Board of Zoning Appeals

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 3 City Council Chambers 4 300 Park Avenue 5 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 6 Thursday, April 12, 2012 7 7:30 p.m. 8 9 10 1. CALL TO ORDER: 11 12 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Call the regular meeting of the Board 13 of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, 12 April session. 14 15 2. ROLL CALL: 16 17 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Please give me a roll call. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 19 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 21 MR. CASTILLO: Here. 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Williamson. 23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. 24 25 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I'll note that we have a quorum, if 26 nothing else. 27 We jointly agreed to move everything else on the agenda 28 and to move New Business. 29 30 6. RECEIPT OF PETITIONS: 31 32 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I'm sorry. First, any receipt of 33 petitions? Anybody have a petition? 34 35 7. NEW BUSINESS: 36 37 a. Variance application V1527-12 (MUNIS #20120613) by 38 L.F. Jennings, Inc., for a variance to Section 48-1265(1) (b) to 39 permit a wall sign above the second floor window on premises 40 known as 407 North Washington Street, RPC #51-102-006 of the 41 Falls Church Real Property records, zoned B-3 General Business, 42 said property owned by Falls Church Enterprises, LLC. 43 44 45 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Then we'll go to New Business. 46 And the variance application V1527-12, by L.F. 47 Jennings, Incorporated, for a variance Section to 48-1265 (1)(b) 48 to permit a wall sign above the second floor window on the 49 premises known as 407 North Washington Street, RPC Number 51-102- 50 006 of the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned B-3, General MINUTES OF THE 12 APRIL 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 14 JUNE 2012  51 Business, said property owned by Falls Church Enterprises, LLC. 52 So anybody wants to speak on that? 53 Do you want to swear me in or anything? 54 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Yes, please rise. 55 (Witness sworn.) 56 MR. BASKIN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Thank 57 you. 58 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I want to hear from Mr. Boyle first. 59 MR. BASKIN: I'm sorry. 60 MR. BOYLE: Yes, Mr. Chair. 61 This item deals with an application for a sign to be 62 placed on a business in the City of Falls Church. The question 63 in hand is actually very simple. The Code does not allow a sign 64 to be placed on a building higher than the second story sill and 65 I believe this business is hoping to place a sign on the building 66 that's visible from a distance and staff does not have authority 67 to approve that. 68 So they're here to request that of the Board, that 69 variance, that Code section. 70 And with that I'll defer to the applicant's presentation. 71 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Mr. Baskin. 72 MR. BASKIN: Thank you. 73 Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, thank you, gentlemen. 74 This, I hope each of you have a copy of the representation of the 75 sign. The size of the sign is permissible so it's really just 76 the location. And what we believe justifies the variance is that 77 you can see there's some structures on the roof of the building 78 that's in front of it, the Bank of America building there, which 79 would obstruct the sign if it were put below the second floor 80 windows. 81 And, you know, we feel that this is sufficient 82 justification to allow the variance to put it up at the top 83 corner of the building. 84 But really moreover I think that the location that we're 85 proposing is probably more the standard location. I mean, if you 86 drive down Ballston or out the Toll Road, virtually every 87 business has its either logo or its business name on a prominent 88 corner of the building. 89 And the L.F. Jennings Company, the last time I heard about 90 it was, I think they were the eighth largest builder of 91 commercial space in the United States which is a phenomenal 92 achievement really when you think about the number of 93 construction companies there are across the U.S. And for them to 94 be located here in Falls Church I think is something that the 95 City, you know, is proud of and would want to help them to 96 promote their business. 97 And certainly I believe that recent years it's been the 98 City's policy to try and help promote new businesses and retain 99 old businesses so I think certainly the proposal to put the sign 100 where they seek to really is not at all at odds with what the 101 City's current position is with respect to how business is 102 treated. 103 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. rest den. 104 I open it to members of the Board. 105 First of all, does any members of the public want to speak 106 on this? 107 I see none so I'll go to the Board. 108 Mr. Castillo. 109 MR. CASTILLO: I guess my only thought, Mr. Baskin, is I 110 found your application somewhat, although I understand what 111 you're asking for, I found it somewhat thin in terms of going 112 through the elements that have to be shown to obtain what it is 113 that you are seeking. And I think with one of the things that we 114 need to be mindful of here are what our powers are and aren't. 115 So would you mind going through the elements for why you 116 believe this is important and how you meet the criteria for 117 seeking the relief that you are requesting? 