Board of Zoning Appeals

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APEALS 2 City Council Chambers 3 300 Park Avenue 4 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 5 Thursday, June 13, 2013 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9 10 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'd like to call to order the June 13, 2013, 11 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Falls Church. 12 Roll call. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL: 15 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 17 (No response.) 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 19 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 21 (No response.) 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 23 MR. KRASNER: Here. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 25 MR. SZE: Here. 26 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Howell. 27 MR. HOWELL: Here. 28 29 MR. KRASNER: I'd like to make a motion to hear Old Business before 30 we hear New Business. 31 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there a second? 32 MR. HOWELL: I second. 33 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call. Roll call vote. 34 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 35 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 36 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 37 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 38 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 39 MR. SZE: Yes. 40 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Howell. 41 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 42 43 7. OLD BUSINESS: 44 45 a. Variance application V1545-13 by Felipe Lopez: 46 OPTION A: to allow a right side yard setback of five feet instead 47 of thirteen feet on the east side of the property for the construction of a 48 two story addition 49 or 50 OPTION B: to allow a right side yard setback of ten feet two and 51 three-eighths inches instead of thirteen feet on the east side of the 52 property for the construction of a new, two story addition and a front yard 53 setback of twenty-five feet instead of thirty feet for the construction of 54 a second story addition over the existing first story 55 56 on premises known as 402 Timber Lane, RPC # 52-205-017 of the Falls 57 Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A low density residential, said  58 property owned by Felipe Lopez. 59 60 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So then that moves us to Old 61 Business, which is a variance application V 1545-13 by Felipe Lopez. Two 62 options, Option A, to allow a right side yard setback of 5 feet instead of 63 13 feet on the east side of the property for the construction of a two 64 story addition; or an Option B, to allow a right side yard setback of ten 65 feet two and three-eighths inches instead of 13 feet on the east side of 66 the property for the construction of a new, two story addition and a front 67 yard setback of 25 feet instead of 30 feet for the construction of a second 68 story addition over the existing first story on the premises known as 402 69 Timber Lane, RPC # 52-205-017 of the Falls Church Real Property Records 70 zoned R-1A, low density residential, said property owned by Felipe Lopez. 71 So I'd like to ask for all those who are planning to speak tonight, 72 please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. If you're going to 73 speak, please raise your hand. 74 (Witnesses sworn.) 75 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see you're signing in there and while 76 you're signing in I believe this is a -- well, let's hear from staff on 77 this before we proceed. 78 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 79 I think it would be simplest just to characterize what the 80 differences are in the two applications. It's a little unusual that we 81 have Option A and Option B but in discussing this with the applicants, they 82 did want to scale the plan back from what this Board saw previously and 83 they came up with a couple of ways forward with some significant advantages 84 and points to consider. 85 Option A is, simply put, is close to the line. It's asking for a 86 setback of 5 feet off the line, however it is a one story structure 87 throughout. It extends slightly further to the rear than the Option B and 88 is one story. 89 Option B comes with a greater setback. It's following essentially 90 the line of the existing house. There is a little difference between the 91 two but it's following the concept of extending no closer than the existing 92 house towards the side property line but it is a two story addition and 93 also comes with a slight intrusion into the front setback. 94 So those are the two plans before you. And staff just wanted to 95 point out that we did spend a great deal of time with the applicant scaling 96 back the original plan and I'll defer to them for their presentation about 97 what the two options mean to them as the property owners and how they hope 98 to use the property. 99 And they had some additional information as to the impacts of the 100 easement towards the rear of the property. 101 So with that, I'll defer to the applicant. 102 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And actually before you proceed, we -- this 103 party appeared before us before. Did they withdraw their variance 104 application before or was that a -- 105 MR. WADE: They continued it. 106 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Continued it. 107 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 108 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And are we continuing it within the 109 allowable time? 110 MR. WADE: Yeah, there was a -- we were going to continue it just 111 for one month when they brought us the second options. We felt that we had 112 certain legal obligations that we needed to make for advertising purposes. 113 There were significant differences from the initial application. So we 114 wanted to renotify the neighbors and readvertise it and so we had to extend 115 it one month but I believe we're still okay. 116 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 117 We can hear from the applicants now. 118 MS. LOPEZ: We just want to make changes to the -- 119 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry. Will you state your name. 120 MS. LOPEZ: Jessica Lopez. 