Board of Zoning Appeals

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 City Council Chambers 3 300 Park Avenue 4 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 5 Thursday, April 11, 2013 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9 10 CHAIR STOODLEY: Call to order the Falls Church Board of 11 Zoning Appeals' meeting for April 11, 2013. It's a little past 12 7:30. 13 Would you do the roll call please. 14 15 2. ROLL CALL: 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 17 CHAIR STOODLEY: Here. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. 20 CHAIR STOODLEY: Mr. Calabrese. 21 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 23 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 25 MR. SZE: Here. 26 CHAIR STOODLEY: And, Mr. Howell. 27 MR. HOWELL: Here. 28 CHAIR STOODLEY: First of all I'd like to welcome our new 29 member. The first time, and I've been 18 years, it's the first 30 time I can remember ever having a full Board including an 31 alternate, so it's six people. It's wonderful. 32 33 3. PETITIONS: 34 CHAIR STOODLEY: Are there any petitions? 35 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 36 37 CHAIR STOODLEY: Anyone who intends to speak tonight, 38 will you rise and be sworn in. 39 Raise your right hands. 40 (Witnesses sworn.) 41 42 7. OLD BUSINESS: MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 43 a. Appeal application A-1542-13 by EBLA, LLC to appeal Warning 44 Notice of Violation # DDS2013 0102-01, on premises known as 45 1101?1103 West Broad Street, RPC # 52-102-051 of the Falls 46 Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1 Light Industrial, said 47 property owned by EBLA, LLC. Withdrawn - violation of Sec. 48- 48 940 (c) withdrawn by Zoning 49 50 CHAIR STOODLEY: The Old Business has been withdrawn, is 51 that correct? 52 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 53 54 4. NEW BUSINESS 55 56 a. Variance application V1544-13 by Celebrity Homes, LLC, to 57 allow a front yard setback of 21.2 feet instead of 30 feet on 58 the east side of the property, and a left side yard setback of 59 9.8 feet instead of 12 feet on the south side of the property, 60 on premises known as 1009 Parker Street, RPC # 52-111-016 of the 61 Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R1-A low density 62 residential, said property owned by Emily Karnis. 63 64 CHAIR STOODLEY: New Business, Variance Application 65 V1544-13, by Celebrity Homes, LLC, for a front yard setback of 66 21.2 feet instead of 30 feet on the east side of the property, 67 and a left side setback of 9.8 feet instead of 12 feet on the 68 south side of the property on the premises known as 1009 Parker 69 Street, RPC # 52-111-016 of the Falls Church Real Property 70 records zoned R1-A, low density residential, said property owned 71 by Emily Karnis. 72 Staff. Mr. Boyle. 73 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 74 This is one of our classic Falls Church properties where 75 the land was subdivided long before there was a zoning ordinance 76 and long before there were setbacks and what have you. 77 Back in the early teens and 20s, the subdivision was 78 under the control of whoever filed for the original subdividing 79 of the ground and that developer would set building restrictions 80 and then the subdivision would develop according to guidelines 81 established long before our Code was established. 82 So this is an example of one of those where the original 83 subdivision set a building restriction line of 20 feet where our 84 Code now in the R 1 A district requires a front yard setback of MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013  85 30 feet. This one was constructed along with the rest of the 86 neighborhood at only 20. 87 It was not unusual at that time to also not have side 88 setbacks of any kind or to have setbacks that didn't match the 89 ones that we have now. 90 So as this Board has seen pretty consistently, many of 91 our homes are built forward of the current front yard setback 92 and many of them are in the side setback. So the applicant is 93 here tonight to make a case for retaining the structure but 94 adding to it in places where staff did not have the 95 administrative authority to approve. 96 So with that, I think we'll defer to the applicant and 97 their presentation. We'll be available for questions. 98 MR. BEAN: My name is Adam Bean, Celebrity Homes LLC and 99 GreenBuilt Homes. I've been building here in the City for 12 100 years. I'm a current city resident as well as a holder of a 101 City business license at 712 West Broad Street. Here are the 102 contract owners of the property at 1009 Parker Street. 103 The current home is built to 9.8 feet from the left hand 104 property line and 21.2 feet from the front property line. Our 105 intention is to renovate the home and put the home on the market 106 for sale. We want to use the existing side and front 107 qualifications as the new redefined minimum front and left side 108 yard. We're not going to further extend into the side yard, 109 just to go straight up from where we are. 110 I spoke with the neighbors. I have letters from two of 111 the adjacent neighbors living across the street saying that 112 they're in support of this, as much as they're under the same 113 issues of being too front to the front street. I have here. 114 Like I said, the two adjacent neighbors, one neighbor across the 115 street, and after speaking with the neighbors, that everyone on 116 the street in near proximity is in approval of the variance. 117 The packet you have in front of you shows the existing 118 property, the setbacks I mentioned, the existing home and 119 numerous photographs as well as an architectural sketch of the 120 existing home, four by four. And there is the proposed as-built 121 architectural drawings as well which show the raising of the 122 roof and the existing plane on the left side and the front side, 123 the addition of a space in the back. 124 CHAIR STOODLEY: Are you through? 125 MR. BEAN: Yes. 126 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you. MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 127 Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on 128 this case? 129 Seeing none, I'll open it to the Board members. 130 MR. CALABRESE: So on the letters you have, you 131 identified both on 7 and 11 on the drawing here, the left and 132 right? 133 MR. BEAN: 1011 would be standing on Parker Street 134 looking at the home, directly to the right, and 1007 would be 135 the home directly to the left. The Summers are on the right 136 side at 1011, Ann Summers. On the left is Andy -- I don't 137 remember Andy's last name. He's on the left. And the Quills 138 are approximately across the street one house away. 139 MR. CALABRESE: And so you're building back. Are you 140 also building up? 141 MR. BEAN: Yes. Going up with the second story and back 142 to the back. Actually it's more of a story and a half. We just 143 need a little bit more headroom on the existing, Cape Cod style 144 doesn't have enough headroom to have a little space up there. 145 MR. CALABRESE: You described this, we look at the 146 factors for the variance, there are three and perhaps the one 147 that's relevant is one I usually ask is the hardship that would 148 accrue to you if this were not granted. 149 MR. BEAN: With the current Zoning Code of a 15 foot 150 setback on the left side and 30 foot setback on the front, it 151 would be a very awkward building style and shape to keep the 152 existing first floor where it is and go up from that to meet the 153 new zoning requirements. It would almost take the razing of the 154 entire house from start from scratch. It's a costly process and 155 I don't think it's worth it here. I think granting the variance 156 would alleviate the hardship, allow for a very aesthetically 157 pleasing home to be built. It would help bolster the tax 158 revenue of the City with the increased property value of the 159 property and it would be aesthetically good to the neighborhood 160 and the neighbors as well. 161 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. 162 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you. 163 Mr. Sze. 164 MR. SZE: How are you tonight? 165 MR. BEAN: Great. How are you? 166 MR. SZE: Great, great. 167 This is a slight departure from the kinds of houses you 168 usually build in the City but if those other ones are any MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 169 indication, they seem to fall along the style. 