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 SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 6 7:30 P.M. 7 1. CALL TO ORDER: 8 9 Mr. Williamson, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order. 10 2. ROLL CALL: 11 12 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 13 (Not present) 14 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 17 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 19 MR. KRASNER: Here. 20 21 22 3. Petitions: Vice Chair Williamson called for petitions from the public. There 23 were none. 24 25 26 27 4. Variance application V1533-12 (MUNIS #20120771) by Paul and Heather Cannon for variances to Sec. 28 48-1102 (b) (2) (a) to allow the following on premises known as 512 Greenwich Street, RPC #51-122- 29 010 in the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned R1-b Medium-Density Residential, said property 30 owned by Paul and Carolyn Cannon: 31 a. a side yard setback of 7.8 feet instead of 10 feet on the left (North) side of the house to allow 32 the enclosure and extension toward the rear of an existing, non-conforming car port 33 b. a side yard setback of 8 feet on the right (South) side of the house to allow the construction 34 of a one-level addition on the front of the home that will project 2 feet into the current 10 35 foot side yard setback no further than the existing line of the house on that side 36 37 Vice Chair Williamson asked all present who would be speaking on a matter before the Board to rise and swore 38 them in. 39 40 Vice Chair Williamson then called for variance application V1533-12 and asked for a staff report. 41 BZA Secretary Brandon Wade first informed the Board of a slight discrepancy involving the variance application 42 form for V1533-12. A neighbor to the Cannons had informed staff that the application may not have been 43 completely accurate in stating owners of the property as Paul and Heather Cannon because the date of the 44 application was August 13, 2012, but Arlington County records indicated the change of deed to reflect ownership 45 transfer from Paul and Carolyn Cannon to Paul and Heather Cannon was not filed until August 22, 2012. Staff’s 46 opinion was that this discrepancy was likely due to a delay in filing by Arlington County and that the 47 information on the variance application was accurate to the best of Paul Cannon’s knowledge at that time. 48 49 Mr. Wade then read the staff report for V1533-12. (attached) 50 51 52 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So is it staff's position first that because of the 53 -- the difference in the registration or how the application was presented and 54 subsequent registration of the property, is it staff's position that we should 55 continue with this application tonight? MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013  56 MR. WADE: Staff does not have an issue with the -- what we view as a minor 57 discrepancy on the application. The error I think is understandable considering 58 when things can, you know how slow things can happen in court and considering it 59 happened within a matter of two weeks, the ownership changed hands. It's not a 60 matter of months or, you know, multiple weeks. 61 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 62 MR. WADE: So Staff doesn't consider it to be a big deal. 63 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And I guess I'll ask my colleagues on the Board if 64 they would share that view. 65 MR. CALABRESE: I have no objection. 66 MR. KRASNER: I have no objection. 67 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Then whoever will speak on this matter, if 68 you could please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in. If you're going 69 to speak on this tonight, please raise your hand. 70 (Witnesses sworn.) 71 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So whoever is going to speak, please step forward 72 and sign the name on the piece of paper right there in front of the microphones. 73 And actually before you present, I will let you know that you do need three 74 affirmative votes in order to be granted a variance. And there is only three 75 members here tonight so you need to get all three of our votes. 76 So with that being said, do you want to proceed or would you like to request 77 a continuance until next month when there may be more members of the Board present? 78 MR. CANNON: No, that's fine. We can continue. 79 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Please take it away. 80 MR. CANNON: My wife and I we live at 512 Greenwich Street and we have -- 81 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Could you state your name. 82 MR. CANNON: My name is Paul Cannon. I'm the owner of 512 Greenwich and we 83 are looking to expand and get a little more space. We have six children in the 84 school systems and financially do not find it feasible to go up on the second story 85 of the home and so this has been something that we feel like would be a better 86 approach so we've presented this for your approval. 87 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask, under the law, under the ordinance, the 88 statute you have to show undue hardship. So I would ask if you could expand upon 89 that, if that's the standard in the law, how you would see not granting this 90 variance or the current condition of the property, not granting it would be a 91 hardship, undue hardship? 