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 AUGUST 16, 2012 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9 10 MR. STOODLEY: Call the Board of Zoning Appeals to order for August 16, 11 2012, at 7:30 p.m. 12 Can we have the roll call please. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL: 15 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 17 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 21 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 23 MR. KRASNER: Here. 24 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. 25 26 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 27 28 Approval of BZA Resolution of Appreciation for the distinguished service of 29 Justin Castillo 30 31 CHAIR STOODLEY: Before we have petitions, I want to read the citation for 32 Justin Castillo who has been with us for a long time. And he has recently been 33 elected to the School Board so this is a just in appreciation of his service. 34 Whereas, Mr. Castillo has served with distinction on the City of Falls 35 Church Board of Zoning Appeals as an alternate and full board member for over three 36 years and he will continue to further serve the community as an elected member of 37 the Falls Church City School Board; 38 Whereas, he had diverse knowledge of the law which made him an unique Board 39 member which allowed him to bring creative and innovative solutions to the Board of 40 Zoning Appeals in its decisions and zoning issues, inclusive of variances, special 41 permits, and special exceptions, and he distinguished himself by strong commitment 42 to public service and strong dedication to the City that he served; and he always 43 strived to bring his personal commitment and professionalism in all that he 44 undertook as a Board member to make the City of Falls Church a vibrant and 45 aesthetically pleasing community, he benefited all with his sense of commitment to 46 the Board of Zoning appeals and therefore, to the City of Falls Church, with his 47 preparation for each meeting and understanding of all issues, and it has been a 48 distinct honor and pleasure to work with him. 49 Be it therefore resolved that the City of Falls Church Board of Zoning 50 Appeals hereby expresses its deep felt appreciation to Mr. Castillo's devoted 51 service to the City and extends to him the Board's sincere best wishes in his 52 future endeavors. 53 And I would like to have a vote to adopt this please. 54 MR. BOYLE: As background, we need a motion from the Board to pass that on 55 to Council on behalf of the BZA. 56 MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved. 57 MR. KRASNER: Second. 58 CHAIR STOODLEY: I need a vote. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013  59 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 60 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 61 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 62 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 63 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 64 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 65 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Stoodley. 66 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 67 So adopted and pass this to the City Council. 68 69 3. PETITIONS 70 71 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do we have any petitions from the audience? 72 No. Okay. 73 Let's get onto New Business. 74 75 4. NEW BUSINESS: 76 77 b. Variance application V1530-12 (MUNIS #20010607) by Newcomb Broadcasting 78 Corporation for a variance to Sec. 48-1265 (3) to allow a freestanding sign to 79 contain the names of six individual businesses on each side on premises known as 80 155 Hillwood Avenue, also known as Tower Square, RPC #53-108-008 of the Falls 81 Church Real Property records, zoned OD-HA Official Design-Historic Area/B-3 General 82 Business split, said property owned by Newcomb Broadcasting Corporation. 83 84 CHAIR STOODLEY: Does anybody have anything to say other than what's listed? 85 There are three items listed. 86 Everybody that's going to speak tonight because of the extension -- 87 extensive nature of the agenda, will you please stand and be sworn in if you're 88 going to speak tonight. 89 MR. BOYLE: Anyone that's going to present to the Board tonight. 90 CHAIR STOODLEY: Raise your right hand please. 91 (Witnesses sworn.) 92 CHAIR STOODLEY: Were you all sworn, the three of you? 93 The first item is Variance Application Victor 1530-12, by Newcomb 94 Broadcasting Corporation for a variance, Section 48-1265 (3), to allow a 95 freestanding sign with names of six individual businesses on each side of the 96 premises known as 155 Hillwood Avenue in Tower Square here in Falls Church, zoned 97 OD-HA, Official Design-Historic Area B3 General Business split and real property 98 owned by Newcomb Broadcasting 99 Corporation. 100 Do we have the applicant here? 101 MS. NEWCOMB: Yes. I'm Doris Newcomb. 102 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. 103 MS. NEWCOMB: And I came to discuss and answer any questions about my 104 request. 105 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. And Mr. Boyle. 106 MR. BOYLE: Yes, Mr. Chair. 107 First I'd like to thank the Board for agreeing to pull themselves together 108 for a special meeting in August. I do not recall when the last time we met in 109 August was. 110 CHAIR STOODLEY: It's been a long time. 111 MR. BOYLE: On behalf of the public here, this is a rare feat, the Board has 112 scheduled normally when they do not meet. On behalf of the applicants, they 113 appreciate the opportunity to bring their matters before the Board. 114 This first item is a sign variance. It's actually fairly simple. There is 115 a freestanding sign on the property now with three names on it as depicted in the - 116 - MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 117 MS. NEWCOMB: It's your last page. 118 MR. BOYLE: Last page, kind of a shot from the corner, showing three large 119 white panels. That is what the Code allows and what staff can approve. The 120 applicant is hoping to do what is depicted one page forward of that which is 121 essentially to use the same square footage but double the number of signs there. 122 In bringing this matter before the AAB, I think they agreed it was probably 123 a good use of the space and they made comment as well that the spaces in the 124 shopping center are a little more difficult to see from the road than some of our 125 other shopping centers and the AAB recommended approval and staff has no 126 objections. 127 This is simply something that we do not have the authority to approve so we 128 bring it to your attention for review and consideration. 129 With that, I'll defer to the applicant and any questions the Board has. 130 MR. CALABRESE: If I could ask Ms. Newcomb, if I understand right, these 131 two, it will be two different signs or it will be one sign with all of these items 132 together? 133 MS. NEWCOMB: We have three names on each side of the sign. 134 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 135 MS. NEWCOMB: And there's three panels. What I propose to do is each of 136 those panels will have two names rather than one name on it. Even now a couple of 137 our tenants use two lines in a section. So I'm simply trying to give all of my 138 tenants a shot at being able to be seen better from the street in this fashion 139 without increasing the size of the sign or changing the color of the letters or 140 anything. 