170 I just really only have two questions. Can you explain 171 the front porch relative to what is being shown now and what you 172 would replace it with? I'm not quite clear on whether there is 173 additional coverage. 174 MR. BEAN: The existing front porch is only a stoop with 175 a small roof over it. Our intention is to allow that 21.2 front 176 setback to be the line where we measure the required minimum 177 front yard, therefore would allow us to go up to 8 feet beyond 178 that with an unenclosed front porch per the new Zoning Code. 179 So I guess it is our intention to go 7 feet in front of 180 that new minimum front yard with an unenclosed porch as is 181 allowed by today's Zoning Code. 182 MR. SZE: Okay. So where would the -- what would be the 183 edge of the new porch relative to the front yard line? Right 184 now, it looks like it's 19.8 feet, so you would take a portion 185 of that? 186 MR. BEAN: I believe in this section of the house we're 187 at 21.2 feet from the street. We would encroach into the middle 188 section or less than the allowable. Allowable is 8 feet, go 7 189 feet in front of that so that would bring it down to about -- 190 MR. SZE: 22.2 minus -- 191 MR. BEAN: 7, correct. So 14.2 I believe. 192 MR. SZE: Okay. My last other question is more towards 193 staff. 194 Are there other previously approved variances on this 195 property? 196 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 197 MR. SZE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 198 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other? 199 MR. HOWELL: No. 200 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. So my apology, this is asking you 201 to restate. 202 MR. BEAN: No problem. 203 MR. WILLIAMSON: So we have that current building on four 204 walls, correct? 205 MR. BEAN: Correct. 206 MR. WILLIAMSON: We're going up, we're going up on all 207 four points? 208 MR. BEAN: On left, right, and front wall would go up as 209 from where they are now. 210 MR. WILLIAMSON: So we're not moving, we talked about the MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 211 porch a moment ago. We're not moving further towards the street 212 and we're not moving closer to either side yard? 213 MR. BEAN: I don't want to misspeak. We've got more than 214 the required minimum right hand side. But no, we're not going 215 any closer with that. I was correct, yes. Back front and right 216 stay where they are. 217 MR. WILLIAMSON: And you're moving back but you've got 218 plenty of room in the back.. 219 MR. BEAN: Correct. Plenty of room in the back. 220 MR. WILLIAMSON: Could you restate what the hardship is 221 here. And I understand the change in tax revenue but I also 222 understand about this particular location, I just wondered. 223 MR. BEAN: Well, we are -- the home currently is five 224 feet into the middle side yard and ten feet into the middle of 225 the front yard, approximately. If we were not allowed to adjust 226 those current walls, we'd have to go up to a second level at 227 those new, 15 foot on the one side and 30 on the front which 228 would make for a very long structure, almost cost prohibitive 229 probably to try to engineer a solution that would be 230 structurally sound as well as aesthetically appealing. 231 We were not the original developers of the property. The 232 hardship was created in 1938 actually and also with the newest 233 Zoning Code that was adopted. We had no decision-making ability 234 to make this and where to place this house in 1938. 235 MR. WILLIAMSON: So really any changes to the house given 236 the current -- given the current front yard, side yard, 237 essentially mean taking the current walls down and doing 238 something substantially different? 239 MR. BEAN: Substantially different within the new 240 allowable. 241 MR. WILLIAMSON: You have to move it over. 242 MR. BEAN: Correct. 243 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. That's all I have. 244 MR. BEAN: Thanks. 245 MR. CALABRESE: I have just a couple questions. One 246 question for you and I have a couple of questions for staff. 247 For you, will you just state for the record if as you 248 just said, if you had to build a conforming house, if this house 249 was demolished and you had to build a conforming house, what 250 would be the width of this house in the lot? 251 MR. BEAN: I believe with the zoning, 60 foot house 252 width, we have to request 15 foot left and right setback with a MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 253 reduction in that because of the substandard width, that would 254 bring it back to 12 on each side. Allow 24 from 60 is a 36 foot 255 building. 256 MR. KRASNER: And then another couple questions just for 257 staff. Just for the record, the house obviously is existing 258 nonconforming both at the side yard to the south and at the 259 front. So any new building, even though maintaining the 260 existing setbacks, the fact that any new condition up or back 261 would trigger a variance regardless, any new building going in 262 the front or on that side. 263 MR. BOYLE: Staff has some authority to approve 264 extensions to the rear but not anything up in a front yard 265 setback or up in a side yard setback. 266 MR. KRASNER: Because the house is existing 267 nonconforming, anything new despite the fact that he's 268 maintaining the existing triggers it, correct? 269 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 270 CHAIR STOODLEY: I have one question. Was the property - 271 - were the setbacks explained to you before you bought the 272 property? 273 In other words the question is, you want to build an 274 addition but the property was already there and the building was 275 already there. Did you know about the setback requirement? 276 MR. BEAN: I did not fully understand this process when I 277 purchased the building, the home. I had some idea that the home 278 was maybe not conforming on a substandard lot but I didn't 279 understand all the details until I spoke with John Boyle which 280 at that point was already under contract for the property. 281 CHAIR STOODLEY: So the building was not self-imposed as 282 far as the variance request, it was also existing and was 283 nonconforming. Did you know it was nonconforming? 284 MR. BEAN: I was not fully aware it was not 285 nonconforming. I had an idea that it was. I soon became aware 286 that many of the neighbors on the street had been granted 287 variances for the similar situation and therefore in speaking 288 with John I thought there was a good opportunity here to have a 289 variance. 290 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you so much. 291 Do I have a motion from any members of the Board? 292 MR. CALABRESE: I'll make a motion. Make a motion to 293 approve Variance Application V1544-13 as described in Item 4 of 294 the Agenda. MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 295 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 296 MR. SZE: Second that. 297 CHAIR STOODLEY: Can I have a voice vote of the five 298 voting members. Not the alternate. 299 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 300 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 301 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 302 MR. SZE: Yes. 303 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 304 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 305 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 306 CHAIR STOODLEY: No. 307 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Calabrese. 308 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 309 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay, sir. You have your variance 310 granted by 4-1. I wish you luck. 311 MR. BEAN: Thank you very much. 312 MR. BOYLE: Can we remind the applicant not to demolish 313 the structure. In the event you do have to demolish the 314 structure, then the current zoning setbacks will take effect. 315 Staff enforces that but would you like to revise your 316 motion? 317 MR. CALABRESE: Sure. Sounds like it's appropriate. I 318 would make a new motion. 319 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 320 MR. CALABRESE: So I'll make a motion to approve Variance 321 Application V1544-13 as described in item number 4 on the Agenda 322 with a condition that the applicant cannot demolish the property 323 as a part of the construction process. 