118 MR. BASKIN: I believe that the criteria that we meet is 119 that it would be a hardship to put the sign in the required 120 location because the sign would be obstructed by parts of 121 buildings that are off site, we have no control over. So it's 122 for that reason that, you know, we feel that that's the 123 justification for the variance. 124 MR. CASTILLO: And is there -- is the hardship not shared 125 generally? 126 MR. BASKIN: Well, I mean, it may not generally I don't 127 think so. I suppose it might be of various other buildings at 128 certain locations. Placement of a sign is often a unique thing 129 in any event. But, yeah, I don't think it's shared generally by 130 everyone. 131 MR. CASTILLO: How about the substantial detriment to the 132 adjacent property? 133 MR. BASKIN: I don't think it creates any detriment to the 134 adjacent property. 135 I mean, it's a matter of, I suppose, subjective analysis 136 whether, you know, that strikes you as offensive to the adjacent 137 property or out of character with the surrounding zoning 138 district. 139 Or I mean, I think really the -- the technical 140 requirements of the variance I don't think match particularly 141 well with a sign variance. Because you can't -- I don't think 142 you can say that the hardship approaches confiscation if you 143 don't let someone -- 144 MR. CASTILLO: We don't have to do that anymore. 145 MR. BASKIN: Well, I realize that. But I don't think you 146 really have to go through each of the technical requirements and 147 satisfy them the same way you would with a variance. 148 But nevertheless, I think you do but I think you have to 149 look at it from the standpoint of what's being requested and it's 150 not a request -- it's not a variance to a side yard requirement 151 or to a height requirement or something like that. 152 And so I think when viewed in the context of a sign 153 variance, I think that we meet the requirements of the ordinance 154 and satisfy those requirements and should be allowed a variance. MINUTES OF THE 12 APRIL 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 14 JUNE 2012 155 MR. CASTILLO: Well, I guess my question, what would 156 happen if you couldn't put the sign up. 157 MR. BASKIN: I don't know. They may decide to move to a 158 more friendly jurisdiction where they can put a sign up. That's 159 why I say, I don't think you can view an application for a sign 160 variance with the same strict standards that other variances are 161 viewed. 162 It's been my experience that this Board in the past has 163 not done so, that where a sign variance is sought and it doesn't 164 pose any detriment to the community or to surrounding properties, 165 it doesn't change the character of the zoning district, it is not 166 otherwise detrimental and there are no objections to it, then 167 it's been my experience that those are usually granted. 168 MR. CASTILLO: Okay. Thank you. 169 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Mr. Williamson. 170 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is this hardship, I mean is hardship or 171 not detrimental to the surrounding properties, are those the only 172 criteria that have to be satisfied? 173 MR. BASKIN: I'm sorry. I have to go back and look. I 174 don't particularly have it in front of me. If you'll bear with 175 me for just a second. 176 I believe it's under Section 48-1297 subparagraph F, 177 conditional sign or conditional variance for zoning appeals 178 pursuant to the same powers and authority in accordance with the 179 same requirements of Section 48-1726 and 7 and Section 48-173, 180 BZA grant conditional variances provided all variances shall be 181 in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose specified in this 182 article and the Architectural Review Board shall review the 183 application prior to consideration of the Board. 184 That happened in this case and I believe they recommended 185 approval. And so I don't think it's the same rigid standard 186 that's in the variance for say a setback or -- 187 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's what I recall. There is fairly 188 wider discretion around a sign variance than it is other 189 variances that we were asked to approve. Okay. 190 MR. BASKIN: That's what I was trying to state I guess. I 191 appreciate your help on that. 192 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. I wasn't sure that was actually 193 the case. 194 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I just want to point out that the 195 Board has approved recently signs which all required variances. 196 Do I have a motion? 197 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. I would make a motion to approve 198 Variance Application V 1527-12 for a variance to Section 48-1265 199 1 B to permit a wall sign above the second floor window on the 200 premises known as 407 North Washington Street in recognition of 201 the facts that the requested sign is in harmony with the 202 surrounding properties and is consistent with the character of 203 the building. 204 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 205 MR. CASTILLO: I would second. 