92 MR. CANNON: I think just the size of the family is probably the issue we 93 have and the current size of the home and so that would make it difficult to remain 94 in the home for the long term. 95 MR. CALABRESE: You did say it was the better approach. Are there other 96 approaches that you could explore to expand the house? 97 MR. CANNON: I think the only other approach would be to add a second story 98 but that is just not a financial opportunity for us at the time. 99 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for the applicant? 100 MR. KRASNER: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to -- you're asking for three 101 separate variances, right? One is for the carport. 102 MR. CANNON: Correct. 103 MR. KRASNER: To enclose the carport. The second, I'm trying to get a sense 104 of how much additional area of your home is now going to be exceeding the setback. 105 Because it looks like your house is not conforming today, is that correct, from the 106 Staff? 107 MR. WADE: Correct. They're asking for, the application or the -- refer to 108 three variances but Staff review found that only two are required and because the 109 first one is the -- has to do with the addition going forward to the house which is 110 going to add about 8 feet on the front because that side of the house is already 111 2.2 feet into the side yard setback. They have plenty of room to go forward but 112 because their proposed extension runs along that same side that's into the side 113 setback, that 2.2 feet, Staff can't approve that portion of it because the Code MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 114 says that Staff can approve so long as the addition does not encroach further or 115 does not proceed any further toward the front lot line. 116 If it were going toward the rear, Staff could approve it up to 15 feet in 117 length extension along the same lot line even if it's in the setback. 118 And the carport is a little bit more complicated. They're looking to 119 enclose that and make it part of the living space and extend it back I think almost 120 9 feet and because it's an attached accessory structure right now, approving this 121 by Staff would change the use from accessory to the dwelling unit to an actual part 122 of the dwelling unit which would have potentially greater impact on the neighboring 123 property. 124 Staff deferred to the BZA for approval of this one, this part, so those are 125 the two portions of what they're proposing. 126 MR. KRASNER: Are those the portions that are highlighted on the plat that 127 we have that looks like it was signed by John Boyle? 128 MR. WADE: Correct. Mr. Boyle, what is outlined in red is the building 129 envelope so those are the legal setbacks. 130 MR. KRASNER: The areas in orange that are highlighted on the plat, are 131 those the areas, new areas proposed? 132 MR. WADE: Correct. Those are parts of the new areas that are proposed that 133 would require the variance. 134 MR. KRASNER: You're enclosing the carport to be a garage? 135 MR. CANNON: No, we're enclosing it to be a living space. A bedroom. 136 MR. KRASNER: So, I apologize. Are you -- so if we're parking, you're 137 parking just on the driveway? 138 MR. CANNON: Correct. It's a driveway that leads up to the house. 139 MR. KRASNER: How many parking spaces will you have? 140 MR. CANNON: We currently have two if you count the carport, that is three. 141 So we'd still have two spaces in the driveway. 142 MR. KRASNER: Now also this lot is nonconforming. This lot is undersized 143 for the zone, correct? 144 MR. WADE: By area, correct. By area and by width but the relief provided 145 by the Code doesn't give any relief here because it allows for a maximum of 20 146 percent, reduction to a maximum of 20 percent of the lot width which gives you 10 147 feet and that is the standard setback, minimum setback for the zone anyway. So 148 really there is no benefit to the side yard setback. 149 MR. KRASNER: But the width is undersized. Normally it would be 60 foot 150 width. 151 MR. CANNON: Correct. 152 MR. KRASNER: And your lot is 50 feet. 153 For the record we have a letter from a neighbor of yours who's expressing 154 some concern. 155 Have you talked to your neighbors about your plans? Have you been in 156 contact -- 157 MR. CANNON: I have not. 158 MR. KRASNER: -- with your neighbors. 159 Because we have a letter from your neighbor at 515 which I guess is across 160 the street, 512. You have not talked to your neighbors immediately to the east and 161 west, to the left and right of you? 162 MR. CANNON: About? 163 MR. KRASNER: About your plans about the addition. 164 MR. CANNON: Not in detail. We talked for quite some time about making 165 changes but no details. 166 MR. KRASNER: I still have some concerns. I guess I'd like to hear if there 167 is anybody here from the public to speak on this. If there is anybody saying -- 168 looks like there is one person here to speak, is that correct? 169 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I guess before we go there -- 170 MR. KRASNER: We'll get to that. 171 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So I think your -- if I understand correctly, you're MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 172 presenting this request and the undue hardship is family size and financial 173 restrictions. 174 MR. CANNON: That's correct. 175 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there any other information you'd like to present 176 in connection with undue hardship? 