324 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a second? 325 MR. SZE: I'll second that with the amendment. 326 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Voice vote will be the same 327 outcome. 328 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 329 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 330 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 331 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 332 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 333 MR. SZE: Yes. 334 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 335 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 336 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 337 CHAIR STOODLEY: No. 338 339 CHAIR STOODLEY: You have your variance. 340 MR. BEAN: Thank you very much. 341 MR. SZE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question, it's kind 342 of irrelevant, to ask Mr. Bean? 343 CHAIR STOODLEY: Sure. 344 MR. SZE: Is this going to be conformed to any higher 345 building standard? 346 MR. BEAN: It is going to be built to the green building 347 standards, the Energy Star program, just as all my homes in the 348 City of Falls Church has been, we conform to the higher energy 349 standards and the green building standards. 350 MR. SZE: All right. Thank you. 351 MR. BEAN: You're welcome. 352 353 b. Variance application V1545-13 by Felipe Lopez to allow a 354 right side yard setback of 5 feet instead of 13 feet on the east 355 side of the property, on premises known as 402 Timber Lane, RPC 356 # 52-205-017 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R- 357 A low density residential, said property owned by Felipe Lopez. 358 359 CHAIR STOODLEY: Variance application V1545-13, to allow 360 a right side yard setback of 5 feet instead of 13 feet on the 361 east side of the property on the premises known as 402 Timber 362 Lane, RPC # 52-205-017 of the Falls Church Real Property records 363 zoned R-A, low density residential, said property owned by 364 Felipe Lopez. 365 366 Is the applicant here? 367 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 368 CHAIR STOODLEY: We swore you in before. 369 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 370 CHAIR STOODLEY: All right. 371 Anyone in the audience want to speak on this issue, 372 please come forward. 373 Okay. State your name and write your address on the log. 374 Thank you, sir. 375 Speak your name into the mic. 376 MR. KRASNER: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman. Don't we 377 normally hear from staff? 378 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. I'm sorry. MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 379 Mr. Boyle. 380 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 381 This property is in the R1-A zoning district. The 382 underlying zoning conditions, setbacks and lot size, make this a 383 substandard lot for area. It's 99,179 square feet in a 11,250 384 square foot zone. It's 65 feet in width at the widest and the 385 zoning district requires 75 feet. 386 Just in the way of explaining some of the lay of the land 387 there, it is unusual in that there is a pipe easement of some 388 sort that bisects the property diagonally from that corner to 389 near the middle on the west side. I don't know how unusual it 390 is but this house is also oriented towards the plane of the 391 street as opposed to at a right angle to the sides which we 392 typically see with rectangular properties. That has the effect 393 of requiring that any additions go towards the rear and the side 394 property line opposite the street frontage. 395 I believe this first came to us from the applicant as a 396 building permit and their intention to construct something of 397 what you see in your packet and staff in its review determined 398 that this was not something we could approve administratively 399 and it would require a variance application. 400 So for that I think we'll defer to the applicants and 401 their presentation. 402 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Boyle. And we're back on 403 track. 404 MR. KELLEY: Thank you. My name is Rich Kelley. I'm 405 with the law firm of Bean Kinney and Korman. I represent Miss 406 Gulliksen who could not be here tonight but has sent comments 407 and I also -- 408 MR. KRASNER: I'm sorry. You represent the applicant or 409 you represent the neighbor? 410 MR. KELLEY: I'm sorry. I represent -- I'm opposing the 411 application. 412 MR. KRASNER: Let's hear from the applicant first before 413 we hear from any members of the public. 414 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chairman, it may help, staff did receive 415 a number of letters on this item and the Board should have that 416 or receive them via e-mail. It may be helpful to ask how many 417 are present and wish to speak or are we going to have just the 418 applicant presentation and then -- 419 MR. KELLEY: If I may, for the Board I have some 420 exhibits, copy for each of them that may be helpful in MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 421 understanding our position. 422 MR. CALABRESE: You're here representing the neighbor? 423 MR. KELLEY: Yes. I represent the neighbor directly to 424 the right as you're facing their front door. 425 MR. CALABRESE: Who is directly affected? 426 MR. KELLEY: Yes. Miss Gail G. Her son Steven is here 427 tonight as well. She's a former member of the State Department 428 and is traveling overseas and could not be here tonight but 429 sends her apologies. 430 The Board has heard from the staff. The applicant is 431 asking for a hardship variance to make more room for their 432 family. But for the easement that runs diagonally through their 433 back yard, they may be able to build straight backwards, however 434 because of that easement they can't go straight backward and 435 their solution as presented in the variance application is to 436 build what is essentially, if you look at Exhibit 3 in our 437 application or in our documents on pages 4 through 7, and that 438 may be the same materials that you gentlemen have as well, but 439 they're essentially building another house off to the right, the 440 left side of their house which runs directly along the property 441 line of Ms. Gulliksen. 442 And this is a two story, 37 foot addition that runs along 443 my client's entire fence line. And it's important to note that 444 the condition of this easement existed at the time the 445 applicants purchased the property. So they knew or should have 446 known about the existence of the easement when they purchased 447 it. It's in the land records. It is in the title. It's also 448 reflected in the market price for the property. Because of that 449 easement, the price of this house is going to be less than what 450 you could get otherwise. 451 Essentially this variance application is not necessarily 452 correct in unknown hardship. It would be offering to the 453 applicants an undeserved windfall and it would be giving them a 454 windfall at the expense of the neighbors, especially Miss 455 Gulliksen who lives directly next door. 456 And if the Board members will look at Exhibit 4 of our 457 documents, we have some pictures of the property that may 458 demonstrate the conditions and the effects of the variance. 459 The first picture, the house on the right is Miss 460 Gulliksen's house. The house on the left is the applicant's 461 house. The second picture shows the applicant's house as it is 462 now. And if you flip to the 4th through the 7th pictures, you MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 463 can see the fence line. And this point of view is coming from 464 Miss Gulliksen's house. Just over that fence is the applicant's 465 house. 466 And these four pictures demonstrate just how close those 467 two houses are. It demonstrates if a variance is granted and 468 they're allowed to build this essentially another house on the 469 side of their current house, it would dwarf Miss Gulliksen's 470 property. It would completely drown out her light allowing to 471 build five feet from the property line. It would disrupt the 472 air flow. It would decimate her privacy. She would have to 473 relandscape the property. 