121 We just wanted to make changes and we have -- 122 MR. KRASNER: Is the microphone on? Make sure it's on. Okay. 123 Thank you. 124 MS. LOPEZ: So we just wanted to make changes to the plans we had 125 before because you can see, you have the copy. 126 MR. KRASNER: I guess we would be looking for you to explain. It is 127 a little unusual to get two options. 128 So Mr. Boyle has explained in general the differences but I guess 129 we'd like to hear from you, if you can walk us through each option and why. 130 We'd really like to know what the purpose is. We can't tell you. You need 131 to ask us for the variance and you presented two options. They require 132 different forms of -- different levels of relief and I'd like to hear from 133 you about how you feel about each of these options as far as which one you 134 prefer, which, you know, what are pros and cons in your eyes, these 135 different options, and how did you come up with these two different 136 options. 137 MS. LOPEZ: Well, we -- I guess, if you guys can give us permission 138 for 10 feet instead of 5 which is at the beginning what we were asking. 139 And, you know, we're trying to get that approved. 140 MR. KRASNER: Right. 141 MS. LOPEZ: I mean the con is, the negative thing is that the 142 easement, as you know the storm pipe is like crossing our lot which it just 143 divides it in half, the space. 144 MR. KRASNER: I'm familiar with that issue. I guess I was looking 145 to hear from you specifically about the -- you presented us now with two 146 options. I think it's kind of difficult for us to decide without 147 understanding again these options are, they're different. They're asking 148 for different forms of relief. 149 I wonder if you can then explain the differences between Option A 150 and B and if you have a preference. Is there something that -- obviously 151 we know what you came in with initially and you heard the concerns from 152 this Board and from others who testified and so you've come back and 153 revised that and we're happy to see that you made changes. But I now would 154 like to hear specifically about these changes and what you're asking us 155 for, as far as there is two options here. 156 MS. LOPEZ: I can't give you specific changes because the architect 157 was supposed to come but he wasn't feeling well and he couldn't make it. I 158 mean, I not familiar with the measurements. I didn't really look at the 159 plans. My sister is the one who -- my sister is the one who was handling 160 all this as well to have the architect come and explain to you that. But 161 we're asking is just, you know, the ten feet and permission to build. 162 MR. KRASNER: All right. Just real simply then, do you have a 163 preference between Option A and Option B? Is there an option you prefer? 164 MS. LOPEZ: Option A, we would love to have. We would love to have 165 that approved because of the space it's going to provide for our family. 166 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Perhaps you can expand on that. So 167 you're saying you have a preference for Option A. 168 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 169 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Can you describe -- describe Option A and, 170 you know, is it one story, is it two stories, what side of the house is it? 171 What will change as a result of this? I mean, it's very difficult, we can 172 look at the plan but it's very difficult for us to evaluate unless we hear 173 more completely from you. 174 MS. LOPEZ: So Option A is the one that has three bedrooms and it's 175 going to change fully on the top floor. And the other addition is the 176 family room and the kitchen is a lot bigger. And we're going to have like 177 a dining room now, because we don't have one. It's just a living room and 178 a kitchen that's connected to our house. So we're adding a dining room 179 there as well. So it's more space. 180 And the difference would be would be that we wouldn't need a 181 variance or anything for the neighbor's space because it sets in 13 feet. 182 It's just going to be built differently. I guess when the roof, 183 (inaudible) like here's the top. 184 MR. KRASNER: I mean, staff, can you maybe assist the applicant? I 185 know you obviously reviewed each of the options. 186 Just also to clarify, I believe there was -- one of the letters, 187 again it's on the record that we got from the public was referring to three 188 options. It was talking about Plan A, Plan B, Plan C. Was Plan A what we 189 saw in April and now these two options are B and C, or -- I'm getting a 190 little confused with the different options and different changes. 191 I will say it's a bit unusual to have different options. I want to 192 be very clear on what we're looking at. 193 MR. WADE: Correct. There were two revisions brought back. For 194 simplification of advertising purposes there is an Option C that we didn't 195 include in this because it's -- it's not asking for a variance on the right 196 side for the side setback. It does have the addition over the existing 197 first story so they would need the variance for the front setback of 25 198 feet instead of 30. 