technical or policy, if I'm falling in a policy area that people are 376 uncomfortable with, please let me know. I will present comments as an 377 individual citizen. 378 A couple of broad things that struck me in this is there is no clear 379 delineation in here of warnings versus violations. In particular, Section 380 33.9, enforcement and applicability of fines, it dances around the issue of 381 a warning. It appears that the intent is that a warning will be issued 382 with a compliance date prior to the issuance of the summons. However, it 383 doesn't say that anywhere. 384 As I currently read it, the first step could be the issuance of a 385 summons out of the blue. I certainly think if something of this type is 386 going to go into the Code and if the intent is to have a warning notice to 387 the compliance date, if you don't comply by this date you'll be issued a 388 summons, that should be somewhere in here with the procedure for >> I don't 389 know frankly whether it's here or in 6 or 6 >23, whatever the appropriate 390 place is. Something should be in there to that effect, what the actual 391 step>by>step process is. 392 In 33.9 also, there's in Section H, cases for hearing. There should 393 probably be something in there that says that proceedings are stayed until 394 the appeal or hearing has been held. Again, as it's written you can either 395 say you're guilty and pay the fine or ask for a hearing but it's silent on 396 whether or not the action is stayed. And I think that at the very least 397 should be in there as well. 398 I have some questions regarding 33.10 and the Dillan Rule. What 399 we're actually allowed to charge for a first violation as opposed to what's 400 listed in here. 401 MR. BOYLE: I can respond to that if you like. 402 John Foster confirmed that those are the fines specified by the 403 State for property maintenance and building code violations that aren't 404 misdemeanors, so we're matching the State's fine schedule. 405 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. The State Code references in this area are 406 15.2>901, addressing the ability to, a locality may provide for removal and 407 disposal of trash, cutting of grass and weeds, penalty in certain counties, 408 penalty. 409 Planning District 8 allows, and we're in Planning District 8, allows 410 either unoccupied or occupied properties and the limitations on the fines 411 in Section C are not to exceed $50 for the first violation. So that's >> 412 we just need to make sure that we have the right things in there according 413 to what's in the State Code. 414 I'm not sure what the feeling of the Board is. But when I started 415 to review this, I looked in the background and this is where it might get 416 into a policy comment that is probably more from a citizen than from this 417 Board so I'll certainly defer to this Board. 418 The City has substantial power currently to eliminate nuisances, be 419 that trash, be that rodent infestment, be that anything that's listed in 420 here when it rises to the level of a health or safety issue or when it's 421 determined to be a nuisance. And the authority they have to do that, it's 422 not criminal authority, it's not fines, it's not criminal charges, it's the 423 authority to go in and abate the nuisance and bill the party for this. 424 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah, we've done that before. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 425 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So as presented, many of these as they're 426 currently in the Code, as they're in our current Code, have abatement 427 authority and the authority to impose costs based on that abatement. 428 So I'm not sure that all of these, frankly, are handled criminally 429 or need to be changed in order to reduce that limit if they're not handled 430 criminally to begin with. 431 My personal opinion is that the intent of this is to abate 432 nuisances, be that trash, be that rodents, be that long grass or weeds, and 433 the City currently clearly has the authority to do that. I have no 434 concerns about putting all these things together into one section rather 435 than having to look in five different places to figure out how trash and 436 grass and building conditions and other things. 437 But I'm not sure that the justification that's in here is actually 438 applicable or appropriate because, in fact, many of these are not 439 necessarily criminal violations and they can be abated without the courts 440 getting involved. 441 So that's just an overall thought. When I looked at some of the 442 specifics that were in here, in part of the 33 1 C 2, manner of notice, I 443 would be very leery if an acceptable manner of notice is telephone. It's 444 hard to produce a record, other than a phone call was made possibly. So I 445 would not include "by telephone". 446 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 447 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Some of the other posting methods are fine, if 448 that's the decision of the City to do that. 449 In Section 33 >3, exterior storage, again, I think the intent of this 450 is to abate nuisances but some of the things that are included in here seem 451 to go an awful lot further than abating a nuisance. Lawn mowers, lawn care 452 equipment, ladders, things that probably most of us have in our yards, 453 whether within a shed or screen front, a public right >of>way or a 454 neighbor's property, fuel or oil containers. Who has a propane grill, who 455 has a propane tank? That's a field container that's clearly visible from 456 in many cases a neighbor's property or your own property. 457 It certainly seems like we need to make sure that the language 458 that's in here is, in fact, going to get at the things that are intended. 459 As I read this, clothing, so you can't have a clothes line if somebody 460 complains. It's kind of hard to tell. So I think the language in 33 >3 for 461 exterior storage needs to be tightened up somewhat. 462 Construction equipment is probably not a problem. Appliances, 463 furniture, probably not problems. That will probably mean I have to take 464 the couch off my front porch. So I think we need to look at that one. 465 The maintenance of buildings generally, again, there's no clear 466 guidance as to when this is going to be applied or how this is going to be 467 applied. I've certainly had a small crack in the window for an awful long 468 time and a cracked window would be a violation of this because it says 469 glazing shall be present and free of cracks. 470 Screens, I understand what we're trying to do but 471 there's not a lot of specificity in what is substantially free of. 472 MR. WILLIAMSON: John, I think you're saying in a, as usual way, a 473 better and in a more reasoned and articulate manner than I would say it is, 474 Why we would need this? This is my reaction after looking at this, 475 especially as you pointed out, that the City has powers that already exist 476 to address things like this. This seems like a lot of extra, I don't know 477 why we want to layer on additional >> MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 478 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: That goes a little further into policy than I 479 really wanted to. I think what we're being asked to do is comment on the 480 specific language that's been given first reading. So apparently our 481 elected officials are considering this. They've asked us to look at the 482 specific language of this proposed change to the Code and provide comments 483 back. 484 I'm trying to avoid policy because I agree 100 percent. Why do we 485 need this? This is >> I'll keep my opinion to myself on what this is, and 486 try to focus on what I think might be the central problems technically with 487 the language that's provided to us. 488 MR. WILLIAMSON: So this would get to >> out of all this process is 489 which is to comment on language and not >> 490 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yeah, I don't think our role is really the policy 491 point as much as it is the technical review of the proposed Code. 492 Generally when Board members have had policy concerns or comments of this 493 type, they go before the Planning Commission or the City Council as 494 individuals, not as members of the BZA. I think we should avoid to the 495 extent possible the policy issues but try to focus on technical issues. 496 MR. TAYLOR: Our rule is to recommend what is before us for 497 recommendation. 498 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yes. So what I guess I'm trying to do is 499 recommend some review of specific language, some additions that if this is 500 going to be approved, that there's some changes that are probably necessary 501 to make this practicable. 