474 The folks who are living in that addition would be 475 staring directly into their kitchen, into their bedrooms and 476 into their back yard. Putting an easement that close is just 477 not fair to her. It would also affect her property value having 478 a structure like that so close to her property and the effects 479 it would have on her land, the ability to landscape it, privacy 480 concerns. 481 In addition to Miss Gulliksen, the community would also 482 be harmed by this. As noted, this is an R 1 low density 483 residential area and an addition built looming over another 484 property just isn't appropriate for this sort of area. And I 485 know that there are other members here who will speak on this 486 and I know they've submitted comments. 487 We've submitted comments, some of the comments that we 488 have received that folks have shared with us and to date we're 489 not aware of anyone who supports this application and largely -- 490 and I'm sorry. Those comments that we've included are Exhibit 5 491 to my materials. All of the neighbors have said this does not 492 fit in aesthetically with the neighborhood. It's in complete 493 contrast to the flow and the symmetry and the charm of the other 494 residences in that neighborhood. So it's going to have a 495 negative effect on the community as a whole as well. 496 Obviously I'm here to advocate for Miss Gulliksen but I 497 think it has a larger effect. It sets a poor precedent. This 498 isn't a townhouse community. This is an R 1 residential low 499 density community. 500 While we're very sympathetic to the applicant's current 501 conditions on the property, there are a number of remedies that 502 they could pursue, not the least of which is to purchase a 503 property that is more suitable to their needs. They can 504 transfer the house into a townhouse -- or I'm sorry. Into a MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 505 colonial house. 506 CHAIR STOODLEY: You have another minute. 507 MR. KELLEY: Thank you. 508 Because of the substandard nature of the property, they 509 have a bigger height requirement so they could go up and to the 510 sides rather than infringe on her property. There are a number 511 of remedies they could employ but none of them should affect 512 Miss Gulliksen's property. Thank you. 513 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 514 Any questions from the Board? 515 MR. CALABRESE: I have a question on one of the pictures. 516 I don't know if I understand. As the drawings on there, it says 517 property line, can you describe what this fence is. 518 MR. KELLEY: That is where the fence goes around to the 519 side, right side of the applicant's property and then eventually 520 connects with her client's property. 521 MR. CALABRESE: Perpendicular to her fence? 522 MR. KELLEY: Yes. 523 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 524 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other questions? 525 Mr. Sze? 526 MR. SZE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How many letters were 527 received on this issue, e-mails, separate piece of 528 correspondence? 529 MR. BOYLE: 17. 530 MR. SZE: 17. 531 Were there any in favor -- 532 CHAIR STOODLEY: We're not examining, we're just asking 533 questions to the applicant. 534 You represented who? 535 MR. KELLEY: Ms. Gulliksen. 536 CHAIR STOODLEY: Ms. Gulliksen, that's all. 537 MR. SZE: That's the only thing. Okay. 538 CHAIR STOODLEY: Question? 539 MR. HOWELL: Okay. Just one question. The beginning of 540 your dossier under tab one, there is a note, Dear Members of the 541 Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 19th, unsigned by anybody. 542 What's it for? 543 MR. KELLEY: Mr. Howell, we included that to go along 544 with Miss Gulliksen's comments that she sent in. This is the 545 only initial notice she received from the applicants regarding 546 the variance application. And as you may note from it, we don't MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 547 believe this is intentional but it doesn't have the proposed 548 addition on what they sent out and doesn't note the correct time 549 for the hearing. 550 But she just noted that because she hadn't received 551 anything about this other than phone calls and it took much 552 longer to finally get the information that you have in front of 553 you. 554 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any further questions? 555 Yes. Mr. Krasner. 556 MR. KRASNER: I have a followup question for Mr. Boyle. 557 He brought up the issue of notification. Doesn't the City 558 assist applicants in providing proper legal notification to 559 adjoining property owners? 560 MR. BOYLE: Yes. Actually staff does the notification. 561 MR. KRASNER: Right. 562 MR. BOYLE: What that letter may be is we recommend 563 applicants contact the neighbors. Typically it's done through a 564 form letter. 565 MR. KRASNER: It's not a legal requirement? 566 MR. BOYLE: No. But staff does the public notice through 567 a 150 foot radius of the subject property and two public ads in 568 the newspaper. 569 MR. KRASNER: Was proper notice provided in this case to 570 all the neighbors? 571 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 572 MR. KRASNER: Including Miss Gulliksen? 573 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 574 CHAIR STOODLEY: Who else wants to speak, come forward 575 please. Sign the log and state your name. 576 MR. MOORE: I'm Eric Moore. I live at 606 Jackson 577 Street. 578 CHAIR STOODLEY: I'm sorry. 579 MR. MOORE: Eric Moore. I live at 606 Jackson Street 580 around the corner from the Lopezes. I share a property line, my 581 back yard and their back yard share a property line. It's one 582 of the -- if you look at the street diagram it's one of the -- 583 it's the one on Jackson. Their back yard backs directly up 584 against my property. 585 MR. CALABRESE: On the right side of the rectangle here, 586 are you on the side or the back? 587 MR. MOORE: I'm the top left corner from where the -- 588 MR. CALABRESE: What number is that? MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 589 CHAIR STOODLEY: Can you give us the number? 590 MR. MOORE: Yes, 87. Sorry. 591 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. 592 MR. MOORE: I was made aware of this I guess at the same 593 time as everyone else, at the same time John Boyle sent me a 594 letter on the 1st of April about the variance request. And just 595 after that Gail Gulliksen came to speak to me about the request 596 expressing her concerns similar to what were described tonight. 597 And subsequent to that my wife and daughter went to speak to the 598 Lopezes and later on they came and spoke with me. 599 I didn't know either the Gulliksens or the Lopezes prior 600 to this. But I've looked at the property and I can't say that I 601 can materially add too much tonight to what's being said but I 602 would like to correct the perception that all the neighbors are 603 opposed to this variance. I certainly don't oppose it. I've 604 looked at the situation and it seems that the -- I forget what 605 you call it, the easement on the Lopezes' property makes for an 606 almost impossible situation on which to do anything with the 607 house. 608 I also -- it's a little hard to perceive on the map but 609 when you look at these houses, I find it hard to believe that 610 house will eventually dwarf the Gulliksen's house which is quite 611 large. And I -- the implication that it will stretch all the 612 way down the property line is a little bit of a misconception 613 also. In fact, I think 37 feet will put it just a few feet 614 behind the rear left corner that approaches that property line. 615 In short, I just want to say I think the Lopezes are in a 616 position where they really have no other alternative but to seek 617 this variance given the unfortunate easement which they have to 618 live and that's really all I had to say. 619 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you. Questions from the Board. 620 Thank you, sir. 621 MR. MOORE: Thank you. 622 MR. WADE: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a quick 623 correction. We only receive nine letters from the neighbors. I 624 don't know where the 17 came from. I made a lot of copies this 625 week so. 626 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Anyone else want to speak? All 627 right. 628 Go ahead. You have three minutes. 629 MS. ALMANZA: Three minutes. 630 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes, ma'am. From once you start to MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 631 speak. 