199 But because Option B did include that as well, we felt that that was 200 something that could be discussed if it appeared that neither of these were 201 going to -- because they have the plans made and we have them available, if 202 it appeared that neither of these, then it was sort of a fall-back plan. 203 But the applicants in my discussion with them have brought the 204 Option B which we think satisfies a lot of the concerns that the Board and 205 the neighbors seem to have. 206 It pushes the setback that they're requesting back. It more than 207 doubles the space that would be in the side yard if this were approved and 208 it also reduces the length of the addition along that side by a few feet. 209 So I think the impact to the neighbors is greatly reduced from that 210 perspective, from that side. 211 It does reduce the areas that's going to be available for them for 212 livable area but again, they are -- they would be expanding the existing -- 213 the existing home to add a second level where there's just dormers now. 214 So just to keep it simple, the first draft we had advertised this 215 variance, when the other two options came in was pretty long and confusing 216 so we decided to cut it down to just the two because the third contained a 217 request that was already in B. It just didn't have a side setback. It's 218 very simple. They do have that plan drawn up I think as a final fall-back 219 but it is a really, you know, a very reduced sort of constricted addition 220 there so. 221 MR. KRASNER: Okay. So -- 222 MR. WADE: The Plan A was the plan that you saw initially a few 223 months ago. 224 MR. KRASNER: So Option A -- 225 MR. WADE: Option A is the original that goes to the 5 feet. 226 MR. KRASNER: So Option A that's in our packet tonight was we saw in 227 April. 228 MR. WADE: Correct, correct. And they -- 229 MR. KRASNER: All right. And Option B -- all right. This is what's 230 confusing me. I just asked then what they preferred, they preferred what 231 they had last time and that's what we had concerns with. 232 So, okay. All right. I'll let other folks speak. I think that 233 sort of clears it up for me for now. 234 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So we asked you about Option A. 235 MS. LOPEZ: Oh, I thought you were talking about Option B. That's 236 what we -- 237 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Okay. 238 Anything else you would like to add to what you've described about 239 Option B? 240 MS. LOPEZ: So we're just I guess getting away from the neighbors, 241 our neighbor's side. 242 MR. SZE: I'm sorry. Could I ask you to speak up a little bit? 243 MS. LOPEZ: We're just getting I guess away from the neighbor's side 244 more for Option B. And it just -- I mean -- we're just going to have the 245 dining room that's going to be a little bit bigger. And I think our 246 neighbor did agree with that and she was fine with it. 247 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So do we have a letter from your 248 neighbors saying that? No? 249 MS. LOPEZ: No, we don't. 250 MR. WADE: She's here. I think she's going to speak. 251 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Okay. Before we move on to comments 252 from anyone in the audience, are there any questions that anyone on the 253 Board has for the applicant? 254 MR. HOWELL: I'm just interested in the, as I understand looking at 255 the pictures, the Option B, the house goes up an extra floor in the front. 256 And then the side wall goes back from three feet -- or five feet two -- 257 from three feet to ten feet and something on the side and there are no 258 windows on the side section. 259 MS. LOPEZ: Yeah. 260 MR. HOWELL: Is that correct? 261 MS. LOPEZ: Yes. 262 MR. HOWELL: The question I have is about two front doors which does 263 occur in the correspondence. And I noticed that in B and in A. It looks 264 to me an unusual proposal. I wonder if you would clarify it, why you would 265 need to do two front doors. 266 MS. LOPEZ: She thinks if she plans to keep the living room as like, 267 you know, nice, that none of the kids or my mom's grandkids are going to 268 get into and the other side whereas the family room where we guys would be 269 gathering or something to come into. 270 Now, I mean if there's a problem, we could remove the door. 271 MR. HOWELL: It seems unusual. 272 Does staff have any comment on that? 273 MR. BOYLE: We did look into this and the only place, the inclusion 274 of two doors is mentioned is where it's going to be under special use 275 permit for multifamily. They can't be on the same plane. 276 So we interpreted what they're proposing here as not being on the 277 same plane. I think it does though fall within this Board's purview to 278 consider is this a, you know, undue intrusion into someone else's enjoyment 279 of their property. 280 And you do see doors like this on Victorian homes off of porches and 281 things like that, but the question of whether this is keeping in the 282 neighborhood and the impact of this on abutting properties, I think that's 283 within this Board's purview. 284 MR. HOWELL: Thank you. 285 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Other questions for the applicant? 286 MR. KRASNER: No, not right now. 287 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I may have a question but I did want to see 288 if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on this matter. 289 Is there anyone who would like to speak on this? 290 Okay. Please step forward. 291 If you can pass that. If you can sign in. 292 MS. GULLIKSEN: Sure. 293 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And state your name. 294 MS. GULLIKSEN: Hi. 295 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Proceed. 296 MS. GULLIKSEN: I'm Gail Gulliksen and I am the property owner at 297 400 Timber Lane, adjacent to the Lopezes at 402, and the homeowner who will 298 be most impacted by their building this addition. 299 I was not here at the last meeting and I apologize for that. I was 300 overseas on a trip that had been planned a year earlier and there was 301 nothing I could do to get out of it. So I apologize for that. I would 302 have been here if I had been in town. 303 You may remember that Rich Kelly represented me at that hearing. 304 I have -- I'd like to just correct a couple of things that were 305 said. Someone said that Option A is a one story structure. It is not. 306 It's a two story structure. 307 MR. WADE: I think they're talking about the front of the house. 308 MS. GULLIKSEN: The front of the house. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. The 309 part, the extension part that goes down my fence is two stories. I just 310 wanted to clarify that. 311 And I think Jennifer said that Option B was 13 feet. It's not. 312 It's 10 and a little -- 10 and one inch and something. So I wanted to 313 correct that. 314 And I just wanted to -- I have given you a two page comment this 315 time. I gave you one and a half last. And I have laid out for you as best 316 I can in that document my views of Plans A and B and I did include C. And 317 I mentioned that my understanding was that it wasn't being considered 318 tonight because it is, in fact, 13 feet which is what the Code indicates 319 for this property. 