502 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. 503 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: That's what I'm trying to do. 504 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. 505 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So again, in 33 >4, I'm just not sure what a major 506 crack, hole, or dislodged paver is. There is not a lot of specificity. 507 MR. TAYLOR: Is major a half inch? 508 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Is major a pothole? How many parking lots in the 509 City of Falls Church have a pothole somewhere? Each of those would 510 technically be subject to civil violations, if I complained each time to 511 the appropriate official, which is also unclear in here, the building 512 official, the police, and other officials as identified by the City 513 Manager, if I complained every time I ran over a pothole in a parking lot, 514 would that in fact then result in a notice of warning because a complaint 515 was filed? 516 Without specificity, the potential for mischief is fairly high on 517 this and that's a concern overall. Again, I don't think as a policy, I 518 don't see it as a policy. I see it as a technical issue with how it's been 519 prepared. 520 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 521 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Even the stuff on fences. 522 MR. STOODLEY: Fences that are >> 523 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: However we're moving, land use requirements and 524 fences have traditionally been covered under 48 for their size and other 525 things under the zoning ordinance, not as a property maintenance matter. 526 If the desire of the City is to include the front yard height to 4 feet, I 527 think it's less than that right now, or maintain the 7 foot side in the 528 rear yard, or allow 10 foot in any yard around a playground, school yard, 529 or similar recreational facility, that should probably be done within 530 Chapter 48. My opinion on that. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 531 Again, I'm not sure on fact that fences shall be primed, painted, 532 stained, sealed, treated or maintained to prevent deterioration. If that 533 doesn't apply to >> I assume it doesn't apply to chain link fences. 534 MR. TAYLOR: Or even split rail. It's intended not to be. 535 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Or even split rail. So some of these things, and 536 I think we're treading very closely on the policy but I'm not sure that the 537 language that's in here technically applies to a variety of fence types 538 that are available and currently in use in the City of Falls Church. 539 Inoperative motor vehicles, we have a section right now on 540 inoperable motor vehicles. The language is somewhat the same. It is 541 different in a number of ways. And some of the areas that I'm most 542 concerned with and this, again, are lack of specificity. What exactly or 543 how you do you define, in the event this inoperative vehicle is in an 544 extreme state of externally visible disrepair or disassembly, it shall not 545 be kept on private property longer than 12 calendar days. Again, there is 546 no specificity there for citizens or for enforcement as to how you're going 547 to decide what is an extreme state of externally visible disrepair or 548 disassembly. 549 I've seen some cars on parade on Memorial Day, if you looked at them 550 at a distance you would say they're in an extreme state of externally 551 visible disrepair. 552 Again the specificity in here, I have problem with in that area. 553 There is some redundancy for the purpose of this section, inoperable, which 554 was defined a bit earlier, shall include vehicles that do not display a 555 valid registration plate. I assume that means a license plate, a current 556 City of Falls Church inspection sticker, or are in such a state of 557 disrepair or disassembly that they cannot be operated on a public right of 558 way. Again, a different standard than what was described before was 559 significantly >> what was it? I don't even remember. Extreme state of 560 externally visible disrepair or disassembly. 561 So inoperable and extreme are the same to some extent, depending on 562 which paragraph you look at. 563 If, in fact, this was read as written and the BZA likes to try to 564 apply the language of the Code as written, if my mother who lives in 565 Fairfax County, comes down and visits, her car does display a valid vehicle 566 registration plate. It does not display a current City of Falls Church 567 inspection sticker. It's a new car so it's in fairly good repair. 568 Again, specificity. The technical language that's in here I don't 569 think is going to necessarily get at only those issues that we're 570 interested in. And I think the City should make sure that the language is 571 clear on what they intend for the definition of "inoperable" means. It may 572 be just a question of rearranging the wording there, that it is in such a 573 state of disrepair or disassembly that it cannot be operated on a public 574 right way and they do not include a valid state license plate or locality 575 registration sticker. At least in that general way Fairfax County wouldn't 576 be pulled in because they don't require a locality registration sticker. 577 So there's ways to address that, if that's the main issue. 578 I had a question on 48 >60, the language change for building permits. 579 If we're going to make a change to 48 >60, is it possible to include a list 580 of things that require a building permit? I know there's been a lot of 581 questions over time, does this require a building permit or does that not 582 require a building permit. There have been some talk as part of the ZOAC 583 process of having an administrative manual. Maybe if that process moves MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 584 forward, that would be a way to handle this with a reference to things in 585 the administrative manual that require a building permit. 586 But in any case, I've always had questions. I've called and been 587 told, well, if you replace a window, an existing opening you don't need a 588 building permit, but if you put a larger window in, you do need a building 589 permit. You don't need building permit to pave an existing gravel driveway 590 but you do need a building permit if it's a dirt driveway. There's lots of 591 different things that it would be a nice to have a list somewhere that 592 people can reference. 593 So if we're going to make changes to 48 >60, I would suggest that we 594 do that. 595 In the language for 48 >62, I guess this is a question for possibly 596 Mr. Boyle. I understand Exception A for 48 >58 and 48 >60, which is 597 occupancy permits and things like that. But 48 11 34 through 48 11 50, 598 awful lot of that has to do with site plans and administrative matters that 599 are not frankly the areas that I would focus on with this. 600 I think if you're going to maintain the ability to seek penalties 601 under 1 >12, you'd probably want to include uses, allowed uses, setbacks, 602 building locations, some of the core things that are part of zoning as 603 opposed to administrative materials related to site plans and what the 604 planning director is going to do and how much time they have. Although it 605 might be fun to complain if something doesn't get done fast enough and have 606 the authority to charge city staff criminally, I don't think that's the 607 intent with what's in here but that's the way the language is presented. 608 So overall I've got a lot of questions and a lot of concerns with 609 this package as presented. I would summarize those concerns with the >> 610 starting with the background justification. Many of these things that are 611 being pulled together are not criminal misdemeanor violations and, in fact, 612 the current Code has the authority to abate those nuisances and charge the 613 parties for that action. 614 If that is not acceptable, that's a different story. But I think 615 describing some of these as currently being subject to criminal violations, 616 there are other steps that can be taken before you go to that extreme and I 617 think that should be made clear throughout. 618 I have no problem with pulling the various sections together. I 619 think that's a useful change for the most part. For staff, for citizens, 620 for anyone who actually looks at the Code at any given time, I think it 621 would be nice to have these things combined. 622 I have some questions and concerns then on a technical nature as 623 I've listed out with specific language, certainly I did not list all of my 624 concerns with this but I highlighted those that I thought were the most 625 troubling from a practical implementation standpoint, questions of does 626 this language actually do what the intent of this is. 627 And then the last thing is just to verify that the fines are in fact 628 acceptable or in compliance with State Code, in particular with 15.2 >901 629 and 15.2 >1115. 