632 MS. ALMANZA: She chose the letter for me. I need 633 translate. 634 CHAIR STOODLEY: I want you to state your name. 635 MR. BOYLE: She needs a translator. Okay. 636 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. I understand. Are we going to 637 hear from you or from her? 638 MR. BOYLE: Can you translate? 639 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 640 MS. ALMANZA: First of all, good evening, everybody. I'm 641 the -- 642 MS. LOPEZ: She said she came to help us get this 643 approved and she's also -- 644 MR. CALABRESE: For the record, can she state her name 645 and address. 646 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. You're interpreting for her? 647 MS. ALMANZA: Yeah, yeah. 648 CHAIR STOODLEY: No, are you interpreting for her? 649 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 650 CHAIR STOODLEY: For her statement from the audience? 651 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 652 CHAIR STOODLEY: Has nothing to do with the applicant? 653 MS. LOPEZ: She's just support the variance approved. 654 MR. WILLIAMSON: She's the applicant? 655 MS. LOPEZ: No. My father is the applicant. I'm the 656 daughter. 657 MS. ALMANZA: I'm a neighborhood. 658 MR. KRASNER: Can we have her state her name and address 659 for the record. 660 MS. ALMANZA: My name is Bertha Almanza, I'm living 661 Ellison, 1210 Ellison Street. I'm from City too. But I'm not 662 bring a lot of papers like other professionals. I'm a 663 professional. 664 CHAIR STOODLEY: I understand. 665 MS. ALMANZA: I don't just want to picture that, picture 666 that. 667 CHAIR STOODLEY: Just say what you have to say. 668 MS. LOPEZ: She came here to help us get this approved 669 and that she wants to show you guys how we do need the addition 670 on our property and it will help us out a lot on space. 671 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Thank you. 672 MS. LOPEZ: None of the neighbors are opposing us because MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 673 as well I went to speak to them and there was a few that said 674 that's fine. They said I don't see why we shouldn't be able to 675 do the construction and have the addition. 676 CHAIR STOODLEY: I understand. 677 Let's have translation please. 678 MS. LOPEZ: That our neighborhood, we know a few people. 679 Like my mom is the owner of the house with my dad. We have in 680 total -- she has eight grandchildren so, you know, all the kids 681 usually come over and they're friends with the neighbor kids. 682 And she just wants to let you guys know that we're not I guess - 683 - there's families that I guess support us. 684 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. I understand. 685 MS. LOPEZ: So she's saying from her rights we just need 686 your help or hopefully you guys can consider to approve this 687 variance. 688 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you. Do we have any questions 689 from the Board? I see none. 690 Thank you very much. 691 MS. ALMANZA: Thank you too. 692 CHAIR STOODLEY: Anybody else in the audience? 693 I'll close this to the public. 694 And ask Mr. Boyle to explain the situation. 695 MR. BOYLE: I don't believe I have anything to add other 696 than what we exchanged in e-mails this afternoon with the Board 697 about your authority to consider approval, denial, with 698 conditions. 699 Our Code on variances is not specific on conditions 700 however the State code is. The Board has authority to set 701 conditions if you chose. It's also consistent with when this 702 Board sees special use permits, you can approve with conditions. 703 So with that I think the issue here for the Board to 704 decide is whether a hardship exists. This would not be the old 705 38 10 C as they are extending this house further into the 706 setback. This would be a true variance so the burden for the 707 Board is to determine whether a true hardship exists and a 708 reasonable remedy if there is one, whether that exists. 709 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you, sir. 710 Anything further from the applicant? 711 MS. LOPEZ: So we want the addition because we need 712 bigger space. As you can see, we don't have enough space in the 713 house. There's even condominiums that are bigger than what we 714 have in the City of Falls Church. I'm not sure, I guess we went MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 715 five feet away from the fence, the neighbor's fence. And I know 716 it's 13 feet. 717 I did speak to some of the neighbors and, you know, 718 there's a few that said they wouldn't mind and we do have a big 719 easement that cuts our property in half that we pay so much 720 taxes for the property and we can't even construct in it. 721 When my mom bought the property in November of 2004, the 722 realtor obviously did a bad job because we never knew about 723 that. And he's actually in jail now. Yeah, he is. 724 So, you know, we would really appreciate it if you can 725 approve this variance for our application because it would help 726 us a lot. And as you can see, our house is small and that's 727 all. 728 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Do you have anything else to add? 729 MS. LOPEZ: No. 730 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask, Mr. Chairman, are there 731 other designs, other ways of building the home that wouldn't 732 infringe upon the setback? 733 MS. LOPEZ: We're just trying to create more space so 734 that's why we're asking. I know we were told it's a lot, you 735 know, to ask for but our reason is to just create more space for 736 our house and we would consider looking at other -- 737 MS. CALABRESE: The difficulty that we have as the Board, 738 we have to look at the undue hardship. We have to consider if 739 there were no other options, no other way to do this, that you 740 would be in a real situation that you would have to do it in a 741 way -- it appears there could be other ways you could design it 742 that wouldn't impinge upon your neighbor's backyard and wouldn't 743 violate -- we wouldn't require a variance. 744 So if there are other ways to build it that would do 745 that, then we would consider that as a factor looking at the 746 hardship. That's why I asked the question. 747 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do you have any questions? 748 MS. LOPEZ: Well, are you guys I guess willing to give us 749 at least -- 750 CHAIR STOODLEY: No. We just want to answer his 751 question. In other words, he asked basically do you have an 752 alternate plan? You do or don't? 753 MS. LOPEZ: If you give us I guess -- 754 CHAIR STOODLEY: No. 755 MS. LOPEZ: We would, we would. Like we consider, member 756 one of the other neighbors said if we can design the house MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 757 differently from the outside so it doesn't -- I don't know, I 758 guess she didn't like the design. 759 But we did consider. We called Tom Fisher, should give 760 us the -- how do you say -- the architect, and we did call him 761 and he's going to come out on Saturday to look at it. But I 762 guess we just need the permission for the space to build on so 763 we could maybe consider doing a different design on the 764 property. Because we don't have enough space. 765 MR. CALABRESE: We can consider what you provided. 766 CHAIR STOODLEY: Can I see the -- any questions? Mr. 767 Sze, you have a question? 768 MR. SZE: I just want to follow-up on what Mr. Calabrese 769 said. I wasn't clear on the answer. We certainly recognize 770 your desire for additional space. That is part of the Falls 771 Church experience. 772 But I wasn't clear that you actually answered him or 773 other members on the Board that there were other solutions. 774 CHAIR STOODLEY: She didn't answer that. You don't have 775 Plan B. 776 MR. SZE: I'd like to hear that again. 777 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Would you say it again? Do you 778 have an alternate plan for the house, forget the variance. Do 779 you have an alternate plan? 780 MS. LOPEZ: Other than this prepared, no, I don't. 781 MR. SZE: So would you consider examination of other 782 alternatives? 783 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 784 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Sir. 785 MR. HOWELL: Just for a point of clarification if I may 786 about implication of the easements. What the position is in 787 terms of impinging on the easement or whether or not, I 788 understand the manhole is off the property, and whether there is 789 prohibition of fencing across the easement during construction. 