320 So it would not require comment from me because it would not require 321 a variance as I understand it. 322 Is that correct, Brandon? 323 MR. WADE: Not for that side. 324 MS. GULLIKSEN: Not for that side. You can deal with the front 325 because I'm much more concerned about the side that faces me. 326 I'm -- just a little background on me. I've been at 400 Timber Lane 327 for 15 years. I was in the diplomatic service. This is my son Stephen and 328 we live together in that house currently. When I came home from Brazil 329 which was my last overseas' assignment, I discovered George Mason High 330 School and targeted Falls Church because I wanted my son to go to that 331 school. So that's how we ended up here and we've been very happy and 332 active residents for the last years that we have been here. 333 I -- when I came home from the April -- after your April meeting 334 which I could not attend, I asked the Lopezes to come over so that we could 335 talk about this. We hadn't talked at all about this and I wanted to assure 336 them, Mrs. Lopez came with her daughters Fanny and Jessica and I wanted to 337 assure them that I have no problem with them building an addition. No 338 objection at all in theory as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on 339 our quality of life and my property value. 340 I have to say that Plan A does have a serious impact being only 5 341 feet from my property line and extending quite a ways down my fence. 5 342 feet is -- I'm 5 feet 6 inches. I mean, that's as tall as I am. That's 343 not much space at all. Ten is better but they do have a plan that is 13 344 feet and I think that is wonderful and that that is the plan that they 345 should follow. 346 As I noted to you in my memo to you, it's my view that these 347 setbacks are -- were established for a reason and that's so that everybody 348 knows what to expect. If you're a builder, if you're a homeowner, if 349 you're a neighbor, you know that, you know, somebody is going to build next 350 to you, they're going to have 13 feet between your property line and the 351 beginning of their extension. 352 I'm really, really sad about their not understanding the variance or 353 the easement, excuse me, in the back of their property that cuts really 354 diagonally through, as you all know. But it was there when they bought the 355 property. It wasn't new after they bought the property and the fact that 356 they didn't understand it, I think is really unfortunate but I don't 357 understand why I should be penalized because of that lack of understanding. 358 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Ms. Gulliksen, I believe I heard earlier 359 you're not opposed to Option B. And I'm looking at your letter now -- 360 MS. GULLIKSEN: I am. 361 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And it says you are opposed to that option. 362 MS. GULLIKSEN: Yes, yes. 363 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I wanted to clarify that. 364 MS. GULLIKSEN: Yes, yes. No. And I have not signed any papers 365 saying that I was in favor of either Option A or B. I was presented with 366 one before the April meeting and said that I had to see the plans. The 367 plans were not attached. Okay? 368 So that is more or less, you know, my view of all this. I think 369 that they have a plan that does fit within the 13 feet, that does honor the 370 13 foot setback and that clearly would be my preference. If there is an 371 acceptance of Plan B as you have read in my notes to you, I really don't 372 want that second front entrance nor do I want it on the side. 373 There is -- if you look at their property now, there is not much 374 space for them to get around -- as a matter of fact, they'd have to 375 probably take down a tree and do a great job to relandscape so that you 376 could get around the house to get to the stairway. And I don't see a need 377 for that. That would all be happening right under my kitchen windows and I 378 think that would be really disruptive to us and our tranquility. I would 379 oppose that. 380 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 381 MS. GULLIKSEN: Okay. 382 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any questions for Ms. Gulliksen from anyone 383 on the Board? 384 Hearing none, thank you very much. 385 MS. GULLIKSEN: Thank you. 386 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there anyone else who is going to be 387 speaking on this matter tonight in the audience? 388 No. All right. Thank you. 389 MS. GULLIKSEN: Thank you. 390 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. At this point we'll close it -- we'll 391 close it to the audience and then we'll go back to the applicants. 392 And I have a question which was I just heard, I think I heard that 393 you do have a plan that fits with the current 13 foot -- with the 13 feet, 394 is that -- so you do have a plan that fits with the 13 feet? 395 MS. LOPEZ: Yeah, we do. 396 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So is there any other closing 397 comments that you'd like to make? 398 MS. LOPEZ: I guess if we take -- like she said, she wouldn't, I 399 don't know. If we remove the door, if she doesn't mind, we really want 400 Plan B, we do. It provides more space as you can see. So if we take the 401 door and we don't have the door, would she agree with it or would you guys 402 agree with that? 403 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think that's up for us to discuss. 404 MS. LOPEZ: Would she also agree with that? As you heard her say, 405 she wouldn't really want the door but if we remove the door, would you guys 406 -- 407 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, that's what we'll talk about when 408 we're done gathering more information. 409 Are there any remaining questions for the applicant? 410 Okay. Any other comments from staff? 