177 MR. CANNON: I don't think so. 178 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Okay. If anyone else wants to speak on this, 179 please step forward, sign in, and state your name and proceed. 180 MR. SHEA: Distinguished members of the BZA, I'm Lance Shea. I live at 514 181 Greenwich Street. I'm the neighbor to the north so if you look -- 182 MR. KRASNER: Immediately next door? 183 MR. SHEA: Yes, immediately next door to the north. My property is adjacent 184 and north which means I'm the one on the left hand side of the pictures that you 185 have there. 186 MR. KRASNER: Lot 10? 187 MR. SHEA: This photograph, yes. If you have photograph, this is the 188 carport here. My house is here. You can see the corner of it. 189 MR. KRASNER: Your property? 190 MR. SHEA: Yes, okay. 191 First I'd like to say that Dr. Cannon is a friend and a valued family and 192 neighbor of ours. I first learned of their proposed construction when I received 193 the mailer -- the mail notice from the City dated August 31st. 194 I'm opposed to the request for variance for the carport. It's the one on 195 the agenda you have as 4.(a)(a) which is the side yard setback of 7.8 feet instead 196 of 10 feet on the north side of the house to allow the enclosure and extension 197 toward the rear of an existing non-conforming carport. 198 The lot as we stated is 50 feet. The setback as I understand it then is to 199 be 10 feet and not less than 10 feet under the Code and it's noted the carport is 200 an accessory structure, not the main structure. 201 I'm informed that the stated hardships, family size and financial 202 restrictions, do not fit the definition of hardship allowable under the Code. 203 I have seen Susan Earman's letter to which Staff has referred and I think 204 Mr. Krasner you referred tonight and I'll adopt the comments in there for that and 205 there are other comments in there as well. 206 As a practical matter, moving from the more legal, the hardships don't 207 qualify. There is a drainage feature between our two homes. I think there is a 208 drainage ditch, you know, it's a depression which has been there since we purchased 209 our house at least in 2001. It seems to me it may have been there much longer, I 210 don't know. And it is very important to the proper drainage of our property. 211 We're concerned that this extension of the living space would deleteriously 212 impact flow and, you know, badly affect the drainage feature. There is a slab that 213 goes out that far now as parts of the carport, however adding living space is quite 214 a different matter than a carport for foundation issues and other things. 215 So we're concerned about that. And further, if the variance were granted 216 it's my understanding that the Cannons or a subsequent owner could then add a 217 second story of right without further variance above that carport and even extend a 218 bay out another 3 feet which would be at least -- could be at least a third of the 219 length of the property, therefore further encroaching into the setback area. 220 So now we're down to less than 5 feet that someone could do of right which 221 could not happen today. Obviously that's an issue of further concern. My concern 222 with the further construction is not only safety and aesthetics but if a second 223 story went in on a larger, deeper foundation, that takes me back to the concern 224 over the drainage issue. 225 So for those reasons I request that the variance be denied. 226 MR. CALABRESE: If I could ask in this picture here, where is the drainage 227 ditch? Is to the left here, the fence? 228 MR. SHEA: Yes, there is a fence -- Your picture is a little bit broader 229 than mine. Yes, that picket fence there, I believe, Dr. Cannon, that's your side MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 230 of it. 231 MR. CANNON: That'S correct. 232 MR. SHEA: There is another -- another fence adjoining from my house and the 233 drainage feature, I think the edge of the photo would be part way through where 234 that drainage feature is. You know, it's sloping, the side yard slope to an apex 235 down. 236 MR. CALABRESE: Whose property is the drainage? 237 MR. SHEA: I think it spans both our properties, doesn't it? 238 MR. CANNON: Probably mutual. 239 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for this witness? 240 MR. KRASNER: I guess the only question I would have, is there anything the 241 applicant can do as far as screening or anything like that that might allay some of 242 your concerns? 243 Now, I know, Mr. Wade, is it -- even if we approved it, if we approve to 244 enclose the carport and approve these variances, does that give him the by right to 245 then extend upwards? 246 MR. WADE: I don't believe so. 247 MR. KRASNER: I don't think that is necessarily true. I think if they add 248 any further building area beyond the setback, they would need another variance. 249 Again, I don't know if that addresses all your concerns but they would need to come 250 back if they were going to go beyond what they're showing here. 251 MR. SHEA: May I ask a question? 252 MR. KRASNER: Sure. 253 MR. SHEA: Beyond laterally or vertically? 254 MR. KRASNER: I think either way. 255 MR. WADE: We'd might be getting into the area of limitations of building 256 coverage. The variance could be conditional and whatever's stated in the 257 resolution would limit the expansion of the structure to whatever the BZA grants as 258 this variance. 