790 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. This type of easement locates the 791 pipe, it's south of the center and then there's typically ten 792 feet on either side of the pipe that cannot be constructed in. 793 So that easement may allow a driveway with the knowledge that if 794 they ever have to work in that easement they'd be at risk of 795 having the driveway pulled out. But definitely no construction, 796 no building. 797 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 798 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions. I just wanted to clarify MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 799 what I think you maybe hearing, if that's okay, is that we can't 800 grant a variance in the absence of a specific plan. I think I 801 understand it would be nice to be able to say, well, can we have 802 8 feet or 10 feet or that way you would know the envelope in 803 which to work. We're not able to do that. We need to see an 804 actual plan. So I wanted to just clarify that in case it wasn't 805 clear. 806 But I think regarding this, I don't have any additional 807 questions. 808 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay, sir. 809 MR. KRASNER: Couple of questions and some of it is for 810 staff. 811 Obviously you had this plan drawn up by an architect. It 812 might be helpful to have the architect come here and describe 813 what's on the plan. Some of the questions, if you don't know 814 the answer, it's okay. Maybe Mr. Boyle can help you. 815 But the required setback on both sides of the house is 13 816 feet. Mr. Boyle, is that correct? 817 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 818 MR. KRASNER: Your house today is nonconforming. The 819 front corner of your house is at 10.2 feet so it appears you 820 already have an existing nonconforming on that side. 821 What I'm trying to get a sense of, and your architect had 822 very nice graphics and that's why it would be helpful if he 823 could answer some of the questions. 824 I'm trying to get a sense of, based on your lot does have 825 an odd shape to it in the sense that it faces the street at a 826 very sharp angle, regardless of the easement in the back. And I 827 would like to know, I don't think you'll be able to tell me 828 this, I don't think you will, how much area exists beyond 13 829 feet on that side of the house compared to what's existing 830 today. 831 I think what you're hearing from the Board is we want to 832 get a sense of what is possible without the variance and how 833 constrained are you. One of the ways to prove a hardship is 834 what other members have been talking about, is showing that you 835 have other options. It's not clear to me and to some of the 836 other folks I think on this Board, I don't want to be 837 presumptuous to speak for them, that it's clear there are no 838 other options. 839 I do see on the other side of your house there is a 840 portion of the house that is 14 feet off the line, you're right MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 841 there. I think that that's what we're struggling with is there 842 are some unique circumstances I see on your lot. The easement 843 is one but again, I see that the house is built at an odd angle 844 to the -- or the lot at an odd angle to the street which does 845 present certain challenges. 846 Do you know what year the house was constructed? 847 MS. LOPEZ: 1951. 848 MR. KRASNER: 1951. About how large is the house today? 849 Do you know approximately like the square footage? If you don't 850 know that, perhaps you can just tell us the bedrooms. 851 MS. LOPEZ: Living area is 1152. 852 MR. KRASNER: 1152 square feet today? 853 MS. LOPEZ: Uh-huh. 854 MR. WILLIAMSON: Is that total living area? 855 MS. LOPEZ: Yeah. Well, that's what I got from -- 856 MR. KRASNER: And how large is the addition you're 857 proposing to build? Do you know how large, how much new 858 building you're proposing? 859 MS. LOPEZ: I'm sorry. I don't have that with me. 860 MR. KRASNER: The architect, he has other dimensions on 861 here but he hasn't provided a -- I'm just trying to get a sense 862 of how large the house is today, how large is this addition and 863 if there are other options to have a space that would be 864 conforming. 865 The last page of your exhibit, is that -- I think that 866 does show it. It looks like you're adding, if I read your 867 exhibit right, it looks like you're adding 862 square feet on 868 the top floor, 740 square feet on the bottom floor. So it looks 869 like approximately 15, 1600 square feet. And again as you said, 870 the existing footprint of the house it appears to be about 750. 871 So it looks like you're about doubling the size of the house, 872 right? 873 But again, that definitely puts you at 3000 or so square 874 feet which is not inordinate for houses in Falls Church. 875 But I guess what I would like to ask of you is whether or 876 not there are other ways to enlarge the house that doesn't 877 require a variance. I don't know if your architect looked at 878 that. 879 MS. LOPEZ: I don't think there is. 880 No, there isn't. There is no way, I guess, I don't know 881 if there's people to ask but to move the height or is there a 882 way it can be moved? MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 883 CHAIR STOODLEY: We don't know that. 884 What we have to do is consider the existing lot, easement 885 that's provided under the law and we can't tell you if you move 886 it or not. 887 MR. CALABRESE: The other concern that I think we're 888 hearing, the testimony we've heard from the public, from your 889 immediate neighbor to the east because you're obviously the most 890 directly affected by this; the other issue I think we're 891 struggling with is are there ways you can again construct the 892 addition, either smaller or different, to minimize the negative 893 effects on her. 894 What I do see here are elements of this lot that perhaps 895 could create a hardship. I don't think what you're proposing 896 necessarily is there yet. I see some of the negative effects on 897 the neighbor are pretty significant. The 5 foot setback you're 898 proposing off the property line is a pretty shallow setback. 899 And that's also significant. 900 MS. LOPEZ: I mean no other property in Falls Church has 901 this big problem. Our original plans weren't to even get close 902 to the neighbor's fence. Like once we got the survey, that's 903 when we found out that there is this big easement. The 904 architect before had obviously not -- we wouldn't have been here 905 if this easement was there. And it's just a whole different 906 plan, a different design but because of the easement we have to 907 have it. You know, ask for a variance and permission to build 908 there. 909 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any other questions? 910 MS. LOPEZ: That's the only space we have to build. We 911 pay, like I said, we pay so much taxes for the property and we 912 can't even, you know, use it to construct something for us and 913 live comfortable. We are a big family but we don't live 914 together but we do gather together and it would nice for once to 915 have like a living room and then have all the kids in there. 916 I'm not sure if the next door neighbor, the only time we get 917 together is summer when we can be outside so it would be very 918 nice. 919 MR. KRASNER: The Board is sympathetic to things like 920 that but we're constrained by legal guidelines as far as 921 allowing a variance. So regardless of some of those other 922 extenuating circumstances, we are sort of bound by a set of 923 legal guidelines that define hardship. 924 I guess I have no other questions. MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 925 CHAIR STOODLEY: I have two questions. When did you buy 926 the house? 927 MS. LOPEZ: November 2004. 928 CHAIR STOODLEY: 2004? 929 MS. LOPEZ: Correct. 930 CHAIR STOODLEY: Is the property as it was in 2004? 931 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 932 CHAIR STOODLEY: And why didn't you do the due diligence 933 to figure out the -- 934 MS. LOPEZ: I wish I knew. 935 CHAIR STOODLEY: Was it there when you bought the 936 property? 