141 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 142 MS. NEWCOMB: I don't feel it serves them as well as I'd really like to. 143 MR. KRASNER: I have two questions. So it will be the same on both faces of 144 the sign, the same names, or you're saying different names. 145 MS. NEWCOMB: Different names because I have a total of 12 tenants. Each 146 person will have -- you can pick any way to do it. I was going to do as you look 147 at the shopping center, the left side will be on say the left side and the right. 148 So that everyone has their names somewhere on the sign is the goal -- except for my 149 business. 150 MR. KRASNER: I'm sorry -- 151 MS. NEWCOMB: Except for, yes. 152 CHAIR STOODLEY: Will you turn on the mike please. 153 MR. KRASNER: Now it's on. Okay. 154 My other question is just in the diagram you're showing again consistent 155 font and color and is that what you intend? I'm not saying exactly what you're 156 showing here but are you intending to have consistent font or is this exactly what 157 you're intending to add? 158 MS. NEWCOMB: There's been some changes. I want them all to be identical, 159 the identical colors. I would use the same sign company that has produced these. 160 This is not something where the tenants are going to be paying for this. It's 161 simply my choice, my sign. 162 MS. KRASNER: That's my other question, individual logos and vastly 163 different colors and fonts. 164 MS. NEWCOMB: No, I don't think that will be attractive. I'm trying to keep 165 it with the exact same appearance, just more information. 166 MR. KRASNER: Okay. All right. 167 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions. 168 MS. NEWCOMB: Okay. 169 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a motion? 170 MR. CALABRESE: So moved. 171 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 172 MR. KRASNER: Second. 173 Discussion, is there discussion? 174 Again, I think I'm comfortable with it as long as the applicant's willing to MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 175 commit to the consistent font as she described and testified to, as consistent font 176 and color for the individual tenant names. 177 MS. NEWCOMB: Absolutely. 178 CHAIR STOODLEY: Can I have a roll call vote? Sorry. 179 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're simply -- it's a motion to approve variance 180 application V1530-12 essentially as it's written right here, simply motion to 181 approve. 182 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 183 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 184 CHAIR STOODLEY: Roll call vote. 185 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 186 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 187 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 188 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 189 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 190 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 191 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 192 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 193 CHAIR STOODLEY: You have the variance. 194 MS. NEWCOMB: Thank you. Thank you. 195 CHAIR STOODLEY: Good luck. 196 197 c. Variance application V1529-12 (MUNIS #20120247) by Christopher Gordon, for a 198 variance to Sec. 48-1102 (c) to allow encroachment into a required front yard 199 setback for construction of proposed renovations on premises known as 308 Poplar 200 Drive, RPC # 52-504-009 of the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned R1-A, low 201 density residential, said property owned by Christopher Gordon. 202 203 CHAIR STOODLEY: Next one is variance application V1529-12, by Christopher 204 Gordon for a variance of Section 48-1102 (c) to allow encroachment into a required 205 front yard setback for construction of proposed renovations on premises known as 206 308 Poplar Drive, RPC 52-504-009 of the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned 207 R1-A, low density residential, said property owned by Christopher Gordon. 208 Mr. Boyle. 209 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I could make an aside, in case there's anyone here 210 for the item that was withdrawn, I neglected to point that out to start. We don't 211 have a way of communicating with the public after a late withdrawal. 212 CHAIR STOODLEY: I understand. 213 MR. BOYLE: So if anyone is here for the appeal regarding the property at 214 1007 Lincoln Avenue, that appeal was withdrawn and will not be heard tonight. 215 And with that we're moving on with our agenda item, just in case anyone was 216 here wondering what we were doing. 217 Mr. Chair, this is a variance application to allow a slight encroachment 218 into a recorded front yard setback for construction of proposed renovations. 219 Again, it's an area of the property being the front yard where staff does not have 220 authority to approve intrusions into that front yard setback. 221 We worked with the applicant to make a number of changes to the plan and he 222 did make some significant revisions to what was originally submitted but I think 223 probably for reasons that he could best describe with his expertise, the plan 224 before you is a practical one. 225 Staff doesn't object but will defer to the applicant, his presentation, and 226 questions that the Board may have. 227 MR. GORDON: Well, first let me say that if I was the reason why you all are 228 meeting in August, I apologize but I thank you very much. I think I have a feeling 229 that a lot of it had to do with me and I very much appreciate it and to that end I 230 will not belabor this any greater than it needs to be. 231 I think really what occurred originally is that I started, my daughter and I 232 moved here, my 8 year old at the time we moved here back in 2008 I bought the house MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 233 on Poplar Drive, there were two of us. She was at Mary Ellen Henderson, actually 234 still is there. So it was just two of us at that point in time. And our plan was 235 to renovate the house. 236 I'm an architect but I don't do residential work. I do commercial work. So 237 I pulled up the -- I thought it was 1 B which is a 25 foot setback and I put it in 238 my mind, that's not the hardship. My ignorance is not the hardship, it's a 239 hardship but it's not the one I'm discussing. So I did that and I did my whole 240 design based on that. 241 And about three months ago I submitted it or the beginning of the summer I 242 submitted it to the City and it was going through the process and about two weeks 243 later I went back to talk to the Inspection Department to see if they had questions 244 or whatnot. And John was kind enough to say, we need to talk. We looked at it and 245 we missed the fact that you had picked up 25 feet instead of 30. So that's why 246 he's saying we went back and looked at what we could do, what the options were. 247 I certainly would not do anything to encroach a variance. As an architect 248 even though I do commercial work, the last thing we ever want to do is deal with a 249 variance. 250 So I went back and talked to my daughter and the family to say, What do you 251 guys want to do? I can go back and redesign it. It will take me 90 days plus, 252 whatever, and then go back into the City. 253 The house is designed as sort of a Tudor Arts and Crafts. If you see that, 254 and what I've done, if you see the dormers here, the whole house is shifted down to 255 give the roof what's called a clipped ceiling. And I did that in an attempt to 256 minimize the area. But what I do have is I have a cantilever on the side here 257 which is on the existing footprint of the house. 