259 MR. KRASNER: Conditions, you know, that are appropriate. So to my first 260 point, is there any type of screening that the applicant could provide that might 261 mitigate some of your concerns? 262 MR. SHEA: Mr. Krasner, the first I learned of this was just shortly ago. I 263 don't know that I can answer your question. I can't deny it certainly. 264 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions? Any other questions for either 265 one of these gentlemen? 266 Okay. So we'll close this -- we'll close this to the public and then we can 267 discuss this. 268 Any discussion amongst the Board? 269 MR. KRASNER: Sure. I have some concerns about the request. I mean, I'm 270 concerned that first of all the applicant didn't reach out to the neighbors 271 beforehand. I know looking at this, it seems there may be other options that could 272 either eliminate or reduce the amount of the variance you're requesting. So I'm 273 not completely satisfied that you've exhausted all of your possibilities that might 274 exist to either avoid a variance or reduce it. 275 I certainly see it's an older home and improving it is certainly reasonable 276 and with a growing family. But it seems like, you know, there may be other 277 opportunities on this lot. 278 And I'm not sure if maybe we gave him more time to talk to his neighbors and 279 try to talk about possible solutions that might be amenable to everyone. That 280 might not be wise. I'll just throw that out as a suggestion. 281 MR. CALABRESE: Please, I'm concerned about the standard in the law for 282 undue hardship and I'm taking the comment made by the applicant, this was the 283 better approach. That to me indicates that there were other approaches, this was 284 the best of all the options. And I can see the standard in the law to be something 285 more extreme. There are no other options and this is the only option moving 286 forward. 287 So that would indicate to me that perhaps there are other ways to address MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 288 the needs of the family, the large family, and the financial restraints. So I 289 agree with Mr. Krasner, that maybe there's other approaches that could be 290 considered. 291 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So with that said, are there any other 292 comments or would anyone care to make a motion on this variance application? 293 MR. KRASNER: I just have a question maybe for Staff. 294 If we continue this for a month, give the applicant time to talk to his 295 neighbors potentially, amend the application or potentially not, is that something 296 we could do? 297 MR. WADE: I'm not sure. I'm going to have to defer to the Chair on this 298 one. I think tonight it would be a vote on what's presented, what's being asked of 299 tonight. 300 MR. CALABRESE: Could he reapply for a variance for a different design? 301 MR. WADE: I think, I believe it would take an additional application to do 302 that. 303 MR. CALABRESE: A new application with a new design. 304 MR. WADE: Correct, correct. 305 MR. KRASNER: Could he revise the print out? Could we carry the 306 application, let him see if he can revise it? I'm not sure of the process. 307 MR. WADE: The Board has the option to allow a continuance, so if you'd like 308 to continue to next month for any reason. 309 MR. KRASNER: The only reason why I would even suggest it, because it sounds 310 like again, the first time his immediate neighbor is hearing about it is tonight, 311 sounds like perhaps if they had time to talk about it, maybe there could be a 312 solution that would be agreeable to both parties. And then there may not be so I 313 wouldn't want to extend it indefinitely, but perhaps for a month, continue it to 314 October and see if they can reach a solution or see if you can talk to your 315 architect, maybe look at some other possibilities and reapply, resubmit a 316 reapplication fee. 317 MR. WADE: At your suggestion, the applicant would have to request that. So 318 as long as he requests that at your suggestion. 319 MR. KRASNER: Right. Fair enough. I'll throw it out there as a suggestion, 320 that maybe he could find a solution there. 321 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Dr. Cannon, is it Dr. Cannon, would you care to 322 continue this for another month? I think what you're hearing is, are questions 323 concerning the evidence presented around hardship and other issues. 324 MR. CANNON: Sure, absolutely. I don't know what additional hardships there 325 would be for a family space and financial reasons. Those are hardships that anyone 326 could face, so I don't know what else could be more extreme than that. 327 Even with the discussion with, you know, neighbors and friends, all of that 328 is important, you know, people design their homes based on their likes and dislikes 329 and making sure they're doing it under the guidance of the law, I don't know that 330 there would be additional hardships that we would have that would supersede those 331 two. And if they don't fall within the guidelines of a hardship, that's our 332 problem, not yours. 333 MR. KRASNER: Listen, what I'm saying is you're on a lot that is undersized 334 for the zone. 335 MR. CANNON: Right. 