937 MS. LOPEZ: Yes, it was. 938 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. And so anybody else wants to ask 939 additional questions? 940 MR. SZE: I just have one clarification for Board member. 941 A 1 20, they've got square footage calculation, seems to me 942 that, this is for the applicant, that you have approximately 943 1400 square feet in the current house and with the additional 944 pieces you would be adding 2150 square feet additional to 3800 I 945 believe. 946 Does that comport with your understanding of what you're 947 applying for? 948 CHAIR STOODLEY: Can you answer that question? 949 MS. LOPEZ: I can't answer the question. I'm sorry. 950 MR. SZE: Can't answer that. 951 So the next question is, perhaps staff could just 952 indicate their understanding based on the plans, on 8103 it 953 looks like it says existing roof heights, 21 feet, four and a 954 quarter inches. The floor plans said 18.2. And so could a 955 reasonable designer add another floor to this current house 956 without exceeding the zoning envelope? 957 MR. BOYLE: I believe it's possible. We have a two and a 958 half story maximum up to 35 feet measured to about where they're 959 indicating the 21 foot in midpoint of the ridge, so not to the 960 peak but if everything were expanded upward where that line were 961 crossing on 35 feet. So there is room to go up. They would 962 have to design it in a way that it met the definition of a half 963 story which is not difficult. 964 MR. SZE: So they could actually have a story and a half 965 then. Live in a space in the attic conceivably. 966 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. No, it looks like they have -- yeah, MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013  967 it's a story and a half now. Yeah, so story and a half. 968 MR. SZE: Okay. Thank you very much. 969 CHAIR STOODLEY: Any questions? 970 Okay. Do we have a motion? Do I have a motion? 971 MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chair, a question. It's a question 972 for the applicant but having heard the sense of the Board, I 973 mean could we ask the applicant if they'd like to withdraw this 974 application or not? Is that something we can consider asking 975 the applicant? 976 CHAIR STOODLEY: No, they can ask for a continuation but 977 they can't withdraw the application. 978 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. 979 CHAIR STOODLEY: Do I have a motion? 980 MR. KRASNER: If I understand Mr. Williamson's question, 981 the applicant, he just asked if whether or not you're allowed to 982 ask for a continuance of this hearing before we vote. 983 MS. LOPEZ: Meaning to bring another plan? 984 MR. KRASNER: Well, we need to -- right, to ask for a 985 continuance for more time perhaps to make changes or 986 adjustments. 987 I can only speak for myself and I will say that I think 988 what I see in your plan is it's a large addition and I think 989 what we actually see from the neighbors is a result of two 990 things: One, you're very close to the side setback. Your house 991 already existing is over the line today existing and you're 992 proposing to go even closer. And some of that, I'm not an 993 architect so I can't say whether or not that is unavoidable but 994 I would say you're going much closer and it's a very large 995 addition. 996 I think those are some of the concerns we've heard, at 997 least from me, perhaps other folks on the Board. What was just 998 asked if you were allowed to request a continuance. And so you 999 might want to consider that possibility, if there are other 1000 plans you can consider but it's your choice. You can proceed. 1001 CHAIR STOODLEY: If you ask for a continuance, it will be 1002 in May. 1003 MR. CALABRESE: Applicants can always reapply. 1004 CHAIR STOODLEY: That is true. 1005 MS. LOPEZ: Can you guys consider how much feet we could 1006 get? How much we can have? 1007 CHAIR STOODLEY: I can't hear you. 1008 MR. CALABRESE: She was asking you, we can't tell you a MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 1009 number. We can only react to what you submit. We can't provide 1010 you that type of guidance. All we can do is react to your 1011 proposal. 1012 Again, basically what we've heard tonight, I think you've 1013 heard that in general, I speak for myself, there are concerns 1014 with the current proposal. That's all I can say. 1015 CHAIR STOODLEY: That's all you should say. 1016 You want to put to a vote or continue? 1017 MS. LOPEZ: We'll continue. 1018 CHAIR STOODLEY: You ask for a continuance? 1019 MS. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. 1020 CHAIR STOODLEY: You realize that is one month? 1021 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 1022 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Do I have a motion to continue? 1023 MR. SZE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to -- Variance 1024 Application V1545-13 to approve a continuation at the request of 1025 the applicant. 1026 CHAIR STOODLEY: All right. Do I have a second? 1027 MR. KRASNER: I'll second it, that we grant a 1028 continuance. 1029 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Roll call vote please. 1030 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1031 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1032 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 1033 MR. SZE: Yes. 1034 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1035 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1036 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 1037 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 1038 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Krasner. 1039 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1040 CHAIR STOODLEY: All right. You have a continuance. 1041 We'll see you next month. 1042 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, that will be the May 16th meeting. 1043 CHAIR STOODLEY: May 16th. 1044 MS. LOPEZ: All right. Thank you. Thank you. 1045 1046 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1047 Discussion of minutes from the January 2013 BZA 1048 1049 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Next item is approval of minutes 1050 for January 2013. Do we have a copy of them? MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 1051 MR. WADE: Mr. Chairman, we'd like to include them, I 1052 also included the February minutes in case the Board members had 1053 time to review them, if you wanted to add that as well. 1054 CHAIR STOODLEY: I think we don't have time right now. 1055 How many people have the January? 1056 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'd be prepared to vote on January. 1057 CHAIR STOODLEY: I wasn't here in January. 1058 MR. WILLIAMSON: Fond memories. 1059 Mr. Williamson, will you read the minutes line by line in 1060 case there is a change. 1061 (Minutes were discussed.) 1062 CHAIR STOODLEY: Thank you, sir. I see no changes. Do 1063 we have a motion to approve? 1064 MR. WILLIAMSON: So moved. 1065 CHAIR STOODLEY: Second? 1066 MR. KRASNER: Second. 1067 CHAIR STOODLEY: Voice vote, all in favor? 1068 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1069 CHAIR STOODLEY: Minutes are approved. 1070 We'll hold February meeting minutes until next Board 1071 meeting. 1072 1073 7. OTHER BUSINESS: 1074 1075 CHAIR STOODLEY: Anybody have other business, this is the 1076 time to bring it up. 1077 Go ahead. 1078 MR. KRASNER: I'll bring up just again, I did send an e- 1079 mail earlier today to the full Board and Mr. Boyle, Mr. Wade, 1080 and I brought up a few points. Again, as I've been on the Board 1081 for the last year I've been trying to think of ways to grasp, 1082 make our process run more efficiently. I'll step back for the 1083 other new members who don't know, I'm an urban planner and I 1084 work for a large neighboring jurisdiction. I won't utter their 1085 name in this building. 1086 And so I do work and I've also worked in New Jersey so 1087 I've worked with zoning boards and planning commissions in many 1088 different settings. Just with that as a background, you know, 1089 I've looked at different ways we can perhaps do things. 