630 Both of those address parts of this, litter, refuse and debris is 631 covered in 15.2 >901 as well as grass cutting and that section of State Code 632 does specify specific fines. And then 633 15.2>1115 is abatement or removal of nuisances which covers broadly the 634 other issues that are in here, be that inoperable vehicles or rodents or 635 other things that were in here once they rise to the level of being a 636 nuisance or offensive, unwholesome, unsanitary or unhealthy substances. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 637 So we have some State Code language, we have current procedures and 638 practices that allows this to be dealt with in a non >criminal fashion and I 639 think at the very least the background should say that. Because as I read 640 this, the justification was that these things were criminal and they 641 shouldn't be. 642 What I heard in worksessions in the past was the goal here for some 643 of these zoning violations that were criminal violations, that have some 644 other way of addressing that, than the need to go to the court for criminal 645 handling of these matters. 646 In general, I think if there's a way to handle it other than 647 criminally, I think that's a good idea. But I'm not sure this area needs 648 to go that far because I'm not sure it needs to be treated as a criminal 649 matter now these matters can be abated and property owners charged. 650 Those are my thoughts on it. 651 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah, I think the last statement, John, is a policy 652 statement and you should make that at as an individual. 653 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. 654 MR. STOODLEY: I think absolutely the exceptions you took to the 655 verbiage are correct. It's unenforceable as written here. 656 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: That's my concern. 657 MR. TAYLOR: The request states that the purpose and the intent is 658 to promote the maintenance of all property built and constructed within the 659 City to prevent blighted and unsightly conditions. Two things. I'd like 660 to point out that blighted and unsightly are two completely different tests 661 of the same thing. 662 And the second thing is I'd like to get Mr. Boyle's input on what 663 enforcement issues you face now preventing a blighted condition. 664 MR. CASTILLO: Before Mr. Boyle answers that, I would say that there 665 are a lot of issues that have been raised that I think are meritorious and 666 worth discussing but I don't think they are within the context of the BZA. 667 I think our mandate is to enforce Chapter 48 to the extent that things are 668 inactive and parallel to Chapter 48. I think we're free to opine as 669 citizens on what we think of that but I would say the vast bulk of what is 670 here now is really not within our purview. We deal with zoning which is 671 rooted ultimately in the law of uses but, for example, with the exception 672 of inoperable cars, most of these things here don't involve what we're 673 charged with addressing. 674 So, with respect to that, Mr. Boyle, if you want to talk about when 675 you have your Zoning Administrator hat on, I think that's a useful question 676 and point of discussion. 677 MR. TAYLOR: So to be clear, it has been forwarded to us for 678 recommendations and your point is that we should only be making 679 recommendations on parts of it that apply to Code. 680 MR. CASTILLO: With respect to parts that apply to us, correct. 681 MR. WILLIAMSON:Can we decline to make a recommendation? 682 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Absolutely. We can be silent. We can do nothing. 683 684 MR. STOODLEY: Absolutely. 685 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I agree to a large extent with Mr. Castillo's 686 comments on this, although I haven't let John speak yet about enforcement. 687 I would be perfectly happy if we limited this to those areas that were in 688 Chapter 48 and would be moving out into the new Chapter 33, so that would 689 just essentially be fences and inoperable vehicles and then also just stick MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 690 with the language that relates to changes within Chapter 48. 691 MR. CASTILLO: If you want to say, hey, there's stuff that is going 692 in Chapter 33 that we really think belongs in Chapter 48, I think is fine 693 too, although I don't think there is a real hunger for >> 694 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Other than the fence heights which have always 695 been in there. I think it's much more applicable to be able to address 696 those by district and what have you. But again, my opinion. 697 MR. STOODLEY: John, you were asked the question. 698 MR. BOYLE: The way I see this is there's a lot my office does 699 outside of this Board's purview. The zoning office has become essentially 700 a de facto property maintenance unit within the City. Complaints to the 701 police department get referred to zoning on a regular basis. We do a lot 702 of work outside of zoning. The rule of thumb is everything at the curb on 703 to the property belongs to zoning, everything from the curb to the street 704 is the police department. 705 So, many, many, many of the complaints we receive have no Code 706 support for them. There's a >> I think what's explaining this is that 707 there is a clamoring for why does this happen, why isn't this addressed, 708 why is this occurring. And I think it's accelerated with the redevelopment 709 of the residential. When we see a lot of new families come in, new houses 710 go up and they look at conditions in the City, both in the commercial and 711 residential, they ask why is this occurring. So a lot of the complaints my 712 office receives, we have to wing some sort of polite coercion to get people 713 to comply. 714 So zoning suggested that we adopt a property maintenance code 715 similar to what other jurisdictions have. The City of Falls Church has 716 never really had one dedicated just to that. So I view this as helpful to 717 address typical complaints that my office receives that I have a zoning 718 inspector that's asked to go out and respond to these different things. 719 We do a lot of work that really doesn't have a basis in Code. We're 720 doing some discussion with the property owners in trying to get some 721 compliance. 722 The second thing is, yeah, the misdemeanor power. It just seems 723 silly to >> tall grass and weeds is in the zoning ordinance and I can't 724 imagine taking somebody with tall grass and weeds to Arlington Court and 725 asking for one year in jail and $2500 fine. It's just never going to 726 happen. 727 And believe it or not we have a segment of the population that 728 realizes that. So I'm going to leave my car in the back 40 without plates 729 on it, I'm not going to cut my grass, and they know that ultimately if we 730 have to take them to court, it will be very difficult. 731 So those are the two major pieces. I think the core of this 732 addresses the typical complaints the City receives that, you're right, 733 probably are not within the purview of this Board generally but that's why 734 the list that you see is in there. These are typical complaints we receive 735 from citizens. 736 The other is the fine process. So as you know Mr. Maller's case was 737 in here and he was particularly upset that he was charged with a 738 misdemeanor but that's what the Code is. And it was silly that, you know, 739 our citizens are faced with a misdemeanor penalty. 740 So I view this as helpful. This is similar to how other 741 jurisdictions handle these sort of violations. And I think it's reflective 742 of the requests that we've received from the public that I felt like my MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 743 office's hands have been tied to move forward in a reasonable manner. 744 MR. TAYLOR: Here's the problem that I have with the whole process 745 and I'm not sure what the answer is. But our >> if you make a decision 746 enforcing this, that someone disagrees with, and it's not a decision that's 747 related to 48, then can they fill the list? No, I don't think so. So 748 what's the >> what's the >> I think we're opening up a whole can of worms 749 here. 750 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Well, the procedure that's in here, which if this 751 Board actually chooses to comment on any of that, the way I read it is that 752 you get a warning violation. It says, here's the problem, you have X 753 number of days to rectify the problem. If you don't fix it, then a 754 violation can be issued. It's a civil penalty. It could be anywhere from 755 50 to 100 dollars, depending on how if things go appropriately. 