206 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Let's have a roll call vote please. 207 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 208 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Yes. 209 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 210 MR. CASTILLO: Yes. 211 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 212 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 213 214 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: All right, sir. 215 MR. BASKIN: Thank you, gentlemen. 216 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Your variance is approved. 217 As to all of the New Business we have, I want to note that 218 the Board has in informal discussions changed the agenda. I 219 believe the Call to Order, the Roll Call, Receipt of Petitions, 220 New Business, and then Approval of Minutes and Resolutions, Other 221 Business, Old Business, and finally Adjournment. So what we're 222 doing is we're moving up the agenda to accommodate the applicants 223 so they don't waste their time looking at us approve minutes and 224 resolutions. 225 Mr. Boyle, do you agree to that? 226 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. And the Board's Rules of Procedure 227 is where the order of business is found. 228 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I know. 229 MR. BOYLE: So with your permission, I'll make that 230 adjustment or does this require a motion to amend the Rules of 231 Procedure to reflect that? 232 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I would think it would take a motion. 233 MR. WILLIAMSON: If that's the case, I would make a motion 234 to approve the change to the Regular Board of Zoning Appeals 235 Agenda as described by Chairman Stoodley minutes ago. 236 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 237 MR. CASTILLO: I'll second that. 238 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Roll call vote then. 239 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 240 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 241 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Castillo. 242 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 243 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 244 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Yes. 245 Okay. It's approved and so in further business, we'll 246 move to that new order of business. 247 248 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND RESOLUTIONS: 249 250 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Let's go to approval of minutes and 251 resolutions. 252 Minutes from January of 2012. You have a copy of them? 253 (Discussion was had on the minutes and upon a voice 254 voice the minutes were approved as submitted.) 255 256 4. OTHER BUSINESS: 257 258 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Okay. I'm going to defer Other MINUTES OF THE 12 APRIL 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 14 JUNE 2012 259 Business and we're going to have a closed session to talk about 260 what's going on with the Board of Zoning Appeals. 261 262 5. OLD BUSINESS: 263 264 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Do we have any Old Business? 265 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 266 267 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: And I would move to adjourn and then 268 go back to a closed session. 269 MR. WILLIAMSON: Second. 270 MR. CASTILLO: Could we have a point, this will be -- we 271 will adjourn and go to closed session and -- 272 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: We'll adjourn and go to closed 273 session. I mean, that is my judgment but again Robert's Rules 274 are not clear on that. In other words, the problem prior to 275 adjournment, we would have everything on the record for the 276 court. And we don't want that. 277 MR. BOYLE: Closed session may not be the right term. I 278 think we're obligated to come back into session after a closed 279 session. 280 MR. WILLIAMSON: That was my question. 281 MR. BOYLE: Perhaps we simply adjourn and we're allowed -- 282 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I just didn't want what we're going to 283 talk about on the record. 284 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 285 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: That's my point. I don't know how to 286 get there. Any help on that? 287 MR. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. 288 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: You can have Mr. Boyle explain what 289 went on. 290 MR. CASTILLO: Could we handle that under Old Business? 291 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I don't think so. It's not Old 292 Business. It's not the business of the Board. It's an 293 explanation of the zoning administrator. So I don't think it's 294 Old Business. 295 MR. CASTILLO: I guess it would be with respect -- 296 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I just don't want it on the record. 297 Old Business would be on the record. 298 MR. CASTILLO: My desire would be that we would want that 299 on the record. 300 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I don't think we're in that position. 301 MR. CASTILLO: Mr. Boyle, would you have an objection to 302 discussing the events regarding Parker Street? 303 MR. BOYLE: I would on the record because the City 304 Attorney has already spoken to this matter. 