411 MR. BOYLE: Not at this time. 412 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So okay. Then we'll close it, close it off 413 to the applicants and the staff and have discussion amongst the Board. 414 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Chairman, I might as well start. 415 I will say this sort of, you know, nebulous Plan C is causing me a 416 lot of trouble because, you know, one of the key issues with a variance is 417 we're really bound legally to grant the minimum relief necessary in order 418 to relieve a hardship. And the fact that there's this potential that no 419 variance is necessary at all, it gives me a lot of reservation. 420 Without understanding exactly what's involved, it's a little 421 confusing for me without understanding what this Plan C is. I haven't seen 422 it. The only official way I've heard of it is through a letter submitted 423 by a member of the public. Now I understand that Plan C would require some 424 type of variance as well. So I'm not sure why, if it's a legitimate 425 option, it should be presented before us. So I have some concerns about 426 that. 427 You know, like I said when I first spoke initially, having options 428 in itself is somewhat unusual. I mean, our job as a Board is to hear 429 requests from a citizen/property owner for relief and then judge on the 430 merits, whether or not it meets the threshold, the legal threshold to grant 431 a variance. 432 And so having us weigh options is not something that I typically 433 like to be in the business of doing. Our job is to listen to requests and 434 judge on the merits. 435 So, again, I don't even know if staff can answer this but I mean the 436 issue of this Plan C, if you can front any additional information about it. 437 The fact that it would require a variance, wouldn't that necessitate that 438 we hear it, if that's something that they're interested in doing? 439 If it's not, then it should be kind of forgotten about. If it was 440 just a concept and they had decided not to go with that concept, then 441 that's fine. You can come up with tons of ideas and only present what you 442 want to present. But the fact that it's sort of been talked about as 443 something that, you know, is floating out there is causing me a little bit 444 of discomfort. 445 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I guess before staff comments, I would say 446 we have one matter before us now which is this existing variance 447 application which is all we're really able to evaluate. 448 MR. KRASNER: Correct. 449 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So that's -- I think this is what we have to 450 evaluate. 451 MR. HOWELL: I just want to clarify that the question we therefore 452 have, since two options are put out, is that after our first discussion, we 453 expressed a view that we were not very happy with what is now called Option 454 A and we requested more detail and it's come to us in the form of Option B. 455 And that what we're now dealing with, if I'm right, is a request for the 456 variance implied in Option B. 457 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, that's right. 458 Any other comments? 459 MR. SZE: Well, I do have one lingering question and of course 460 probably a whole bunch of comments. 461 So I'm glad that, first of all, you did kind of hear what we were 462 saying between the lines and the way the winds were blowing, we didn't like 463 option, what we characterize as Option A at all. So I'm glad you did some 464 work and came back with something a little bit different. 465 I think the second version where you're building on top of the 466 existing house making the addition smaller comports more with the 467 characteristic of the neighborhood zoned R-1A. I'm not positive in my own 468 mind that it should be rightfully maintained as an R-1A neighborhood but 469 nonetheless, that's what it is right now. 470 There are many places in this City where these kinds of houses have 471 no move than a ten foot separation between the property line and the facade 472 of the building and that's by right. And in some of those places the 473 houses are a little bit closer but it doesn't seem to be anything 474 dramatically wrong with those as well. 475 The new piece of information that was added for me tonight was that 476 you're actually creating a whole separate in-law suite, as I understand 477 this now that I see the plans. It's more clear to me you're going to have 478 traffic, a separate entrance, and this traffic is going to be right along 479 Mrs. Gulliksen's kitchen window, looking at her commentary earlier. And I 480 could understand why she wouldn't want that. I think that she may not want 481 that even at a 13 foot separation. 482 But the main question I have that I don't think has been answered 483 yet, I'm not even so sure we have a right to ask you, may be more properly 484 towards staff, which is that B is smaller in many ways, it seems to have 485 about the same size and type of rooms. Now, does C provide basically the 486 same thing? Have you seen C? 487 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. We have copies of Plan C available. The 488 reason they were not presented is they -- the variance that's being asked 489 is duplicated in B with the second story and the front setback. 490 If the applicant would agree, we could present those to the Board. 491 It might help clarify what that working within the setback would look like. 492 The issue with C, I think if the Board wanted to proceed with 493 reviewing that, the variance that's requested has been advertised, it's the 494 same front setback variance that is included in B. So it wouldn't be a 495 case of bringing up a matter that hasn't been properly advertised to the 496 public. 497 So I'll leave it to the Board to decide whether to have kind of an 498 impromptu review of Plan C. 499 I think while you ponder that, I think it would be helpful to 500 reframe the discussion on what the applicant's burden is. The Board knows 501 this but I think it's always helpful to characterize what's before you and 502 what the test is. 503 One question is whether or not a hardship exists. I think that will 504 or will not be found, whatever the Board decides, in the presence of this 505 easement towards the rear. Is that something that's not generally shared 506 by others. 