258 So what happens is that the cantilever allows for a little more time because 259 the clipped ceiling takes some of the area away from your bedrooms. So I tried to 260 do and then we're picking up some bracketing underneath. 261 The area in the encroachment is an aerial encroachment. In other words, 262 it's not my house that's encroached, it's really the second floor that's 263 cantilevered 24 inches that has done that. And I know that certainly as an 264 architect, you'd say, well, God, Chris, can't you go back and redo it and I could. 265 But the point is I think that the design sort of speaks for itself. 266 My attempts, and here's what I get to, what I think is a hardship. If you 267 look at the lot, the configuration of the lots in the area, this is Poplar Drive 268 right here and I apologize for the very crude enlargement, but Poplar Drive is 269 here. This is Robinson Street. And we have three houses, mine, Howard's, and 270 Candice's, that are in the non-conforming configuration on the lot, meaning that 271 they don't align parallel with the street. And ironically mine does align with 272 Robinson, and probably in 1947 when they designed it they probably treated Robinson 273 as the primary street and didn't consider Poplar. 274 Since then everybody on Poplar, short of Howard's house and Candice's house, 275 everybody on Poplar is aligned with the street. If they had aligned my house, I 276 wouldn't have an issue. But it's a fact that the house is at an angle to the 277 setback which is the parallel element of the road is why anything I encroach is 278 already pushed right automatically into the setback itself. Even if I don't 279 increase the foundation, I'm right there. 280 So I think that element is a little bit unfortunate. It makes it a little 281 bit different. It makes our three houses at a different sort of a playing field 282 than the other homes. We don't have as much flexibility. 283 And you might say, well, because I have such a nice large lot, I could build 284 on this side and you could. Unfortunately with a topography requirement on that 285 side, if you understand topography, it drops almost 17 feet from my highest level 286 up here on Poplar to my bottom point right here. In one respect it's beautiful 287 because I have a walk-out basement. But in other respect, if I were to push my 288 entire addition onto that side, it might be construed as a three story addition and 289 that's not allowed. So I have to be cognizant and sensitive to the house itself. 290 Another important thing is that to grab, to use Poplar as the primary street MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 291 which is I think the full intent here. I'm not sure if the orientation is good or 292 bad, Poplar is now down here, so I apologize. But what I tried to do is capture 293 the nature of the neighborhood and the essence of that and maintain Poplar as the 294 primary street. 295 This illustrates my 25 foot yard setback. And you can see, there's no 296 problem with that one. But the minute you apply a 30 foot yard setback, it pushes 297 into it and that area right there which is approximately 35 square feet falls into 298 it. 299 Now if one was to look conversely at the other side of the area that I'm not 300 using, I'm giving up is 120 square feet of area I could use but to me that would 301 not be architecturally sensitive to the neighborhood, if I started to push the 302 house around like that. 303 So I'm sort of -- it's the hardship is not as hard as I think it could be to 304 demonstrate having it but I think that the request is minimized also. I think that 305 my intrusion into it is enough that I think it's sensitive to the area. 306 And I think the very last hardship is when I moved into the area, it was my 307 daughter and myself and two cats and now that's my family. That doesn't mean you 308 should just send money but my family has changed dramatically so that's really the 309 essence of it, you know. 310 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you, sir. 311 Does anybody in the audience want to speak? 312 MR. GORDON: My neighbors are here and if they're not speaking that's a good 313 thing. 314 SPEAKER: We haven't seen any plans yet. Can we see the plans? 315 CHAIR STOODLEY: Have you been sworn? 316 SPEAKER: I'm sorry, sir? 317 CHAIR STOODLEY: Have you been sworn? 318 SPEAKER: No. There's plans over here. 319 MR. GORDON: I stopped by to see you and you were out of town. I'm just 320 recognizing neighbors. 321 CHAIR STOODLEY: I understand. 322 Sir, you're examining the plans. You want to speak? Hello. You want to 323 speak? 324 SPEAKER: I'd just like to ask a question. Where's the variance we're 325 talking about? 326 CHAIR STOODLEY: Raise your right hand please. 327 (Witness sworn.) 328 MR. GORDON: I'm so sorry. The variance is on the front, right on Poplar. 329 And what I'm doing right here is, this is my existing pinwall and that's just 330 continuing on. So that's not moving at all. I'm keeping it and adding on to it. 331 Everything is pulled the drive out for the back yard and I think it's just that 332 little point right there. So before where it was 25, it wasn't a requirement. It 333 has subsequently. 334 SPEAKER: Okay. All right. Thank you. 335 MR. GORDON: Thank you. 336 CHAIR STOODLEY: Are you through? 337 MR. GORDON: Yes. 338 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Thank you. 339 Open to members of the Board. 340 MR. CALABRESE: I had a couple of quick questions. First of all, on number 341 12 there is a red dotted line. 342 The red dotted line is illustrating, I think that's a 12 foot side yard 343 setback they had in '47. Earlier in previous years when the house was built you 344 had an option of choosing your front yard if you were a corner lot. You could 345 choose one front yard and it would be a 25 foot setback and your other side to the 346 corner would be 12 feet. So they had a lot of latitude back then. It's 347 subsequently become 25 and 25 and now 30 and 30. 348 MR. CALABRESE: So you're demonstrating what would have been the previous -- MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 349 MR. GORDON: Yes, Exactly. 350 MR. CALABRESE: I could ask also, this is may be a simple question and, Mr. 351 Boyle, you said you've been working with them on the plans and forgive my 352 simplicity here, moving it in a direction that would avoid the variance. 353 MR. GORDON: If I knock the whole house down, I could have. I retained the 354 footprint of the house for the integrity, for the neighborhood, for the orientation 355 and everything. 356 MR. CALABRESE: I see. So the existing house is where this variance is 357 touching? 358 MR. GORDON: Exactly, exactly. Everything that's light, you see that's not 359 dark, this is the addition right there and that's the addition I'm putting right on 360 the back. So that's all fine. It's the existing part of the house that falls -- 361 that encroaches the overhang. That little dotted line right there illustrates the 362 overhang. 363 MR. KRASNER: The variance is requested for the overhang? 364 MR. GORDON: That's correct, just for that little cross hatched area right 365 there. 366 So, I mean the truth of the matter is does it encroach? Yes, as per the 367 letter of the law. Is it sensitive in the sense that it doesn't undermine the 368 neighborhood, the neighbors, the value, I don't think. I think it adds to it. If 369 you saw the house which I should have original pictures in there, it's a nice 370 cottage. So now it's just a little bigger cottage. But the element of it is, 371 hopefully the look embodies the neighborhood. 