1090 One of the things I brought up actually months ago and I 1091 hope we can continue to keep it somewhere on the back burner is 1092 the idea of application and check list of minimum submission MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 1093 requirements, so that applicants at a minimum can get some very 1094 basic information about what it is that they're asking. We're 1095 given a wide range of materials, some are very professionally 1096 prepared, gives us everything we need to know to make a 1097 decision. Other times we don't and obviously sometimes 1098 homeowners or those new to the process don't know what they need 1099 to provide and we're forced to sort of tease it out of them 1100 through questioning. 1101 And I know in many other places there is a required 1102 variance submission checklist, of at least of some basic stuff, 1103 plot plan that dimensions out the variance they're asking for, 1104 some other basic material. 1105 So I brought it up to Mr. Boyle and Mr. Wade to keep it 1106 in their long term work agendas, something to consider. And I 1107 think I did provide a few samples of what I've seen used in 1108 other jurisdictions. 1109 And along those same lines, I also brought up the issue 1110 of making motions. I think that especially with the BZA, 1111 because of what we do has such a large legal component that 1112 overshadows it, I think it's important that more for the record 1113 and for posterity in case things ever get challenged in the 1114 future, that our motions are clear as far as the legal 1115 underpinning that we're using to justify a up or down vote. 1116 And so I know there are jurisdictions that use sample 1117 type of motions. I included one as a copy and since then I 1118 found another one that I sent to Mr. Boyle and distribute along 1119 to the rest of the Board. I'd like it to bring it up as a point 1120 of discussion if other folks think something like that could be 1121 helpful. If it is, I'll be happy to work with Mr. Boyle to work 1122 on a draft and circulate it for review and that way we can make 1123 sure we're hitting the points we need to hit. 1124 And I think it's just helpful all around and I'll open it 1125 up for discussion if anyone else has opinion on that. 1126 CHAIR STOODLEY: Comments. 1127 MR. CALABRESE: It's a good idea. I agree that 1128 standardizing the motions that we make is good and make sure we 1129 get the right information there. Myself, I find myself doing an 1130 abbreviated version of a motion. It would be nice to know what 1131 to say so it's clear. It's a very good idea. 1132 MR. WILLIAMSON: I fully support it and accept your offer 1133 if others are so inclined. 1134 MR. SZE: Yeah, I've got to say that the two things you MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 1135 set out for approval and denial, they're embedded in the CPEAV 1136 course, those of us that take time away from work and spend 1137 three days in Richmond, so the standard language, I agree. They 1138 also give you a litmus test. And so it wouldn't surprise you to 1139 know that I have these in my notebook. 1140 I agree that we should run through the rendition of 1141 places of approval or disapproval. That's one of the thing I 1142 pledged to do, if you recall, Howard, when they said what would 1143 you do if you were on the Board, that kind of transparency. 1144 I think with regard to check lists or something like 1145 that, I think that anything that goes to consistency to make 1146 life a little easier, since you volunteered to help produce a 1147 check list, I think that would be good. We struggle with square 1148 footage, whether additional variances in the past, what's the 1149 FAR, some of those questions if they were all answered up front, 1150 I think we don't necessarily need a worksession which is what I 1151 propose but I think for some of the more difficult ones, it 1152 would certainly seem -- the Lopezes spend the next month going 1153 through the designing of a back envelope, there may be a reason 1154 to have a few of us just sit in and say well, you know, this 1155 comports with our thinking or not. 1156 So I think the check list is very nice. 1157 MR. KRASNER: There are different ways we could do it. 1158 We could make some amendments to our existing application form 1159 for some of that basic information. And also we could require, 1160 it's very common in other jurisdictions, it can be very basic 1161 for a owner but some type of variance plat that, you know, in 1162 most cases folks or homeowners can use an existing survey when 1163 they bought the house as long as it's still accurate, and they 1164 can dimension it, where and what they're asking for. It's very 1165 clear. A lot of times we get that but there are times we don't 1166 get and instead of searching for what exactly they're asking 1167 for, what is the existing and what's the proposed, you can 1168 uniform the table. 1169 There are different ways to do it and, yes, I would be 1170 happy to work with staff to try to put something together for 1171 the Board to take a look at. 1172 CHAIR STOODLEY: What is the feeling of the Board? I 1173 personally would welcome it. I've been here a long time and 1174 still don't have it squared away. 1175 MR. WILLIAMSON: Sounds good. 1176 MR. SZE: Let's do that. Maybe by next meeting or MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 1177 something. 1178 MR. KRASNER: I'll try to put something together, on both 1179 fronts, both on check list and on motions, and circulate to 1180 staff and try to at least have something in a draft form by our 1181 next meeting for folks to take a look at. 1182 CHAIR STOODLEY: That would be great. 1183 MR. BOYLE: You know where that should reside? I think 1184 in your Rules of Procedure. 1185 CHAIR STOODLEY: Yes. 1186 MR. BOYLE: One thing staff struggles with is what we can 1187 require by Code such as their timely filing and fee they paid 1188 and the completion of the application. And we do have something 1189 of a check list where we have coached them through the process. 1190 And we also filter what comes in. We let them know within 1191 reason what the likelihood, very careful not to encourage or 1192 discourage. We'll be asked what's the history of this type of 1193 application, has it ever been approved. And we'll let them know 1194 what their obligation and their burden is. 1195 But ultimately if someone wanted to pay the fee and fill 1196 out the application and appear, I don't think we could prevent 1197 them from coming. And this community, as you're well aware, is 1198 an interesting group of variety of professions and experiences 1199 and you will get and I think that is reflected in the packages 1200 that you see. 1201 So staff does do some shaping up of their presentations 1202 but there is only so much I think we can literally require. If 1203 however this were somewhat formalized in your Rules of 1204 Procedure, then maybe that would have more weight. Here is what 1205 the Board will receive and meet this test. 1206 MR. KRASNER: One question that's related, you may want 1207 to check with the City Attorney on, in some instances these 1208 types of check lists or submission requirements are actually 1209 codified in the ordinance. I believe in the other jurisdictions 1210 that will remain nameless, that it's actually codified in the 1211 ordinance. 1212 MR. SZE: We don't want to do that. 1213 MR. KRASNER: Well, I mean there's -- 1214 MR. SZE: Codified means requirement. 1215 MR. KRASNER: I don't know what the Planning Commission 1216 does as far as when someone applies for a special exception or 1217 for a rezoning, if there is a similar type of submission 1218 requirement that exists anywhere, whether it's in the ordinance MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013 1219 or sort of department policy but it's something, we'll look at 1220 that. We'll look at those issues and see what will work for us, 1221 how to do and what will work. 1222 CHAIR STOODLEY: We all appreciate your enthusiasm and we 1223 can certainly use the structure. I would say if you could do 1224 something by next meeting, that would be great. If you can't, 1225 that's fine. We're not bound by anything -- by any requirement. 1226 But I've been doing this for a long time and it's not working as 1227 well as I think it could. 1228 So thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 1229 Any Other Business? 1230 1231 8. ADJOURNMENT 1232 1233 CHAIR STOODLEY: Motion to adjourn? 1234 MR. KRASNER: So moved. 1235 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 1236 CHAIR STOODLEY: Okay. Voice vote. 1237 (A chorus of "ayes.") MINUTES OF THE 13 APRIL 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED 13 JUNE 2013