336 MR. KRASNER: Which in and of itself can be a type of hardship in that it's 337 an undersized lot, and undersize not just in area but also in width and we're 338 talking about a side yard issue. So the question is again, maybe there is some 339 other opportunity, and maybe not eliminate the variance or maybe reduce it or maybe 340 find a way again to find a solution to mitigate the impact on your immediate 341 neighbor. That's what I'm suggesting. I'm happy to proceed. 342 MR. CANNON: I think moving forward to that brings the home, we're trying to 343 maintain some semblance for the way the home sits right now in the neighborhood and 344 projecting forward or in the rear a significant amount, we did look at those but 345 they just didn't have the same aesthetic appeal as what we were hoping to have with MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 346 what we have now. 347 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 348 MR. KRASNER: So what I'm hearing is you'd prefer not to continue this for 349 another month and have us deliberate and vote now. 350 MR. CANNON: If we decide to continue it or we go back to the drawing board 351 and find something that might appeal more to our neighbors and to you, we'd be 352 happy to resubmit a new application for a maybe new variance. 353 MR. KRASNER: All right. 354 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. That said, is there a motion? 355 MR. CALABRESE: I would make a motion to deny the variance application. 356 MR. KRASNER: There is two. 357 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: There's two variances. 358 MR. CALABRESE: Do I have to identify them in the motion? 359 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Please. 360 MR. CALABRESE: Identify the identifying numbers of these variances. 361 MR. WADE: I believe you can refer to them as the agenda item variance 362 application. The first variance would be A under this item would be the north side 363 of the house which it would also be the carport enclosure. And then the B portion 364 would be the south side which is the part that has to do with the extension forward 365 of the structure. 366 MR. CALABRESE: So the motion would indicate Variance Application V1533-12 367 and A 1534-12 for the two variance applications. 368 MR. WADE: Correct. Or you could just specify which side of the house. I 369 think that would be fine. 370 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think that's appropriate. 371 MR. WADE: Yeah, they're pretty distinct. 372 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think if you were to state the variance 373 application, V-1534-12 on the north side. 374 MR. CALABRESE: So my motion would be to deny variance applications V 1533- 375 12 and A 1534-12. 376 MR. WADE: I'm sorry. I should have said sub-paragraph B. That second item 377 B under New Business is the next case, the appeal. 378 MR. CALABRESE: I'm sorry, okay. The application V 1533-12 is the entire 379 application. 380 MR. WADE: Yes. 381 MR. CALABRESE: So I make a motion to deny the Variance Application V 1533- 382 12. 383 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would you accept an amendment to say Variance 384 Application V 1533-12 for the north side of the house? 385 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 386 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 387 Roll call vote. 388 MR. WADE: Could I have a second? 389 MR. KRASNER: Second. 390 MR. WADE: Mr. Calabrese. 391 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 392 MR. WADE: Mr. Krasner. 393 MR. KRASNER: So we're voting affirmatively to deny? 394 MR. WADE: Yes. 395 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 396 MR. WADE: And Mr. Williamson. 397 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 398 Is there a second motion? 399 MR. CALABRESE: Second motion would be to deny Variance Application V 1533- 400 12 for the side yard setback of 2 feet. 401 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. For the south side of the house. 402 MR. CALABRESE: South side of the house. 403 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 404 MR. KRASNER: Second. 405 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 406 MR. WADE: Mr. Krasner. 407 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 408 MR. WADE: Mr. Williamson. 409 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 410 MR. WADE: Mr. Calabrese. 411 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 412 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Dr. Cannon, your application is denied. We wish you 413 good luck. 414 MR. CANNON: Thanks for your time. 415 416 4. 417 b. Appeal application A1534-12 (MUNIS #20120778) by Richard G. Maynard et 418 al, appealing the approval of Grading Plan 297 by the Zoning Administrator and 419 other City officials on premises known as 406 and/or 408 Van Buren Street, RPC #53- 420 208-016 and RPC #53-208-015 respectively of the Falls Church Real Property records, 421 zoned R1-A, Low-Density Residential, 406 Van Buren Street owned by ASR Designer 422 Homes, LLC, and 408 Van Buren Street owned by Harjote Randhawa: 423 The undersigned are aggrieved by the acts and inactions of the Zoning 424 Administrator ("ZA") and other City officials in the administration of Chapter 48 425 of the Falls Church City Code, (hereinafter "FCCC") with respect to approval of 426 grading plan GP-297 (hereinafter sometimes the "Grading Plan") and issuance of any 427 permits for demolition of the existing home, destruction of any trees or other 428 vegetation, grading or regarding of the property, or the proposed development of 429 more than one single family home at 406 and/or 408 Van Buren Street (including the 430 development of one home on either of the two asserted "substandard lots," such 431 property being further described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 19, of the Falls Church Park 432 subdivision in the City of Falls Church (sometimes referred to as "the Property"). 