372 MR. CALABRESE: I guess one last question. And I think you mentioned this 373 in here but that the square footage of this triangle? 374 MR. GORDON: 35. 35, 36. 375 MR. KRASNER: 36 square feet? 376 MR. GORDON: Yeah, in that neighborhood. 4 feet by 18, the hypotenuse. 377 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other questions? 378 MR. CALABRESE: No. Thank you. 379 CHAIR STOODLEY: Gentlemen, do you have any questions? 380 MR. KRASNER: I have a few questions. You answered one of my questions, I 381 wanted to know the amount of nonconforming bulk that you're adding forward on the 382 setback lines, 36 by -- 383 MR. GORDON: That's correct, yes. 384 MR. KRASNER: You're saying the existing house today is nonconforming. 385 What's the existing setback today? 386 MR. GORDON: The existing setback, well today it's 30 feet. 387 MR. KRASNER: It's at 30 too. 388 MR. GORDON: Right. The only thing not conforming is the joist that I'm 389 putting on top of the first floor. 390 MR. KRASNER: So you're encroaching by 2 feet on the second floor. 391 MR. GORDON: Correct. That is correct. It's a little over 2 feet. It's a 392 little over 2 when you get all the way out there because it's a triangle. 393 MR. KRASNER: Right. And the total size -- well, how large of a house 394 today, approximately? 395 MR. GORDON: Well the house is about 1800 right now. And the addition on 396 this side here is 20 by 40 so it's 19 rather by 49 so there's about a thousand 397 square feet of footprint that's going to be right here. So it's increasing it, 398 yes, no doubt. 399 MR. KRASNER: In that particular part of the house, you're adding, right now 400 it's like a cape so you're adding a full second story? 401 MR. GORDON: Yes. I'm adding a second story on the one story side and then 402 just continuing that on so that it's fluid, you know. 403 MR. KRASNER: That answers my question. I have some other comments but I'll 404 see if anyone else has anything. 405 MR. WILLIAMSON: Just one question. Your house faces Poplar? 406 MR. GORDON: Correct. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 407 MR. WILLIAMSON: But the rest of the houses on your street face what? 408 MR. GORDON: No, no. Well, the house is on Poplar. 409 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah, the diagram showed it I believe. 410 MR. GORDON: The house is on Poplar which unfortunately is running in that 411 direction, all face Poplar, short of Candice's house, Howard's, and mine. Those 412 are the three that don't conform to the lot alignment with the road. Otherwise 413 every other house is aligned with Robinson and around Robinson, and you can sort of 414 see, they all sort of work, it's a 90 degree. If Poplar had been 90 degrees, we 415 wouldn't be talking. I would be under construction. 416 MR. WILLIAMSON: So your house faces, like the front door is -- 417 MR. GORDON: Yeah, my house right now faces Poplar right here, correct. I 418 think when they designed it, the neighborhood developers aligned everybody on 419 Robinson for whatever reason, I'm not sure. I wasn't here. 420 MR. WILLIAMSON: All right. Thank you. 421 MR. GORDON: Thank you. 422 MR. CALABRESE: I have another question. 423 Mr. Boyle, from staff, did you have a recommendation on this? 424 MR. BOYLE: I think historically the Board has approved these where they 425 didn't feel it excessively burdened the neighbors. It doesn't go straight up like 426 the Board typically sees with second story additions, however I think this lot is 427 unusual and the community in that it's not a right angle corner. 428 And also the City took a portion of the back corner of this lot and I think 429 some of the adjacents for a water tower. 430 MR. GORDON: Water tower. You see that big square out of there? 431 MR. BOYLE: So it's got an unusual building envelope to it that may have 432 been part of the reason the house is situated the way it is. 433 So I guess it's a question for the Board in that when you're considering 434 variances, are you approving something that's going to unduly burden someone else's 435 use of their property. Towards the front of the street on this side, I guess 436 that's a fair question. It's a larger home but he is retaining the existing home 437 which the Planning Director definitely encourages these days instead of a full tear 438 down. 439 Staff, in reviewing this internally, likes the fact that it's not going 440 towards the setback of any of the neighbors, it's coming out towards the street. 441 MR. WILLIAMSON: John, the standard to variance 48-1102 is hardship? 442 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Let me find that section. 443 MR. WILLIAMSON: Howard confirms it's hardship. 444 MR. BOYLE: Okay. Hardship not generally shared by. 445 MR. WILLIAMSON: Not generally shared by others. Okay. 446 CHAIR STOODLEY: Go ahead. 447 MR. KRASNER: I was just going to say that I think your question gets at, 448 you know, to easiness, there's a term in zoning called self-imposed hardship and 449 you were very frank, I appreciate your honestly and your frankness, saying, yeah, I 450 goofed in the beginning and, you know, you could have redesigned it, you used the 451 wrong zoning category. 452 So, you know, I'll be honest with you, that I feel it's a bit of a reach to 453 create a pure -- to argue a pure hardship because it's not really, you know, there 454 are some issues with the lot but as far as -- that's not what is happening here. 455 Street lines, the same street line for everybody that fronts on that street. 456 So it seems like a bit of a reach for a hardship. Granted, it seems 457 practically remiss for this type of request in the fact that there are no neighbors 458 here in voicing strong opposition is significant but, you know, it is I think, you 459 were honest with us, I think it is a bit of a reach but I'll hear what my 460 colleagues have to say. 461 MR. CALABRESE: Additional question. You mentioned, John, about the 462 setbacks on the neighbor's side. Just so I can understand this, so you are on the 463 neighbor's side would be the Greenway Downs as the neighbor? 464 MR. BOYLE: Right, right. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 465 MR. CALABRESE: And then the opposite side there. 466 MR. BOYLE: Yes, adjacent up on Robinson. 467 MR. CALABRESE: So what is your setback on those two sides? Where are you? 468 A Well, if I, on this side right here, my ability to construct goes all 469 the way over to here. So I'm not anywhere near that. I'm not pushing that at all. 470 MR. CALABRESE: Your building ends at 27. 471 MR. GORDON: Yes, my building ends back here. On the other side right here, 472 this is not big enough, hopefully the one you have is bigger, but it actually goes 473 further on down. I'm stopping where I have an existing patio wall. I'm using that 474 as my demarcation line so the house doesn't go anywhere past that. 475 MR. CALABRESE: So how much space between that neighbor and the -- how much 476 distance? 477 MR. GORDON: Let's see. I can tell you that with my -- I can show you this. 478 It's a good point because I don't encroach and I do have a significant amount of 479 room. 480 So on this side I'm building over to here and I still have all that free 481 area. On this side here, I have all that area which is in excess of 50 feet. 482 That's the patio line that's existing that I'm keeping as my demarcation line 483 there. 484 So one would say, why aren't you building this way? Because, two things. 