507 The situation of the house already being in a setback, in a side 508 setback there, is the lesser burden that this Board sees typically under 509 48-172-3, where this Board can approve an application where the house 510 doesn't further extend into the setback than the existing structure. 511 That's the peculiar circumstances test. So, do peculiar circumstances 512 exist. 513 And then rolling it all the way back to what staff's original 514 authority was and the reason we're here is the applicant is seeking 515 approval for something that's beyond staff's authority to review. Our 516 authority is limited to a 15 foot extension towards the rear where a house 517 -- a house is already existing in the setback, staff has administrative 518 authority to approve an addition that goes no closer than the existing 519 house but travels no further towards the rear than 15 feet. 520 None of the plans presented satisfy that so staff presented this to 521 the Board. It properly, I think, is a variance. So we have this question 522 of, can it be framed just under the lesser standard of peculiar 523 circumstances or is there a true hardship present. And then all of that 524 being said, are there conditions that can be set or limitations that can be 525 set. 526 With that, I'll bring you back to the question of Plan C. We can 527 present that to the Board. It's basically a plan that fits within the side 528 setbacks but does ask for the front yard setback variance. 529 MR. SZE: So thank you for that. I think that does provide me the 530 clarification that I need to further comment on this. 531 And so we are, at the end of all this, a little City that likes to 532 take care of all its citizens. Those of us on the Board here have chosen 533 to serve the population. Those that have served the country in other ways 534 by being part of the foreign service and have chosen to live here as you 535 have because of the neighborhood and there's a reason why you're in Falls 536 Church as well. And we're a very inclusive society and we'd like to be 537 able to make everybody happy as much as we can. 538 So what that means to me is that there has got to be some kind of 539 compromise here so that we try to get as much for everybody as we can and 540 not everyone is going to be completely happy with the result. 541 So given with what I've now heard about C, which within the 542 administrative bounds of this hearing is really not subject for discussion, 543 we know it exists somewhere and requires its own variance. On the face of 544 this it seems like the neighbors like C a whole lot better. So that to me 545 is kind of a conundrum. We now have a plan that everyone seems to like but 546 it's not before us. 547 So what's the path forward here, Mr. Chairman? 548 MR. BOYLE: If I could, one way to consider the mysterious Plan C is 549 it would be essentially a denial for the request for a side setback 550 variance. Both of which -- both of the ones presented to you. So the 551 denial of the side setback variance but then consideration of a front 552 setback along the lines that this Board typically sees under 48-172 3, the 553 lesser standard. 554 So I think that captures what C is, requiring them to work within 555 the existing setbacks on the side but entertaining a variance for a second 556 story in the front setback. 557 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'd welcome other comments from the Board. 558 What I have tended to see is that we -- in this instance we would be 559 granting a variance without actually seeing what's going to be built. I 560 mean, we're seeing some variation of it but we're not seeing what's going 561 to be built. 562 And I know we've asked, if I'm calling it correct, we've asked 563 people, we need to see something versus just requesting a variance, because 564 there's other criteria that we have to evaluate including is it going to be 565 in harmony with the neighborhood and factors along those lines. 566 So that's my view. I would welcome other thoughts from the Board. 567 MR. KRASNER: I tend to agree with the chairman on that. I'm 568 uncomfortable approving a plan I haven't seen. I'll say just for the 569 record, I think that there is something, when we approve a plan, I think 570 that what we intend that what we approve before us is what is actually 571 built. So the idea of somehow, you know, there be this sort of nebulous 572 third plan that maybe it's the same variance but perhaps as far as setback 573 but the bulk is different or something is different, I just have a little 574 bit of -- it causes me a little bit of concern. 575 So I think I agree with the chairman and I really feel uncomfortable 576 voting on a proposal that's not before me. Because I really would intend 577 to condition any vote, any affirmative vote that is, on specifically what 578 was before us. 579 Again, you get a sense of the scale and the character and I really 580 think a full evaluation of what they're asking. So, you know, I guess 581 that's how I feel about Option C. 582 I know, just for the record, I know we talked about this the last 583 meeting but I'll ask it again just to have staff confirm. Option B appears 584 to me is essentially maintaining their existing -- the house's existing -- 585 it's in a non-conforming condition today on the side. 586 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 587 MR. KRASNER: It's set back at 10.2 feet today. So does Option B 588 maintain that same setback? Does option -- does Option B appears to be ten 589 feet something off the line. Is it maintaining that -- the same non- 590 conforming setback? 591 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 592 MR. KRASNER: So Option B is maintaining that but also is the lot -- 593 is the lot non-conforming with respect to width or is it non-conforming in 594 every other way? 595 MR. BOYLE: It's non-conforming for width. 596 MR. KRASNER: Right, because it's 65 feet and it should be in R-1A 597 to the -- 598 MR. BOYLE: It's 75 in the R-1A. It's non-conforming also for 599 square footage. 