433 434 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Moving on to the next agenda item is the 435 Appeal application A1534-12 by Richard G. Maynard et al. appealing the approval of 436 Grading Plan 297 by the Zoning Administrator and other city officials on the 437 premises known as 406 and/or 408 Van Buren Street, RPC #53-208-016, and RPC #53- 438 208-015 respectively of the Falls Church Real Property records. 439 Okay. Would anyone who's going to speak on this matter please rise and 440 raise your right hand. 441 (Witnesses sworn.) 442 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Will the applicants please step forward and 443 sign in. 444 SPEAKER: Yeah, I was under the impression that this was going to be 445 continued next month. 446 MR. WADE: Right, the attorney representing the parties has asked for a 447 continuance because of the lack of a full Board tonight, a continuance to October. 448 SPEAKER: A formal motion they made or a formal application for a 449 continuance? 450 MR. WADE: They made that -- 451 MR. KRASNER: We have an e-mail that was sent this afternoon. 452 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 453 MR. BASKIN: May I be heard on this? I'm here on behalf of one of the 454 property owners, ASR Design, owner of lot 2 of 406 Van Buren. 455 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think we're going to continue the application. 456 I'm not sure what this would be in reference to. 457 MR. BASKIN: Well, I think first of all that the applicant ought to be here 458 to request a continuance or his attorney and not do it in advance by e-mail. There 459 are people here to speak against the application and the property owner or at 460 least, I'm here on behalf of one of the lot owners and came prepared to present 461 this matter. MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 462 Secondly, this exact issue has been decided twice by the courts. 463 MR. KRASNER: Okay. Before we get into the details of the case, is Richard 464 G. Maynard here? 465 No. 466 And any of the et als, any of the other appellants listed on the appeal, are 467 they here? 468 MR. HAROLD: Yeah, I'm here. My name is Paul Harold (phonetic). 469 MR. KRASNER: And so is it -- 470 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And you're a party to the application? 471 MR. HAROLD: Correct. 472 MR. KRASNER: And you're requesting a continuance? 473 MR. HAROLD: The -- Dan Maller is requesting it. He had correspondence 474 with Mr. Wade I think who said that that would be accepted and that it would then 475 be continued. That's my understanding. 476 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So I think we have e-mail correspondence, we have 477 one of the applicants here, I think we're going to go ahead and continue this. 478 MR. BASKIN: Well, this causes damage to the property owner by delay and the 479 applicant's counsel ought to at least be present to request a continuance. He sort 480 of forces it by not showing up. And if he shows up, then he can at least express 481 what his concern is. There is a quorum available. 482 MR. HAROLD: Well, the concern was expressed by e-mail and apparently 483 accepted by the City Staff. That's my understanding. 484 MR. WADE: I can't accept, I can only communicate the request for the 485 continuance to the Board. So I do not accept the request. I have no power to do 486 that. 487 MR. KRASNER: This is an appeal. I know in a typical application, a 488 variance application, the applicant when the Board is lacking its full membership, 489 can request a continuance. I don't know if the same standard applies in an appeal 490 so I don't know if anyone on Staff or City Attorney can illuminate or shed any 491 light on that. 492 MR. SNYDER: Certainly I think one of the options for the Board tonight 493 would be to let those who are present and wish to speak to be heard so if they're 494 here, even if you did continue the case, that's frequently done in public hearings 495 where those who are here who want to say something can get that on the record. 496 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask, the Board can initiate a continuance on its 497 own I assume and an applicant could request it. Is there any accepted procedure 498 for requesting a continuance? Can it be done through e-mail or written 499 correspondence? Does it have to be done in person? 500 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Calabrese, I'm not aware of any internal bylaw that the BZA 501 has that expressly addresses the procedure on it. I think you hit on a good point, 502 that is the BZA does have the separate authority if it chooses to do so to move to 503 postpone this to a date certain. Separate and apart from the fact that Mr. Maller 504 is not here, without getting into that. 505 One thing I think you do need to keep in mind is under the applicable 506 Virginia Code, you have to make a decision on this case within 90 days of the date 507 of the appeal. That's on or about November 12th, would be the deadline. 508 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. I think that is a good suggestion. If 509 you'd like to continue your thoughts, please step forward. 