485 One, it's not architecturally insensitive to the neighborhood. And, two, it would 486 give the illusion of a three story house which to me it's too much. You can tell 487 now with the style of architecture it is and the 12 and 12 roof, it gives the 488 illusion of a large house. It's not, but in elevation it looks big. Once the roof 489 gets flattened, you'll proceed like that. 490 I'm not moving that way. Obviously it's a corner lot. I'm leaving the lot 491 there. 492 MR. CALABRESE: Just addressing what Brent had said, I think on the one hand 493 that the -- it's questionable whether this is an undue hardship. However, kind of 494 balancing the equities here, this appears to be something that while it may be 495 borderline hardship, on the other hand looking at something which does appear to be 496 de minimus appears to be, unless there are neighbors that have some contrary 497 comments, it appears to be sensitive to neighbor concerns. And so I think I would 498 be leaning towards approval? 499 MR. GORDON: Thank you. 500 MR. WILLIAMSON: No more questions. 501 CHAIR STOODLEY: Sir, do you have any other questions? 502 MR. KRASNER: No, I don't think I do. 503 MR. GORDON: Because I'll keep talking until you agree. 504 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a motion please? 505 MR. WILLIAMSON: I would make a motion to approve Variance Application 506 V1529-12, based on the hardship presented by Mr. Gordon of the, number one, unusual 507 placement of the existing structure on the existing lot, the fact the house faces 508 Poplar which runs at a unusual angle, the 17 foot drop in topography from one side 509 of the lot to the other, the location of the City water tower along the property. 510 And I would further point out that the request is a modest encroachment of 511 approximately two feet. 512 CHAIR STOODLEY: Can I have a second? 513 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 514 CHAIR STOODLEY: Roll call vote please. 515 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 516 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes -- 517 MR. KRASNER: I just wanted to add a few points on the record for discussion 518 before we vote. 519 CHAIR STOODLEY: Sure. 520 MR. KRASNER: Just to -- I think I'm going to vote for it but I wanted to 521 get on the record is that it's -- the reasons why I think they're important in this 522 case is because it's a de minimus encroachment as was said. Also looking at the MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 523 full elevation of the house, I think in allowing it, it probably creates a better 524 looking end product than if you take a chunk out and move some of it out. And I 525 think that reason in addition to the other reasons that were stated here in the 526 motion I think are what's important here and the fact that your neighbors seem to 527 be comfortable with the request. 528 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Can we have a roll 529 call vote please. 530 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 531 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 532 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 533 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 534 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 535 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 536 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 537 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 538 CHAIR STOODLEY: All right, sir. You have a variance. 539 MR. GORDON: Thank you all. My children thank you. 540 541 d. Variance application V1532-12 (MUNIS #20120171) by Dorchester LLC, for a 542 variance to Sec. 48-1102 (c) to allow a front yard setback of 25 feet instead of 30 543 feet to permit a second story addition on premises known as 605 Dorchester Road, 544 RPC #51-120-007 of the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned R1-A, low density 545 residential, said property owned by Dorchester LLC. 546 547 CHAIR STOODLEY: Final item is Variance Application V1532-12, by Dorchester 548 LLC, for a variance to Section 48-1102 (c) Charlie, to allow a front setback of 25 549 feet instead of 30 to permit a second story addition on the premises known as 605 550 Dorchester Road, of the Falls Church real property records, zoned R1-A, low density 551 residential, said property owned by Dorchester LLC. 552 MR. CINCOTTA: This should be very quick. I received a notice and it seemed 553 to imply something and then I came here and I read your write up and so I really 554 don't have any problem with this. The write up was very good. 555 I did have a question just to make sure I understand, all they intend to do 556 is build on the existing structure, is that true? The footprint will remain the 557 same? 558 MR. BOYLE: Point of order. 559 CHAIR STOODLEY: We need to know who you are. 560 MR. CINCOTTA: My name is Tony Cincotta. I live at -- 561 MR. KRASNER: Are you the applicant? 562 MR. CINCOTTA: I live at 601 Dorchester Road. 563 CHAIR STOODLEY: No, are you the applicant for the variance? 564 MR. CINCOTTAA: No, I'm just somebody who received this. 565 MR. KRASNER: Typically the applicant speaks first and then we hear from the 566 public. 567 CHAIR STOODLEY: Exactly. 568 MR. CINCOTTA: I'm sorry. I don't know the procedure. 569 MR. BOYLE: If your only issue is whether they're going up or not, could you 570 answer that quickly for the gentleman. 571 MR. BARKLEY: Yes, we're going up on the same -- putting a second floor on 572 the existing house. 573 MR. CINCOTA: I have one other quick question. When I received this, this 574 line here, are those the people that received this notice? 575 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 576 MR. CINCOTTA: My question was how come not everybody on Dorchester Road, 577 like ten houses, seems like we're dealing with variances, how come you don't send a 578 notice to everybody on Dorchester Road? 579 MR. BOYLE: The Code only requires 100 foot radius from the perimeter and we 580 actually send it out to 150. It's a Code requirement. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 581 MR. CINCOTTA: Okay. Those are the only two questions I have. 582 CHAIR STOODLEY: Are you the applicant, sir? 583 MR. BARKLEY: Yes, I represent the applicant. 584 CHAIR STOODLEY: Mr. Boyle. 585 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 586 As stated in the variance summary, it's a request to allow a 25 foot front 587 yard setback instead of 30, to permit a second story addition on a residence. 588 This is one of our neighborhoods that I believe was constructed under the 589 old setbacks that predate, probably the 1950s I think is where we started to see a 590 changeover on ones that weren't formally commercial. This one's been residential. 591 At the time this house was constructed, the front yard setbacks were, as 592 best as staff can determine for this neighborhood, were 25 feet and the Zoning Code 593 subsequently changed to require a 30 foot front yard setback so it's a typical 594 problem this Board sees where the setbacks have been changed out from under 595 existing structures and to even add an addition or a porch it becomes a variance 596 situation. 597 So with that, I'll defer to the applicant's presentation who's one of our 598 favorite architects in town. 599 MR. BARKLEY: I'm Paul Barkley, architect. all the time architect to the 600 City for over 35 years and a resident of the City as well. And I represent Mr. and 601 Mrs. Krishna who bought this piece of property with the understanding that the 602 setback in the front yard was 25 feet as evidenced by the original zoning and the 603 zoning plat that they had. 604 And when the previous owner was ready to put his house on the market, he had 605 been a long time resident of the City, he had a new survey made and it showed the 606 set back at 25 feet too. 607 And so they bought the property with the understanding they could put a 608 second floor on the house and then, of course, when they got involved in it, then 609 they found out that wasn't -- there was this issue with the setback on the second 610 floor. 