756 Once you're given that citation and again, if the Board chooses to 757 discuss this, if you appeal it, that would stay the imposition of the fines 758 for a court hearing. So >> 759 MR. TAYLOR: So that you're appealing to Arlington? 760 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: You're shifting >> that would be Falls Church >> 761 MR. BOYLE: Local court. 762 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: >> Circuit Court is what it says for small civil 763 summons. 764 MR. BOYLE: Right. It would be similar to a parking ticket issued 765 locally. Your remedy would be to object and request a court date. 766 MR. TAYLOR: In that case I think that it is important that we do 767 make recommendations on anything that is leaving for or is effected by 48. 768 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Oh, absolutely. I think it is our duty to. 769 MR. TAYLOR: If you have one of your staff cite somebody for a fence 770 violation, because, you know, so are they going to appeal to us? They can 771 say well, you know. 772 MR. STOODLEY: That's how I got on the Board 18 years ago. I 773 appealed a fence violation. 774 MR. BOYLE: So you were an outlaw. 775 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It doesn't appear technically that the fence 776 language was ever removed from 48 either. At least not according to this 777 package so, in fact, it would be covered under two places which would 778 create a very interesting situation. 779 So at the very least that would be something that is related to 48 780 if we should address, right now it's addressed in two places. With 781 potentially the same great desire going through and >> 782 MR. BOYLE: No, last page, 783 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. It was removed from there. The date was 784 reserved. Okay. I still think we should go back but that's besides the 785 point, unless the Board agrees. 786 That's something I think we should be able to comment on, clearly 787 within our purview. 788 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 789 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: That is something in 48 and proposed for moving 790 out. 791 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 792 MR. CASTILLO: I have no objection. 793 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So the Board would in any comments back suggest 794 that the size of fences be addressed within Chapter 48 as is currently the 795 case in 48 11 02 H. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 796 MR. TAYLOR: It has to be. 797 MR. WILLIAMSON: That makes sense. 798 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yeah. I don't know why we want to blend 799 development requirements with property maintenance into the language for 800 having these covered, painted, sealed, whatever. It's going to be a 801 maintenance issue, that's a maintenance issue but it's not a placement, 802 height or development issue which I think should stay in zoning. 803 MR. TAYLOR: I agree. 804 MR. BOYLE: It's interesting to hear your take on that. Because 805 I've heard the other pieces. The Planning Commission, the Architectural 806 Advisory Board, and Council's comments, with limited to fences only, they 807 don't see that as a matter for the BZA at all. But it's interesting. This 808 is your purview and they have their take it on it from the outside. They 809 drew a completely different >> 810 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yeah, I wouldn't say it's >> certainly my opinion 811 is not turf is what this is, is you're stating the same way that you state 812 building height in zoning. The same way that you have lot coverage and all 813 kinds of other things. This is the development requirement that's covered 814 in zoning. It's probably the only thing in the proposed Chapter 33 that 815 currently requires a building permit. 816 MR. BOYLE: Which is one of the things this hopes to change. The 817 Building Code does not require a permit for fences. Our Code does. 818 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Our Code does. Hence, if we're going to not, I 819 suggest that we not require a building permit through whatever is the most 820 appropriate process rather than moving it out and into something else. 821 MR. STOODLEY: I just paid for mine. 822 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I required multiple inspections on mine too, 823 location calls, posts. I got more for my $33. 824 MR. BOYLE: Well, this obviously is too much for staff to coalesce 825 into a report. How do you want to proceed so Council gets their Board 826 comments? 827 I think, did I give the dates in your memo? I think February 9th 828 the packages have to go out to Council. 829 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think if we're only going to limit our comments 830 to changes in 48 and things going in and out of 48, I don't think it will 831 be a huge problem. I think we could probably do that very quickly at this 832 point because most of this was technical language in 33 that would not be 833 in the Zoning Code currently. 834 The balance of that I think if I or others have concerns, they 835 should go before the Planning Commission or the City Council with those 836 concerns as citizens but the Board, I agree with Mr. Castillo, probably 837 shouldn't necessarily address them. 838 So if we only limit ourselves to Chapter 48 >> 839 MR. BOYLE: Would you like to treat this as, you know, a motion, a 840 statement from the Board? Someone propose a motion? It may not be >> 841 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: No. The problem is line 430 and 431, as well as 842 the changes or right after that, from 433 on, pulls such a large part from 843 33 for penalties, etcetera, in zoning penalties are the same as property 844 maintenance penalties, therefore because these penalties are going to apply 845 for zoning violations. And it's somewhat interesting that most major, and 846 this is a statement that I would like to go forward from this Board no 847 matter what, most major zoning violations for uses, for setbacks, for 848 building placement, for coverage, for everything else, would be dealt with MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 849 under the provisions of Section 33 >9 and the penalties found in Section 850 33>10. 851 So you build a house on a flood plain, $50 fine. I'm really not 852 sure that's the goal of these penalties. The specific exception that would 853 allow the Zoning Administrator to seek criminal penalties under Section 854 1>12 are limited to occupancy permits and some 48 >58 which specifically is 855 certificate of occupancy. And 48 >60 which is building permits. So those 856 could be handled criminally. 857 And then 48 11 >34 through 48 11 >50 and 11 >34 through 11 >50 is site 858 plans when required, preliminary survey documents, Board and departmental 859 actions required prior to Planning Commission consideration, required 860 information, things that don't really seem to warrant waiver of site plan 861 requirements, phased development, things that don't warrant an exception 862 for criminal statutes to be charged as criminal violations. 863 So, because of that I think it's pulled in a large section of 33 864 into 48. Essentially this treats everything with a warning, a summons, and 865 a court order to resolve it. I would again look it up and see if we even 866 actually have the authority to do that under Dillan's rule. 867 So, at the end of the night there is going to be a new chair, 868 assuming the rules of procedures aren't changed. I would ask staff is a 869 good way to approach this trying to set up a meeting with the zoning staff 870 and the planning director to try to detail some of these comments. 871 MR. BOYLE: They're going to need to be >> a statement from the 872 Board's going to need to be put on paper one way or another. So I'd suggest, 873 I think the pattern of someone crafting resolutions and then submitting it 874 for everyone else to review has worked well. Maybe craft, if 875 someone would craft a proposed response and distribute it amongst 876 yourselves. 877 MR. STOODLEY: I think the response is pretty clear. The Board is 878 concerned because of the confusion in the language and because the 48 and 879 33 are being combined in some cases. 880 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Or at least tied together through the violation 881 provisions. 882 MR. STOODLEY: And we're really concerned about that because of the 883 enforcement actions. Not only the staff enforcement but it's whether you 884 want to decide criminal penalties for not cutting their grass. 885 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: That's a policy issue that is outside of zoning. 