510 MR. CALABRESE: Need to be sworn in. 511 MR. BASKIN: I was. 512 I just wanted to put my objection on the record to the continuance 513 that is requested in advance with no appearance on behalf of the applicant who's 514 asking for the continuance. 515 I think it's unfair to the people who are directly affected. My client owns 516 one of the properties that is directly affected by this. Mr. Maller who's pursuing 517 this, he asserts that there is a stay and nothing can happen with the property and 518 that frankly from my experience in a prior case with him, any time anything new 519 came up he wanted a continuance. And it causes damages to other citizens of the MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 520 City. 521 And so I note my objection. I think you have the authority not to grant the 522 continuance and I'd ask you to hear the matter tonight. 523 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 524 MR. KRASNER: There are a lot of folks who came out tonight. I don't know 525 if we can hear testimony and not vote, put off the vote until the next meeting. 526 You know, people took their time out to come here tonight to speak for or against 527 this appeal. I don't know if we -- 528 MR. BASKIN: You have an advertised public hearing so you can certainly take 529 testimony and continue the case or make a decision. But you did advertise public 530 hearing so it's certainly appropriate if you chose to, to take that testimony. 531 MR. CALABRESE: I think that is a reasonable solution to this, to hear the 532 concerned citizens. I'd be interested in hearing the harm that's being done 533 through the continuance so I'd be interested in hearing that. But I do think to 534 make a decision you'd want to make that at the next meeting. 535 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think that is -- I think that's right. 536 And listen, I recognize how frustrating it can be for people to come out and 537 voice their concerns and have this matter addressed and put behind them one way or 538 another, so I completely understand the frustrations that you've expressed. But we 539 do have a request by the applicant and they do have a time frame in which we have 540 to decide on the appeal which we just heard from the City Attorney. 541 So I guess I would ask my fellow Board members if you -- if we only want to 542 hear what could amount to one side of this case this evening and then have a month 543 sit while we wait for the applicant to come back and present their case. 544 SPEAKER: May I address that suggestion? 545 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: No, this is just to the Board members. 546 MR. KRASNER: How many people are listed on this appeal? I know there are 547 multiple parties on this appeal. I know at least one party is here. Anyone else 548 who's a formal party to the appeal that is present tonight? 549 SPEAKER: No, they were all under the impression that it would be continued. 550 MR. CALABRESE: Will we hear from you? You're not one of the -- 551 SPEAKER: I wasn't really prepared to speak tonight. I thought I would be 552 here next month. I came over here because I never been to one of these meetings. 553 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We have to put on, what I'm suggesting, I'm sure it 554 will be helpful to hear what people have to say, but ultimately I think it would be 555 most, you know, we would be able to hear both sides of this case at the same time 556 and make a decision. But if the two of you would like to proceed, I'm happy to. 557 MR. CALABRESE: I think there is some merit in what you say in that we 558 provide an adequate understanding of the issue which we may need to have, it would 559 be beneficial to have both sides. 560 Perhaps as a middle ground we could hear what the harm is to the 561 continuance. I'm still not sure, I have no opinion whatsoever, but what the harm 562 would be to the parties if we denied today. But I do agree with you, I do think it 563 would be a better approach and better use of the Board's time to hear both sides at 564 the same time. 565 MR. KRASNER: I think I agree on that. I'm sort of torn because I feel like 566 the applicant or the appellant knew the hearing was advertised for at least a 567 month, maybe more. I mean, things do come up, emergencies happen. I'm not sure 568 this was an emergency. It sounds like it was a work commitment or some sort from 569 your attorney. Mr. Maller clearly knew the date of the hearing well in advance and 570 so again, it sort of hijacks the process to some extent to ask for a continuance at 571 the last minute. 572 But I mean, I think the most ideal circumstance would be to have both sides 573 here to present their case and there are numerous people who are listed as 574 appellants on here and you're telling me only one is here and counsel isn't here, 575 it doesn't get to the both sides' point. 576 So it's, I don't know if I'm happy about it but I guess I'm inclined to 577 continue it. I don't feel good. MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013 578 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Since we have to formally act for a continuance, 579 then I'll ask if there is a motion to do so. 580 MR. CALABRESE: Then I'll make a motion for a continuance of Appeal -- 581 consideration of Appeal Application A 1534-12. 