611 And so that's our justification, is that, you know, the Rochester (sic) 612 Street property all at one time, both sides of the street were the same setback. 613 But when they came through and changed the zoning, they only changed one side of 614 the street. Why did they do that, they should have gone done between the 615 properties but I think it would have been harder to draw the lines back that way or 616 something. It didn't make sense that they would rezone one side of Rochester 617 Street and not the other or road. 618 So this is the hardship that they were confronted. 619 And I understand in talking with Mr. Wade, you all are considering ways to 620 improve some of the zoning ordinances to take care of issues like this. And 621 Arlington County does allow a second floor to be built on top of a nonconforming 622 existing one story building. 623 And I've prepared an additional illustration just for tonight that shows you 624 how that works. Because we can put a porch on the front, and I'll give this to the 625 Zoning Administrator, and I have one copy. But I've shaded the area on the cross- 626 section of the house to show where we want the variance. And it's to put a second 627 story, just a small portion, 5 feet depth, on the top of the house. And the porch 628 can go out and that fits within the zoning but that one little bit of second story 629 doesn't fit within the zoning. It's just kind of a unreasonable zoning issue that 630 I would recommend that you consider changing it as you reevaluate the zoning 631 ordinance. 632 And it's based on the fact of the zoning change that occurred, the fact that 633 people still, even the current surveyor the past year surveyed it at 25 feet and 634 the Krishnas bought the property thinking that it was 25 feet in good faith and 635 hired an architect and builder to put together the plans and everything and now 636 they're faced with this hardship. 637 MR. CALABRESE: I'm curious, how the -- how could the surveyor get this 638 wrong? MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 639 MR. BARKLEY: That's a very good question. My guess is that he took a lot 640 of the information off of the older survey. 641 MR. CALABRESE: But if he's doing his job the right way, that's not how you 642 do it. 643 MR. BARKLEY: That is right. 644 MR. CALABRESE: That's clearly in the wrong. 645 MR. BOYLE: What we -- if I may, what we sometimes see is that a title 646 search will show the building restriction line is a covenant on the property for an 647 HOA that doesn't exist any longer. So his title search may have shown that 25 foot 648 line, whereas our Code which we compel them to comply with, changes without a 649 change to the title. 650 So on the older plat it does show rather than a setback, it says a building 651 restriction line that was probably a covenant from the time of the original 652 subdivision and perhaps the surveyor just carried that forward as Mr. Barkley said. 653 And our building restriction line wouldn't change unless the subdivider went 654 through and wanted to completely change the entire neighborhood again. So we're 655 saddled with these original 1920s building restriction lines from the original 656 subdivision and the Code changes periodically and the properties don't get 657 retitled. 658 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask, what is the process for a surveyor? They get 659 this assignment or paid their fee and I assume they're supposed to look at the old 660 plats but then also consult with the current ordinances, correct? 661 MR. BOYLE: I think that's where he missed it. He didn't consult with 662 staff. He probably saw the building restriction line in the title and was 663 satisfied with that. 664 MR. BARKLEY: I think mostly they just rely on title search. They don't go 665 to zoning records necessarily. 666 MR. KRASNER: Title search doesn't account -- zoning changes all the time 667 and again, it's all due diligence when you buy property is to find what the zoning 668 is, find what the rule is. 669 So I think the argument that the title, that the surveyor made a mistake is 670 somehow a hardship in the zoning variance request, again, I think it's a bit of a 671 reach. 672 Do you have any other -- I see you have this side elevation. Do you have 673 the front elevation? There is nothing in our packet. I'm curious what this would 674 look like from the street. 675 MR. BARKLEY: Well, it's a sloped roof dormer in the front. I don't know if 676 I have a picture of it or not. 677 MR. KRASNER: This side elevation is helpful but I'd like to see it from the 678 street. I'm trying to get a sense of again that delta. The change in what's there 679 today and how much bulk you're adding. 680 MR. BARKLEY: It will remain a very modest-looking house. And the porch is 681 allowed to extend into the front yard. 682 MR. KRASNER: Right. Obviously I recognize the fact that the existing house 683 there today is nonconforming. 684 MR. BARKLEY: Right. 685 MR. KRASNER: It's set back 25. I'm trying to sense how much you highlight 686 here the volume. Is this what you're adding? 687 MR. BARKLEY: No, that is the portion that falls into the zoning. 688 MR. KRASNER: How large is that space? 689 MR. BARKLEY: Five feet deep. 690 MR. KRASNER: How much square footage are you talking about? 691 MR. BARKLEY: Well, five times the width of the house, that portion of the 692 house, which is about 45 feet. 693 MR. KRASNER: 45 square feet? 694 MR. BARKLEY: It's the width of that main portion of the house. And there 695 is a wing that also includes a garage that's one story. So on the corner it's all 696 one story, it's all set back. It's just the main house where they're putting a MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 697 bedroom floor and it's just naturally, they have three bedrooms on the floor so and 698 -- 699 MR. KRASNER: The garage portion is set back 30 feet or 25 feet? 700 MR. BARKLEY: 25 feet too. 701 MR. KRASNER: That's also 25. So the garage, the bulk of that garage -- I'm 702 trying to get a sense of how much new bulk is going to be forward from that 30 foot 703 setback line, helps me understand the degree -- 704 MR. BARKLEY: You have that sloped roof, the dormer windows. 705 MR. KRASNER: Right. 706 MR. BARKLEY: It's not like you're going straight up. 707 MR. KRASNER: Right. I know that, right. 708 MR. BARKLEY: But the dormer window comes out to that front line. 709 MR. CALABRESE: I'll ask the same question as the previous applicant. Can 710 the design be changed or the home moved in the design to avoid this, from the 711 existing line? 712 A Everything is pretty tight on this site because all of these sites on 713 Dorchester Road were small sites and some of them had two story spaces. It just 714 happens that the zoning was changed on this side of the street for some reason and 715 it didn't make sense that you would change one side of the neighborhood and not the 716 other side. 717 So it through one side of the street into nonconforming situation and we 718 have houses all the way down Dorchester Street that don't meet the zoning. The 719 other side does because they kept 25 feet on the other side but not this side. And 720 that's a major, you know, hardship imposed not by the owners of the property but by 721 somebody not, you know, refiguring the zoning in carefully a planned way. 722 MR. CALABRESE: We don't know what they were thinking at the time they 723 rezoned it and probably not relevant to this discussion. 