886 And frankly there are no criminal charges right now for cutting your grass. 887 The City has the option under Chapter 14, I don't know if the specific 888 number is in here, 14 >164, to require you to cut your grass or the City 889 will have somebody come in to do it and file a lien. 890 So criminal stuff for cutting grass is not an issue. We're not 891 eliminating criminal penalties for that. There are current procedures in 892 place to allow the abatement of that and to charge the property owner as 893 necessary. Policy issue as to whether that's a proper way to do it. 894 My bigger concern and what I think is within the purview of the 895 Board of Zoning Appeals is that all zoning violations with the exception of 896 the exceptions noted in lines 433 through 436, become subject to this 897 warning summons process. If that's the goal, then I'm not sure why we 898 retain the right in here for criminal violations of occupancy permits and 899 building permits and failure of staff to process materials in a timely 900 manner, which is one of the things that's in here as well. 901 So that I'm not sure why, I personally don't think the summons is MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 902 the proper way to address a major zoning violation, if somebody willfully 903 builds a house where it shouldn't be. 904 MR. CASTILLO: Wouldn't that tie into the certificate of occupancy 905 there? Wouldn't that address that problem? 906 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Mr. Boyle, would that? 907 MR. BOYLE: Yes, certainly occupancy >> 908 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Assuming they ever applied for a certificate of 909 occupancy for this to come up. 910 MR. BOYLE: Yes. Anything subject to a building permit or 911 certificate of occupancy for the variety of occupancy permit that says the 912 house is habitable and can be occupied as opposed to a business occupancy 913 for a barber shop, yes, that would still be subject to the misdemeanor. 914 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Is the reissuance of an occupancy permit required 915 when a major addition is put on a house? I know it would be for a 916 business. 917 MR. BOYLE: The building official has control over that. He has a 918 threshold for when an addition requires an occupancy and I'm not familiar 919 with what that test is. 920 So, one recourse is as this is written, anything not excluded and 921 then would still be subject to the misdemeanor >> let me say that a 922 different way. Anything whose penalties in Chapter 48 would become the 923 process in 33, staff would have the option of taking them directly to court 924 for the court to issue a remedy. 925 That would be the summons option has a fine cap on it of 250, 926 however it brings the local court in for ordering corrections, as opposed 927 to the misdemeanor and having to go to Arlington. So the fine on the 928 surface is less but the process would be local with a judge or staff would 929 be seeking the judge to issue an order. 930 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Let me be clear because the way I understand this, 931 at least the intent of this was to start with a warning, move onto a 932 summons, and summons is issued, you can admit guilt and pay it, or you can 933 ask for a hearing in the Falls Church circuit court, or the local clerk of 934 the court here for it to be dealt with like you would a traffic citation. 935 Do you then appeal it to the Arlington Circuit Court if you disagree 936 with the Circuit Court in the City of Falls Church? Is that again the most 937 >> is that what you think should be done as far as zoning goes? We're 938 adding an extra layer of court proceedings for the City attorney and any 939 potential violator, assuming the City attorney is going to argue when 940 there's a hearing on the issuance of a summons. 941 MR. CASTILLO: Well, it seems the idea here is to decriminalize, if 942 you will, certain zoning violations. And the way they've done that is to 943 say everything with a handful of exceptions now falls outside of the 944 misdemeanor. I think we could >> we have come up with various responses to 945 that: A, we should flip it around with exceptions that are enumerated and 946 everything else is still a misdemeanor, instead of everything is a 947 misdemeanor unless when specifically enumerated. We could do that. 948 We could say that >> I don't think having the additional process 949 associated with a summons is problematic but I think what does concern me a 950 little bit is does this >> do the exceptions cover everything that really 951 should be covered? Are there things that really should still be 952 misdemeanors that are inadvertently not covered? 953 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: CBIRT. 954 MR. CASTILLO: Excuse me? MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 955 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: CBIRT, Chesapeake Bay Act, Land and Surfaces. 956 There are a number of things that are flood plain violations. 957 MR. CASTILLO: Right. And I think that's a very ripe and important 958 issue for discussion, does this make the Code too lenient in some respects. 959 It could, it could not. We don't know at this point. 960 So those are my initial thoughts on that. 961 MR. TAYLOR: And flipping it around to address that. 962 MR. CASTILLO: Yes. And it would require going through the Code and 963 it would also require some judgment that may not ultimately always play out 964 with the facts. But I do think you could say there are certain categorical 965 issues that really shouldn't be misdemeanors. I think there are other ones 966 that say, wow, if there isn't a misdemeanor hammer out there, it could 967 become basically a license to flout the zoning code. 968 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: An awful lot of the fines, at least in the parts 969 that I read, civil penalties can't exceed $3000 in a twelve month period. 970 There certainly is the issue of >> 971 MR. CASTILLO: Cost of doing business. 972 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: >> becoming the cost of doing business which is 973 not necessarily a good deal. 974 City >> State Code does allow jurisdictions that put these civil 975 penalties in place to say after the third violation it rises to a Class 3 976 misdemeanor. 977 MR. CASTILLO: Which may be something we could consider. 978 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Which may be something that >> but again, how that 979 ties in directly to 48 depending on how we address this, that applies 980 specifically for abatement of nuisances which is trash and weeds and grass 981 cutting. Do those fines >> are they applicable? Are they allowable under 982 State Code for zoning violations? I have a lot of questions, I don't know. 983 984 MR. CASTILLO: We're not going to solve all those issues but we can 985 certainly raise them and let greater minds than ours confront those. I 986 think if we just spot the potential pitfalls, we'll have done a service to 987 those who take this to the next step. 988 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Mr. Boyle has suggested that we try to craft a 989 statement that goes forward to the City Council, circulate it by e >mail and 990 present it to staff in advance of February 9th. The Board is required in 991 certain cases to act by resolution. Certainly in the case of an appeal or 992 special exception or something along those lines, it has to be a 993 resolution. We've certainly acted on minutes and rules of procedures and 994 all kinds of other things that were administrative in nature without a 995 resolution. 996 So I think that the question here is can we craft a statement that 997 we're comfortable with and forward that on to the City staff as the 998 position of the Board of Zoning Appeals? 999 MR. STOODLEY: John? 1000 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Actually I think a letter from this Board to 1001 Council would be consistent with what other Boards do more frequently. You 1002 don't often get items referred to you. The Architectural Advisory Board 1003 does frequently, the Planning Commission does frequently. And how they're 1004 usually done, is a statement comes back summarizing, sometimes they make a 1005 recommendation to approve or deny. The AAB typically says we recommend 1006 approval with the following amendments. 1007 What you might do is if you wanted to parity your resolution process MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 12 APRIL 2012 1008 is have someone take the lead to craft it, but because this may have a 1009 number of different opinions is then have a statement from the Board then 1010 in addition Mr. so and so added these comments. I think everyone's 1011 comments here should be >> are valid and should be presented to Council. 