582 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 583 MR. KRASNER: I'll reluctantly second. 584 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call vote. 585 SPEAKER: Can I talk for a second? Can I mention something? 586 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: No. I think we're now proceeding to take a vote? 587 MR. SPEAKER: I was going to address Mr. Clayborn's comment, that's all. 588 MR. FOSTER: Just a quick procedural point. It's an important one, that's 589 why I'm interrupting you. 590 If you're going to continue it, continue to a specific date, a date certain 591 and not just indefinite because if it's indefinite it never gets back on your 592 agenda. So I'd ask for Mr. Wade to tell you when the October hearing date would 593 be. 594 MR. WADE: It would be October 11th. 595 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 596 Accept that amendment to continue this to October 11, 2012? 597 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. Yes. 598 MR. KRASNER: I'll still reluctantly second, so let's vote. 599 MR. WADE: Mr. Williamson. 600 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 601 MR. WADE: Mr. Calabrese. 602 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 603 MR. WADE: Mr. Krasner. 604 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 605 So it's continued to a date certain of October 11th, but I would advise the 606 appellants and their counsel to be here on that date otherwise we can run into the 607 90 day risk and we will hear this case on the 11th of October barring some 608 unforeseen emergency. 609 610 8. ADJOURNMENT: 611 612 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. And that is the conclusion of our agenda this 613 evening. 614 So, is there any other motion to adjourn? 615 MR. KRASNER: So moved. 616 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 617 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All in favor? 618 (A chorus of "ayes.") 619 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: This meeting is adjourned. 620 621 MINUTES OF THE 13 SEPTEMBER 2012 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 FEBRUARY 2013  MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 2012 The Chair and Honorable Members TO: of the Board of Zoning Appeals Brandon S. Wade, Development FROM: Process Manager, Deputy Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: V1533-12 – 512 Greenwich St Explanation of variance request and code sections involved: Paul and Heather Cannon, current owners of 512 Greenwich St, are requesting variances to Sec. 48-1102 (b) (2) (a) to allow expansion of their home to increase livable space. Sec. 48-1102 (b) (2) (a) regulates substandard lots and is applicable to this property because the lot is 6,100 square feet in area, below the minimum of 7,500 square feet for the R1-B zoning district. Sec. 48-1102 (b) (2) (a) allows reduction of a side yard setback to be reduced to “not less than 20 percent of the lot width, but not to less than 7 ½ feet in any case.” The lot in question for this request is 50 feet in width which does not allow for any relief to side yard setbacks since 20 percent of 50 is still the standard 10 foot side yard setback required for all standard lots in R-1b districts. Currently, the building is situated such that right, or South, side of the house extends 2.2 feet into that side yard setback along the entire length of the house for approximately 42.5 feet. The left, or North, side of the house currently has an attached, unenclosed carport that extends approximately 2.2 feet into that side yard setback for the entire length of the carport structure for 31.25 feet. Staff has been unable to locate any previously granted variances for these non-conformities nor evidence of building permits granted by the City for construction on this property going back to approximately 1995. The applicants wish to extend the existing house forward 8 feet to permit the addition of a covered porch and a small, enclosed area approximately 9.27 feet wide for the front entrance. This proposed 8 foot extension forward is partially by-right, since the house currently sits 37.9 feet from the front property line and 12.9 feet back from the required 25 foot front yard setback line. However, Sec. 48-142 (3) (a) prevents staff approval since part of the proposed addition would extend the nonconforming portion of the house closer to the front lot line than the existing structure. On the left (North) side of the house, the applicants wish to enclose an existing carport (currently 7.8 feet from that side lot line) and extend that part of the structure further toward the rear lot line approximately 8.75 feet. This carport is defined as an attached accessory building in the Zoning code and is non-conforming per Sec. 48-1102 (f) since it currently occupies part of a side yard. Since the proposed renovations would enclose an open area and change the use of this part of the structure from accessory to the dwelling to part of the dwelling itself, it may present a greater impact on the neighboring property than its current configuration. As such, staff is referring approval of this portion of the proposed renovations to the BZA per Sec. 48-142 (c). Sec. 48-172 (3) gives the Board the power to approve the requested variances if the Board feels the proper requirements are met. Harry E. Wells Building • Zoning Division • 300 Park Avenue • Falls Church, Virginia 22046 • 703-248-5015 Phone / 703-248-5184 Fax www.fallschurchva.gov