724 MR. BARKLEY: And these are all small lots compared to the lots that are on 725 Lincoln Avenue which are big lots. It stands to reason that you would have R1-A on 726 those big lots but not on these small lots. 727 MR. CALABRESE: It seems to me that there was a negligence on the part of 728 the surveyor. It's unfortunate it happened to these homeowners. I mean this must 729 be very upsetting and they might have a claim against the surveyor for damages they 730 can prove. I'm having a difficult time with this as far as undue hardship, I must 731 say. 732 MR. WILLIAMSON: Sorry, I'll ask the same question. Is that for an existing 733 nonconforming structure, undue hardship remains the standard, is that right? 734 MR. BOYLE: No, that's actually relaxed. And I was going to ask the Board 735 that, is this the old 38 10 C. 736 For our new members, one of the most common Code sections the Board was 737 accustomed to approving was the 38 10 C and we like to keep referring to that, even 738 though the Code has changed. Not only have our setbacks changed but our Code has 739 changed. 740 This board has its own built-in variance approval in 48-172 3, extension of 741 a residential structure in the R1-A and R1-B. 742 MR. CALABRESE: 48-172. 743 MR. BOYLE: If you have the same edition that I do, it's page 64, 744 thereabouts. Paragraph 3 at the top. 745 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 746 MR. BOYLE: Where an existing residential structure is nonconforming with 747 respect to any current setback requirement, and the provisions of 48-142 3 do not 748 apply -- well, that's options for staff to make an administrative approval. 749 So where staff cannot otherwise administratively approve it. The Board may 750 grant a variance for a structural addition which would not occupy a required 751 setback based on consideration of peculiar circumstances such as configuration of 752 the lot, interior circulation, existing utilities serving the structure, existing 753 driveways, topo features, similar existing additions, provided that no portion of 754 the addition would encroach further into the required setback than the existing MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 755 structure. So it's a -- 756 MR. WILLIAMSON: I didn't think it was an undue hardship. It's peculiar 757 circumstances. 758 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 759 MR. CALABRESE: And you characterized this peculiar circumstances as or -- 760 well, so the configuration of the lot, issues of utilities getting power and water 761 in there. 762 So I understand what has happened with these individuals but that's more 763 what the lot is. And is this a size, maybe small but it's typical shape. It's not 764 an unusual shape. 765 MR. BOYLE: I'd say in the past the Board has considered a Code change of 766 peculiar, that's peculiar to this property that's not shared with maybe the 767 majority of the lots in town. Providing that the addition does not encroach any 768 further, unlike the one on Poplar where he was asking to go further, this one is 769 going straight up. 770 Typically the Board views those as something that it can approve. 771 Perhaps it would help, Mr. Barkley, could you speak to whether it's feasible 772 to notch the second floor back and respect the 30 feet? Are there any structural 773 limitations? 774 MR. BARKLEY: Well, there are structural limitations and of course one is 775 the stair going up. You know, you have to totally redo everything. You'd lose, 776 you know, that area for the stair going up there because you'd come up and, you 777 know, hit a wall there. 778 And I think it's, you know, it's a very shallow lot so we're hemmed in 779 between the back yard and the front yard, so there is not much room to get a decent 780 second floor up there. And plus it would look kind of weird to have that wall set 781 back past the front wall. So it's kind of a design hardship too, you know, to have 782 that kind of a thing, that wall goes up and goes back and the roof goes this way 783 onto the porch. It would be kind of a strange looking house. Plus they'd lose a 784 lot of space that they want to have for three bedrooms and two baths on the second 785 floor. They want to convert this into -- they're not building a huge mansion here. 786 They just want a very modest home. 787 MR. KRASNER: I don't even see a diagram in this package that shows the 788 proposed condition. I see the old survey from 1950. I see the current survey. 789 I'm trying to get, I don't even see a plan that shows exactly what -- I'm just 790 trying to, it looks like on this elevation it looks like now the new front porch 791 and the portion of the house is now exceeding the 25 feet. What's going to be the 792 final setback of this house when you're done? What's going to be the final front 793 setback? 794 MR. BARKLEY: To the main house? 795 MR. KRASNER: What's going to be the closest point the house would be to the 796 street when you're finished? 797 MR. BARKLEY: To the porch or to the house? 798 MR. KRASNER: The front setback -- I'm trying to get where's the-- 799 MR. BARKLEY: 25 feet to the house. And then the porch extends out, 800 whatever the dimension is on that drawing. 801 MR. KRASNER: How do we treat, the porch -- for setback, how do we define, 802 Mr. Boyle? 803 MR. BOYLE: Porches are allowed to project 8 feet into the setback. So 804 we're awaiting to find out what that setback is going to be. 805 MR. WILLIAMSON: Do I see your design correctly though, I'm just thinking 806 specifically what our powers are and are not. And, you know, if you read this it 807 says provided no portion of the addition would encroach further in the required 808 setback in the existing structure. 809 So I'm looking at your design here, and I'll show everyone else what I'm 810 saying, isn't part of your design going to encroach further into the existing -- 811 MR. BARKLEY: That's the allowable porch. So that's not even part of the 812 variance request. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 813 MR. WILIAMSON: It's kind of difficult to tell. 814 MR. KRASNER: Yeah. 815 MR. WILLIAMSON: You would consider this to be part of the porch? 816 MR. BARKLEY: That is the port through. 817 MR. KRASNER: There is no space underneath? 818 MR. BARKLEY: No space underneath, no, no. 819 MR. KRASNER: It would have been helpful to have a plan view of the 820 variance. There is nothing in the package that shows the variance. It would have 821 been helpful for us to see that. It might have avoided some of these questions. 822 MR. WILLIAMSON: I see. So that is the porch. 823 MR. BARKLEY: Right. So none of the house is projecting past the 25 percent 824 but a portion of the second floor. Technically, you could read that as conforming 825 to the existing zoning -- I mean the existing setback. 826 MR. WILLIAMSON: Because the current house would have -- 827 MR. BARKLEY: Right. 828 MR. WILLIAMSON: Because the current house would have a similar part of the 829 roof protruding, is that what you mean by that? 830 MR. BARKLEY: No. I mean the second floor is the same as all the houses on 831 the street that are set back 25 feet. 832 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yeah. Okay. 833 MR. CALABRESE: John, you said something about the peculiar circumstances 834 that the Board had in the past had approved similar situations. Is that what you 835 were saying? 