1012 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I disagree to some extent. If the statement comes 1013 from this Board, the statement should come from this Board. If the members 1014 >> if somebody doesn't agree, that it should be there, then it should not 1015 come from this Board. I don't think we're in the business of putting out 1016 dissenting opinions. We've certainly never done that in the past. We'll 1017 have a new chair, he can deal with that. 1018 MR. BOYLE: I was trying to save you from several iterations of a 1019 statement. But, yes, the Board should speak with one voice. 1020 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Everything is several iterations. 1021 MR. WILLIAMSON: So we'll just go on record and say that someone 1022 will be designated to craft a statement off line which we'll then circulate 1023 via e>mail to seek final approval on, which would then be submitted by 1024 February 9. Isn't that right? 1025 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Council receives its package on the afternoon of 1026 February 9th, so ideally you'd have it to me that morning at the latest. 1027 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think we should have an agreement by the Board 1028 in public hearing tonight to submit comments, if that is our desire, that 1029 the general nature of those comments be defined in the public record so the 1030 action did occur in a public hearing and we don't have problems with making 1031 decisions or electronic meetings or other things that could come up. 1032 MR. CASTILLO: Would there be a problem with actually going down the 1033 road with electronic meetings so that we could have a full record? 1034 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It has to be advertised. The Chair could call a 1035 special meeting to do that. I'm not sure we necessarily need to do that 1036 either. 1037 If we have agreement and action by the Board to prepare comments 1038 with edits then to follow, that's pretty standard to what we've done with 1039 our resolutions. I would ask John's opinion. If the Board were to agree 1040 that comments will be prepared, the comments will address the issues of the 1041 appropriate application of penalties, the issue of fences, the questions of 1042 whether or not penalties authorized under one section of the Code >> State 1043 Code are truly applicable to zoning as opposed to property maintenance or 1044 nuisance abatement. 1045 The question of the exceptions, what will be treated as a criminal 1046 violation versus what will not be treated as a criminal violation based on 1047 the discussions that we've had so far this evening, and I need a list of 1048 what needs a building permit. 1049 I think that's pretty much the issues that relate to Chapter 48. Do 1050 we have the right sections as exceptions, do the fines that are specified 1051 for building maintenance, are they allowable for zoning. 1052 MR. STOODLEY: Sounds like you just prepared the memo. 1053 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Well, I want to make sure that whatever we do 1054 there's enough specificity in the public meeting that all we're doing is 1055 editing. That we're not adding things in that we haven't discussed. 1056 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah, I think you discussed all the major issues. 1057 MR. BOYLE: We spoke internally about whether adding this to the 1058 agenda requires advertising on its own and I don't recall his words exactly 1059 but John Foster said that this is a customary service that all Boards 1060 provide to other Boards. It's not part of your legal obligations or 1061 statutory obligations where the public may have an interest, you don't have 1062 a property owner who may be concerned about what this Board thinks, you 1063 don't have final decision on this. So for that reason we didn't 1064 readvertise. 1065 MR. CASTILLO: >> as opposed to a decision we're making. 1066 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: When writing up a summary of our discussion on 1067 this, is this a recommendation to adopt, a recommendation not to adopt in 1068 its current format for the following reasons with the following questions, 1069 or is this a no comment as far as option >> 1070 MR. STOODLEY: No, not number 2. 1071 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So our point will be we will recommend not to 1072 adopt as written for the following reasons and with the following 1073 questions. 1074 MR. STOODLEY: Correct. 1075 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. I need to note that. Somehow I strongly 1076 suspect I'm going to get nailed with this. 1077 MR. CASTILLO: I second it. 1078 MR. BOYLE: Motion. I hope Ann is getting this. 1079 MR. STOODLEY: Let me tell you that all of you can still follow this 1080 maintenance thing. The only jury I've been on in the last ten years was 1081 down in Arlington Circuit Court and it was for a guy that we gave a $2500 1082 fine to and ten days in jail because he didn't cut his grass >> that's 1083 right. 1084 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: The cost of doing business. 1085 MR. STOODLEY: Absolutely. It was over a long period of time. He 1086 had a lot of warnings. But the guy just said I'm not going to do it. 1087 MR. WILLIAMSON: How high was his grass? 1088 MR. STOODLEY: I think it was a foot, 2 feet high. 1089 MR. CASTILLO: It stops growing at a certain point. 1090 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All right. I'll give a shot at this. The last 1091 thing we have then under Other Business is are there any particular issues 1092 beyond the norm that whoever is going to write the annual report would like 1093 to have included in that annual report? Generally we do a summary of 1094 actions taken so special use permits, variances, how many we considered, 1095 how many we adopted, how many we denied, attendance. 1096 We usually thank the Council for providing continuing funding for 1097 minutes which I think is a very important one that I would like to see in 1098 there again. 1099 We usually ask for money for training. 1100 MR. STOODLEY: Yes. 1101 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Particularly the >> what are they now? The 1102 Citizens Planning Education Association Certified BZA classes, if 1103 necessary. 1104 MR. CASTILLO: Which I would love to attend. 1105 MR. TAYLOR: Ditto. 1106 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It's very worthwhile. 1107 MR. STOODLEY: Absolutely. 1108 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to bone 1109 up on what our duties and responsibilities are as a BZA, so I will include 1110 that. 1111 I talked to John last year and it never got included in the annual 1112 report and we actually never presented our annual report to Council because 1113 they never scheduled a time. But there are also some books that are used 1114 in that class that are fairly inexpensive that we could request in the 1115 annual report that funds be put aside to provide copies of those books to 1116 members of the BZA, if they don't have them already. 1117 MR. STOODLEY: We've asked for that before and never got any action 1118 on it but there's no problem with asking again. 1119 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Other jurisdictions, Fairfax County in particular, 1120 require members of the BZA to take that training. 1121 MR. TAYLOR: Are we going back to the rules now? 1122 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: No, I think that would probably >> well, we could 1123 do it as a rules of procedure. I think I'd prefer that if that was going 1124 to be done, that that be codified. 1125 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 1126 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: In Chapter 48, not in Chapter 33. 1127 MR. CASTILLO: Do you want to address an alternate? 1128 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We certainly want to include a plea for an 1129 alternate. 1130 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah. 1131 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: With Mr. Boyle's assistance for whoever is going 1132 to write the annual report, it might be very worthwhile to indicate how 1133 many of those decisions were made during the year with less than a full 1134 Board, that could have been resolved by having an alternate. Some of them 1135 were 3 >0, so even an alternate would have helped made it at least 4. 1136 MR. STOODLEY: But we also continued some cases. 1137 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We continued cases because we didn't have members 1138 and there is no alternate. So in an annual report, usual. 