600 MR. KRASNER: Right. It's undersized with respect to the area and 601 width and Option B maintains the existing setback. It obviously adds more 602 bulk in front of the 13 feet but it maintains the setback. Okay. 603 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other comments? 604 MR. HOWELL: I would only comment that I would agree that Option C 605 is not before us. It's not what we've been asked by the applicant to look 606 at and nobody brought it forward except as a mention in some of the 607 correspondence. 608 It does seem to me since the applicant's now putting forward Option 609 B and since some of those most affected indicating that in the absence of 610 windows along the wall, in the absence of the second front door, they might 611 not feel so strongly about Option B going ahead, that that is something 612 that we ought to bear in mind as we wonder whether we want to extend the 613 thing further by moving in the direction they're requesting, something 614 along the lines of Option C. 615 MR. SZE: If I may add, I'd like to ask a question for staff. Is 616 there a way that we can bring Option C forward, revise the application? 617 MR. BOYLE: I think it's appropriate in the sense that all of the 618 features of Option C have been properly advertised. But I would leave it 619 to the applicant as to whether they would want to bring that forward. We 620 have it here. It's available. I'd ask them to decide whether they want to 621 present that. 622 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You said it has been properly advertised. 623 MR. BOYLE: Yes. What it's asking for essentially is no side 624 setback variance, so no advertising would be necessary. But there is a 625 front setback variance which is included in the Option B advertising. So 626 the intrusion into the front setback has been properly advertised. 627 So it wouldn't be a case of us having to consider something that we 628 have to reschedule for. I think it was included in the ad. 629 MR. KRASNER: I'm sorry. And you're saying you have Option C here? 630 MR. BOYLE: Yes, yes. But I'd defer to the applicant as to whether 631 they want to put that forward as something to have decided tonight. 632 MS. LOPEZ: Yeah. 633 MR. SZE: Gentlemen of the jury -- 634 MR. KRASNER: Mystical Option C appears. 635 MS. LOPEZ: We really want Option B and we took out the windows. 636 And we're asking, we're going to remove the door so. We just want you to 637 consider. He said he wants all the citizens to be happy and we have this 638 big storm going through our yard so. 639 MR. SZE: Mr. Chairman, maybe in the interest of expediency, you can 640 just ask staff to characterize the differences and similarities between 641 these, B and C. 642 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So asked. 643 MR. WADE: I think it's, on the face of it it's fairly obvious. 644 They wouldn't need the side yard setback variance because they're going to 645 the allowable setback of 13 feet. 646 It is slightly longer and I don't have a number for you but the 647 Option C as presented in the plans does carry along the side line, the side 648 property line a little bit further back. It's still two stories. And the 649 difference is they'd still need the front yard setback variance because 650 they'd still like the second story addition over the existing first. 651 MR. KRASNER: Staff, what's the difference in square footage between 652 B and C? I guess it's in here but do you have that figure on the top of 653 your head? 654 I think I see it on sheet A 1-21 on each of the plans. I just want 655 to have this on the record. 656 And here is option -- appears Option C is 65 square feet smaller, 657 the first floor. 658 MR. SZE: Right. 659 MR. KRASNER: And it appears to be 60 -- 660 MR. SZE: 130. 661 MR. KRASNER: -- 67 feet smaller. 662 MR. SZE: 30 off the side. 663 MR. KRASNER: It's a difference of 130 square feet. 664 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a door? Is there an entrance on 665 the side where Miss Gulliksen is? 666 MS. LOPEZ: No, there isn't. 667 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: No door. 668 MR. KRASNER: I'll just comment to my colleagues here on the Board, 669 that to me 130 square feet is a very small difference and I would say that 670 again I feel we're bound to approve the smallest variance necessary to 671 provide a reasonable use of the property. And if they can have it for a 672 reasonably useful addition and stay within the side setback, I have a 673 problem allowing a variance in that case. 674 MR. SZE: Right. 675 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any more comments you'd like to make 676 on this Option C? 677 MS. LOPEZ: Option C is a lot smaller and she just prefers Option B. 678 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Since we're reviewing something new 679 here, I would want to offer the opportunity for anyone in the audience who 680 would like to comment on it. 681 So would anyone like to comment on this Option C? If you would, 682 step forward. 683 You've already signed in. 684 MS. GULLIKSEN: I have already signed in, yes. Could I have the 685 mike? Thank you. 686 I was given a copy of Plan C and referenced it in my comments to 687 you. As I stated before, I agree with you completely if you can fit within 688 a setback that's established. I think it makes it a saner environment for 689 everybody, for neighbors and household owners and people who do 690 construction, etcetera. I much prefer Plan C. That extra 3 feet is really 691 significant when you're only talking about 13 feet. So this is my 692 preferred plan over B. I think it would be a lot less intrusive. 693 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 694 MS. GULLIKSEN: Thank you. 695 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thanks. 696 MS. GULLIKSEN: Any questions? 697 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: No. 698 Okay. So we'll close it to the applicant. 