836 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 837 MR. CALABRESE: Can you describe in general what those types of situations 838 were. 839 MR. BOYLE: We saw it more so when the Cochran decision was active where 840 variances were extremely restricted basically at that time variances were only 841 approved where denying the variance would render the property unusable. 842 At that time the Board made great use of this section in approving 843 extensions to properties or additions to properties where they didn't encroach any 844 closer. So it was very common to have somebody do a second floor addition. A lot 845 of one story ramblers were built in Falls Church and Code changed and now they 846 wanted to simply remove the roof and go up. That was a very common variance issued 847 by this Board. 848 Now, other types of variances are possible given that the standard has been 849 lessened. But I'd say historically this is the circumstance where this Board has 850 approved on the condition that the -- that the addition doesn't occupy any new 851 footprint, goes straight up, does not encroach like that earlier one we saw. 852 If it were encroaching any further, then it would be a different 853 consideration on a variance, there a hardship as opposed to peculiar circumstance. 854 In this case since they're going straight up, in my opinion it falls under that 855 category of does the Board consider this within their authority to approve in that 856 it's not extending any further than the existing structure. If the Board feels 857 that it's somehow occupying a new square footage or encroaching further into the 858 setback, then they might a reapply under the hardship standard. It would be a fair 859 question whether it meets a hardship. 860 MR. BARKLEY: In other words, we're not encroaching any more than the 861 existing house. 862 CHAIR STOODLEY: The Board certainly has approved vertical as long as they 863 have the same footprint. The Board has approved those in the past. 864 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 865 MR. WILLIAMSON: And I forget, there was a change in the Code done to one 866 side of the street but not -- 867 MR. BARKLEY: At some point, yes. 868 MR. WILLIAMSON: At some point, one side of the street -- 869 MR. BARKLEY: We don't know when that point was. 870 MR. WILLIAMSON: -- but not the other. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 871 MR. BARKLEY: That's right. And that was the reason I put the site plan in 872 there. It shows the dividing line between the two zonings where before it was all 873 R1-A. And it didn't make sense to take these small lots and put them into a R1-A 874 category when they didn't meet any of the requirements. 875 MR. CALABRESE: Getting back to what our authority is here, I guess this 876 peculiar circumstance perhaps is even more of a unique circumstance, I could 877 describe this situation here. I was thinking peculiar again, kind of a one time, 878 very unusual, but it's more of a unique situation perhaps is the way I guess it was 879 decided in the past. 880 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other questions? 881 MR. KRASNER: You're showing the porch here as a 5 foot porch. The existing 882 porch today, do you have any idea what that is? Is there a porch there today? 883 MR. BARKLEY: That is no porch today. 884 MR. KRASNER: I guess I'm trying to get a sense of, I fully recognize the 885 difference between buildings that allow a porch. I'm trying to get a sense of for 886 someone on the street the house is going to appear it's closer to the street just 887 by having the roofed porch, even though it's open air porch, it's not FAR, it's not 888 bulk, it's going to appear to someone on Dorchester Road, this house, not only is 889 it larger, it's going to be appear it's now closer to the street than it was. And 890 that's what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. 891 MR. BARKELY: Of course, the porch is permitted, even if they set back 5 892 feet it's still going to look that close to the street. 893 MR. KRASNER: I fully recognize that. I fully recognize the variance is all 894 on the second floor and I see that. 895 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other questions? 896 MR. BARKLEY: And the other structural issue is if you move that wall 5 feet 897 back, then you've got to put structural support for that wall 5 feet back inside 898 the house. Whereas standard construction is you bear on the wall below. And so 899 there is a construction hardship moving that wall back and putting columns going 900 down to the floor, putting new piers and footings down underneath. That's a major 901 additional cost and you don't get any more square footage for that, you get less. 902 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a load -- that outer wall is load bearing? 903 MR. BARKLEY: It's a load bearing wall. So you go back 5 feet, you need to 904 carry that load somehow. And then the stair opening has to be moved. So you've 905 got all kinds of complications structurally. 906 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other questions? 907 Do I have a motion please? 908 MR. CALABRESE: I'll make a motion. 909 I guess first I'd say I'm more comfortable with this after our discussion. 910 Initially I was not. Maybe through some of the presentation I wasn't getting it. 911 I understand now. This sounds reasonable. 912 So I make a motion to -- go to the exact language, to approve Variance 913 Application V1532-12, to allow for a front yard setback of 25 feet instead of 30 to 914 permit the construction of the second story addition at 605 Dorchester Road. 915 CHAIR STOODLEY: Second? 916 MR. WILLIAMSON: Would you be open to an amendment to your motion? 917 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 918 MR. WILLIAMSON: Which would say that the motion is based on peculiar 919 circumstances resulting from the size of the lot and the desire to use existing 920 load bearing walls and foundation provided final construction does not encroach 921 further into the required setback area than the existing structure. 922 MR. CALABRESE: That's very good. Great. 923 MR. KRASNER: I would also add onto that it's an existing nonconforming 924 house, that is existing nonconforming also I think is. 925 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 926 MR. KRASNER: I'll second it with those amendments. 927 CHAIR STOODLEY: Roll call please. 928 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 929 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 930 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 931 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 932 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 933 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 934 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 935 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 936 CHAIR STOODLEY: All right. Thank you, sir. You have your variance. 937 MR. BARKLEY: Thank you very much. 938 939 8. ADJOURNMENT: 940 941 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Do I have a motion to close? 942 MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved. 943 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 944 CHAIR STOODLEY: All in favor say "aye". 945 (A chorus of"ayes".) 946 CHAIR STOODLEY: Meeting is closed. 947 948 Respectfully Submitted, Noted and Approved: 949 950 951 952 953 MINUTES OF THE 16 AUGUST 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013