1139 MR. BOYLE: The draft of this could be >> same type of schedule as 1140 the 9th but the urgency with comments was that they were due before this 1141 Board meets again. The draft of the annual report I imagine could come 1142 back before this group at your next meeting. 1143 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Sure. I think any annual report should be 1144 approved by the Board in a meeting. Do I have a volunteer to draft, take a 1145 shot at first draft? 1146 Seeing none, Mr. Boyle, I'll see if I can get together with you on a 1147 Friday soon just to go over the who was present, who was not present. 1148 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, what meetings were held, yeah, like we did before. 1149 1150 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think I got most of it but I have to go through 1151 and check. So I will stop by Friday afternoon on the 20th at some point in 1152 the afternoon after the heating and cooling people come to do their 1153 maintenance. 1154 MR. STOODLEY: Is that before or after the City people come? 1155 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I don't want to talk about them. 1156 All right. I will take a shot and see what I can get out to 1157 summarize the position of the Board on the property maintenance as it 1158 relates to 48 under a broad approach of not recommended as written for the 1159 following reasons and with the following questions based on what we 1160 discussed here. 1161 I'll take a first shot at an annual report. I have a template from 1162 all the previous years that should be fairly easy to file serial numbers 1163 off and move forward on. 1164 So I think that takes care of Old Business. 1165 1166 6. RECEIPT OF PETITIONS. 1167 1168 Seeing none, I'll close this to receipt of petitions. 1169 1170 7. NEW BUSINESS: 1171 A. Election of officers 1172 1173 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We have an item under New Business. Election of 1174 officers for calendar year 2012. 1175 Under our Rules of Procedure, the Chair can serve for two 1176 consecutive terms. I have served for two consecutive terms so we will most 1177 likely have a new Chair this evening. 1178 Should we start this with Secretary, Vice Chair, and Chair? Or 1179 should we go Chair, Vice Chair >> 1180 MR. STOODLEY: Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. 1181 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. In that case before we start, since I won't 1182 be Chair but I would like to add or ask, in the past we have made Mr. Boyle 1183 the secretary. 1184 MR. TAYLOR: Before we get into the actual elections >> 1185 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yes. 1186 MR. TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion that we strike the last 1187 sentence of 1 >1 from our rules of procedure which limits a person to 1188 serving two consecutive years, two consecutive terms. You know, I feel 1189 like since we vote for who that person is, there's not really a reason for 1190 that. If the Board felt somebody should not serve for more than two years, 1191 then so be it. I don't understand what we're trying to accomplish there. 1192 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? 1193 MR. WILLIAMSON: Second. 1194 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I have a motion and second. 1195 Discussion. 1196 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I don't know why either. This has been >> 1197 MR. STOODLEY: Forever. There is no real reason for it. 1198 MR. WILLIAMSON:Agreed. 1199 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Mr. Boyle, any real reason? 1200 MR. BOYLE: It wouldn't be in the charter, would it? I don't think 1201 it is. 1202 MR. STOODLEY: I don't know. 1203 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: That is a good question. 1204 Who brought Chapter 17 with them? 1205 MR. BOYLE: The Code is not that specific so. 1206 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think the State Code just says the Board members 1207 will choose. 1208 MR. BOYLE: In honor of Mr. Pelatier. 1209 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Is this the Joe Pelatier rule? 1210 MR. BOYLE: Is this in the Chaarter? Is in the Chaarter? 1211 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I don't have a copy of the Charter with me. 1212 MR. BOYLE: We can do a >> 1213 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: You have Internet access, don't you? 1214 MR. WADE: Not tonight. 1215 MR. BOYLE: I'll check. 1216 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Let the record reflect Mr. Boyle walked out in 1217 disgust. 1218 MR. BOYLE: I'll be right back. 1219 MR. STOODLEY: That's a good point. We've always done it that, 1220 doesn't mean we should do it that way again. 1221 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I don't think it's a requirement under State Code. 1222 1223 MR. STOODLEY: No, it's not. 1224 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: It's 15 2 20. 1225 MR. STOODLEY: No, I don't think it is either. It may be under City 1226 but I'm not sure. 1227 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: 23, 723. 1228 MR. STOODLEY: I've always accepted it. I wouldn't think it. 1229 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yeah, it's been on there. We haven't got the 1230 Charter, the question then is >> let's see if the materials I have from the 1231 certified BZA training course. 1232 MR. CASTILLO: I looked through the (inaudible) handbook but there 1233 is nothing there. 1234 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Board of Zoning Appeals and the Zoning 1235 Administrative composition, powers and duties. 1236 MR. CASTILLO: I think Chair for Life might be problematic but >> 1237 MR. STOODLEY: Yeah, I think so. 1238 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yeah, it's going to be in 15 10 >23>08. 1239 I thought the language in the State Code and the Charter just said 1240 the Chair and Vice Chair and Secretary will be selected by the members. 1241 MR. STOODLEY: That's what I think is correct. 1242 MR. WILLIAMSON: Should we wait or continue discussion? 1243 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I'm going to argue strenuously the Charter and 1244 everything says two consecutive terms. 1245 MR. STOODLEY: I take it you don't want a third term. 1246 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I hadn't planned on it but >> 1247 MR. WILLIAMSON: Shall we continue the discussion as if >> 1248 MR. CASTILLO: Well, I think the discussion comes down to a 1249 question. 1250 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Well the only other question I had is actually a 1251 question for Mr. Wade, Mr. Boyle, which frankly if identifying a Secretary 1252 for the Board, do they have a preference and in this case I would lean 1253 towards requesting that Mr. Wade be identified as the secretary to avoid 1254 any potential conflicts for John as secretary and subject to various 1255 things. 1256 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it's a really good idea. 1257 MR. BOYLE: I don't think you are limited by Charter. 1258 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Oh, I'm sure we are. I'm positive. 17, 18 or 19. 1259 1260 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: This says eligible for reelection. 1261 All right. We have a motion from Mr. Taylor and a second from Mr. 1262 Castillo to delete the last sentence of part one, officers, one point. So 1263 1>1 in the Rules of Procedure, delete the sentence that says, The chairman 1264 shall take office immediately and serve for one year and no more than two 1265 consecutive terms after which time she >> she slash he would be restrained 1266 from service as chair for at least a year. 1267 MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you be amenable to an amendment to that 1268 motion which is that you would retain the sentence up until, The new 1269 chairman shall take office immediately, so one year period and delete the 1270 remaining portion of the sentence. 1271 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. 1272 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. Is that acceptable to the seconder? 1273 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1274 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So we have a modified or revised motion to change 1275 the last sentence to read, The new chairman shall take office immediately 1276 and serve for one year. That is in compliance with the Charter. 1277 Okay. We have a motion, we have a second, we've had discussion. 1278 Did we do a roll call vote for the >> do we do a roll call vote for 1279 changing the Rules of Procedure before or did we just do a voice vote? 1280 MR. STOODLEY: We did voice vote. 1281 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All right. We'll have a voice vote. 1282 All those in favor. 