305 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Yeah, that's what he told me. 306 MR. BOYLE: I don't think a conversation after the meeting 307 constitutes an unadvertised meeting though. But I'll defer to 308 the Board. 309 MR. CASTILLO: I would object to that. I would say we 310 have an issue here with respect to the events at 900 Parker 311 Avenue and I think one of the problems is how much we don't know 312 what happened. 313 I would say to Mr. Boyle, he and I shared, not being here 314 on March 15th and we neither have any submissions from the City 315 Attorney, we have no citations, any Code provisions. We have no 316 account from Mr. Boyle. We have subsequent statements from the 317 applicant as to her understanding and we don't know anything 318 about any of this. 319 And I think there are significant gaps in the record and 320 my concern would be if we do this off the record that problem 321 will persist. And I think it's in the interest of everyone 322 involved that we have a full and open hearing what these events 323 were, what the reasoning was, and I think that will be to the 324 good of everyone so we have transparency rather than continued 325 lack of clarity as to what the decisions were, why they were 326 made, and on what basis. 327 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I understand that and I certainly 328 share your opinions. But unfortunately the City has -- the City 329 Attorney has said we cannot speak on the record about what went 330 on because there may be litigation afterwards. So I don't know 331 how to resolve the issue. 332 We can just avoid the issue, if possible, and do it off 333 the record. We can't do it off the record because the record of 334 the Board of Zoning Appeals' proceedings, there's judgments and 335 there's petitions and all of that is on the record. But if it 336 goes to the Arlington Circuit Court next but I don't think we can 337 ask Mr. Boyle to explain his position in lieu of the fact that 338 he's been told not to. 339 MR. CASTILLO: Has the City attorney expressed this in 340 writing anywhere? 341 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: No, no. He expressed it to me 342 personally. 343 MR. CASTILLO: Well, again I would -- I am concerned that 344 the only discussion we have thus far of what happened and why is 345 essentially hearsay presented by Mr. Foster and Mr. Snyder. I 346 had a discussion with Mr. Foster about providing a written 347 analysis of this. My understanding is that water litigation over 348 the water sales has intervened and made that impractical. 349 But again, my overriding concern is how much we don't know 350 and I think proceeding off the record isn't going to help us in 351 any way and in the absence of anything from Mr. Foster right now 352 as to what the analysis was and why, I think we only make an 353 existing problem worse. 354 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Yeah, we should continue this issue to 355 the next meeting and have Mr. Foster here. He's not here so we 356 can't theorize what he would say. 357 He's talked to him, I've talked to him. He explained to 358 me that his analysis was completely legal but beside that point, 359 if you want it on the record, then we have to put it as an agenda 360 item for the next meeting. 361 MR. CASTILLO: Okay. I would move then that we continue 362 this and we can put it as an agenda item at the next meeting. MINUTES OF THE 12 APRIL 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 14 JUNE 2012 363 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 364 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a -- is someone going to ask Mr. 365 Foster to -- how is this going to work? 366 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Okay. Mr. Boyle will have Mr. Foster 367 here. Here's our secretary. 368 MR. WILLIAMSON: I was in favor of your original approach. 369 It sounds like that's what's been advised and that's -- it 370 sounds like that's not going to happen. 371 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Well, it certainly wouldn't happen at 372 this meeting because Mr. Foster is not here. 373 We can continue it as an item for next meeting or we can - 374 - if I don't get a second, we'll just void your motion then. And 375 proceed. 376 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think we can continue, we can find out 377 before we put it on the agenda and without even knowing if it's 378 going to be able to occur, I would say we adjourn and find out if 379 that can even occur. 380 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: You agree with that? 381 MR. CASTILLO: The City Attorney told me as did the mayor 382 that the City Attorney would produce a written analysis. 383 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: Yes, I got the same information. 384 MR. CASTILLO: And I have no reason to doubt that the 385 water sale -- the water system sale may have derailed that plan. 386 So I have no -- I think it would be in everyone's interest to 387 wait for the City Attorney's submission on this. 388 389 8. ADJOURNMENT: 390 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: I agree. So let's continue to the 391 next meeting and move to adjourn. 392 MR. CASTILLO: Second. I move to adjourn. 393 MR. WILLIAMSON: Second. 394 CHAIRMAN STOODLEY: This meeting is adjourned and thank 395 you, gentlemen. 396 Respectfully Submitted, Noted and Approved, 397 398 399 Ann Hieber 400 Recording Secretary 401