1283 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1284 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All those opposed. 1285 Anyone abstaining? I'll abstain. 1286 So it looks like it passes 4 >1 from the voice vote, the one 1287 abstention, 4 >0>1. So the Rules of Procedure are changed yet again. 1288 The question that I have for Mr. Boyle who was not here for part of 1289 the discussion on, as he was so helpful in getting a copy of Chapter 17 for 1290 us which did not bail me out, was the area of the Secretary. I wanted to 1291 ask staff if in the past we've identified Mr. Boyle as the Secretary. I'm 1292 wondering if staff would be open to, amenable to, think it's a good idea to 1293 potentially name Mr. Wade who has been attending all of our meetings as the 1294 Secretary. He keeps the minutes. He does that kind of stuff. And this 1295 would avoid I think potential conflicts for you, Mr. Boyle, when you're the 1296 Secretary and a party when there's appeals and things like that. 1297 MR. BOYLE: It's a good point. 1298 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: If that's something that is amenable to staff, 1299 should someone on the Board make a motion to that effect when we get to the 1300 area of dealing with the Secretary. 1301 MR. BOYLE: I appreciate your discretion. Yes, I think that's a 1302 good suggestion, if only to avoid a conflict on appeal. 1303 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I think it puts you in a tight spot sometimes. 1304 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, I'm receiving all the opponent's documents and I'm 1305 party to the appeal. It's very uncomfortable so, yeah. 1306 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: In the past we really haven't had a City staff 1307 member who has been serving in Mr. Wade's position. You've been here for, 1308 I don't know how many meetings in a row now but almost a year's worth. 1309 MR. WADE: Over a year. 1310 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We've had contractors here, somebody to take 1311 minutes and things like that, but the opportunity seems ripe if that is 1312 amendable to staff, it sounds like it is. So I'll ask the Board, anyone 1313 willing to make a motion for >> 1314 MR. STOODLEY: I move >> 1315 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We reversed the order, bottom to top. Whoever is 1316 going to make a motion to consider the option, the options that we just 1317 discussed. 1318 The Board wished to start with the election of the Chair. 1319 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1320 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Do I have a nomination for Chair for calendar year 1321 2012? 1322 MR. STOODLEY: I move that John Murphy be Chair. 1323 MR. CASTILLO: Second. 1324 MR. BOYLE: It's a conspiracy. 1325 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All right. We have >> 1326 MR. CASTILLO: Can we call him dear leader or great leader? 1327 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I prefer "dear". 1328 All right. We have a motion from Mr. Stoodley or a nomination from 1329 Mr. Stoodley, seconded by Mr. Castillo for John Murphy to serve as chair. 1330 Are there any other nominations for the position of Chair? 1331 Just to make this fun, I'm going to nominate Howard Stoodley for 1332 Chair for the coming year 2012. 1333 Is there a second? 1334 Okay. Hearing none, that failed. It was worth a try. 1335 We have one nomination. I will request a voice vote for the 1336 election of officers. 1337 MR. CASTILLO: Roll call vote. 1338 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Roll call vote, I'm sorry. 1339 Mr. Wade. 1340 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 1341 MR. STOODLEY: Yes. 1342 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 1343 MR. CASTILLO: Yes. 1344 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1345 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1346 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Taylor. 1347 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. 1348 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Murphy. 1349 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Abstain. 1350 All right. So it looks like I'm serving as Chair for calendar year 1351 2012. Thank you gentlemen, and I say that with sincere, sincere feeling. 1352 MR. BOYLE: The record should reflect that I'm not aware of when the 1353 last time a Chair exceeded two years. Maybe Howard is. 1354 MR. STOODLEY: No. 1355 MR. BOYLE: So this is the Roosevelt, the FDR rule of running for a 1356 third term so. 1357 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Let's not bring FDR in because that begins to 1358 imply four and I don't want to go there. 1359 MR. BOYLE: Too late. 1360 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: On that note, do I have a nomination for vice 1361 chair for the Board of Zoning Appeals for calendar year 2012? 1362 MR. CASTILLO: I nominate Howard Stoodley. 1363 MR. WILLIAMSON:Second. 1364 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. We have a nomination of Howard Stoodley. 1365 Are there any other nominations? 1366 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All right. We have the nomination of Howard 1367 Stoodley for vice chair for calendar year 2012. 1368 Can we have a roll call vote please. 1369 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Taylor. 1370 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. 1371 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 1372 MR. CASTILLO: Yes. 1373 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Taylor. 1374 MR. TAYLOR: Yes 1375 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Murphy. 1376 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yes. 1377 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1378 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1379 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 1380 MR. STOODLEY: Abstain. 1381 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: So 4 >0>1 we have a new Vice Chair for the coming 1382 year. Congratulations, Mr. Stoodley. 1383 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Our last officer is the Secretary for the calendar 1384 year 2012. 1385 Do I have any nominations? 1386 MR. WILLIAMSON:Nominate Mr. Wade. 1387 MR. STOODLEY: Second. 1388 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: We have nomination of Mr. Wade and we have a 1389 second. 1390 Do I have any other nominations? 1391 Hearing none, roll call vote. 1392 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Murphy. 1393 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yes. 1394 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 1395 MR. CASTILLO: Yes. 1396 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1397 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1398 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Taylor. 1399 MR. TAYLOR: He. 1400 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 1401 MR. STOODLEY: Yes. 1402 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Okay. I think we are done with business on the 1403 agenda. 1404 MR. STOODLEY: Move to adjourn. 1405 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Our officers for the coming year are Mr. Murphy, 1406 Mr. Stoodley, and Mr. Wade. 1407 Mr. Boyle has urgent news. 1408 MR. BOYLE: If I might before you adjourn, this is a perfect moment 1409 to inform the Board that Mr. Wade has attained his certifications from our 1410 state >> our state organization for certified zoning official and certified 1411 zoning administrator. So at long last I have a true deputy to assist in 1412 these decisions and he speaks with the authority of the Code now. 1413 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I am extremely disappointed you didn't tell us 1414 that in advance or I wouldn't have even asked if he was going to be 1415 secretary. 1416 Thank you. That's good news. Congratulations. 1417 Very good news. 1418 1419 8. ADJOURNMENT: 1420 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All right. On that note do I have a motion to 1421 adjourn? 1422 MR. STOODLEY: I already did. 1423 MR. CASTILLO: Second. 1424 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: All those in favor. 1425 Opposed. None. 1426 Thank you, gentlemen. 1427 I think we are adjourned. We should plan on meeting next month. 1428 MR. BOYLE: Regardless. 1429 MR. STOODLEY: Absolutely. 1430 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: If for no other reason than to go over the annual 1431 report. 1432 MR. BOYLE: And that would be February 16th. 1433 CHAIRMAN MURPHY: Yes. 1434 1435 Respectfully Submitted, Noted and Approved: 1436 1437 1438 Ann Hieber 1439 1440