699 Unless you have anything else you want to add? 700 MS. LOPEZ: No other property has this easement that's going 701 through. She doesn't have the easement that's going through her lot. She 702 has a bigger house. She has more space so she doesn't understand the 703 situation we're in. 704 And 3 feet to make a difference, like, it's all right, you're trying 705 to be fair, right? You're trying to keep the citizens happy. We pay our 706 taxes. We pay more taxes for the lot than the house. So it would be nice 707 for you guys to consider that we would like a bigger space. 708 And at least from 5 feet when we moved it up to ten feet, is there 709 really a difference for 3 feet? If we removed all the windows, we can 710 close down the door as she would like and hopefully you guys would consider 711 that as well. 712 But 3 feet? Come on, please. This -- we have a big family and she 713 has a big house. We have a small house. Yes, she has her gatherings. We 714 don't have a problem with her. We spoke to her. We, you know, included 715 her. 716 We, you know, we talked to her about this. But 3 feet? We would 717 love to have Option B approved because no other -- I'm sure there's other 718 properties but not as many properties in Falls Church City like this is. 719 It's a unique property. You know, I don't know, do you see this often? 720 Like with the storm to cutting our yard in half? No, you didn't. 721 And my parents bought the house and yeah, I guess they didn't know 722 about this because my mom's been saving up to do this addition and we 723 finally come to find out we can't do anything about it. 724 It would be nice if at least you guys can consider 3 feet more, B, 725 more space for us than -- I mean, I hope you understand our situation. 726 Like I said, she has a bigger house, she has the space. She doesn't have 727 this big storm pipe going through her lawn and we do. 728 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. And please understand our situation of 729 having to follow the Code and being obligated to do what the Code says. 730 MS. LOPEZ: I respect that. Yes, I respect that. I know. I 731 respect that. 732 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I appreciate that. 733 MS. LOPEZ: But I just really want you to consider this. Please. 734 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We'll close it to the applicants and 735 to the audience. 736 And we now have an Option C before us. Are there any additional 737 comments or is there a motion? 738 MR. KRASNER: Just another question for staff to confirm. 739 Option C requires a front yard variance because Option C is adding a 740 second story above the existing non-conforming. The house is existing non- 741 conforming with the front setback, correct? 742 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 743 MR. KRASNER: So Option C is adding more space there between taking 744 that 25 foot -- it's maintaining the existing setback. 745 MR. BOYLE: Right, going straight up. 746 MR. KRASNER: Going straight up. 747 Just again for the applicant's benefit, I will say that just so 748 you're aware of how we do business, we listen to the neighbors but what the 749 neighbors say is one of many things we consider. So regardless of the 750 issue of the aesthetic appeal to the neighbors, that's one of the many 751 things that we consider when we make a decision. 752 As the chairman said, we are bound by not only the Code of Falls 753 Church but the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia in granting a variance. 754 And one of the key elements of that in granting a hardship is showing that 755 without that variance that you would not have a reasonable use and 756 enjoyment of your property. 757 And I will say that normally again when a lot is undersized like 758 yours and when a lot is undersize with respect to width and existing non- 759 conforming like you have on the side, normally I tend to look favorably 760 upon that in the applicant's favor. 761 But in this case, yes, your house is existing 10 feet but only in 762 that little corner and the variance does add, the variance in Option B 763 request adds a significant amount of new bulk in front of the line. And 764 the fact that I can see a plan now, an engineered plan sealed by an 765 architect that shows that you can still get a reasonable addition, it may 766 not be the largest addition you'd like, but the largest addition, if you 767 could build up to 2 or 3 feet from the line, it would be even larger, 768 perhaps be even nicer, you can add even more space. 769 But the point is we're bound to look at what's reasonable. If you 770 can have reasonable use and enjoyment of the property and follow the Code, 771 it makes it very difficult for this Board, for me and for this Board, 772 although I can only speak for myself, to allow someone to receive a 773 variance. 774 So with that, I would make a motion that -- with that long, rambling 775 preamble as a series of findings, I would make a motion that we approve 776 Variance Application V 1545-13 for Option C which specifically allows a 25 777 foot front yard setback variance. Again, it does -- as depicted on drawing 778 labeled Option C prepared by CBG Architects. I don't know the date of this 779 plan -- it's dated February -- it has different dates on it. I'll just 780 refer to it as Option C by CBG Architects presented to us tonight. 781 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 782 MR. SZE: Second. 783 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I think it's a technical matter but I think 784 we have to also include the portions of the house that are closer than 15 785 feet. The house is in the front yard setback but if they were to go simply 786 straight up, there would be the portion of the near front corner that is in 787 the setback. 788 Again, it's been advertised. It's within the extent of the variance 789 that we're requesting but I'd ask the Board to craft some language that 790 envisions and those portions of the addition that occupy the side setback 791 not closer than the existing house, something to that effect. 792 If you can visualize that right front corner of the house is also in 793 the side setback. We want the second floor to go straight up. 794 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, that's what we're trying to. 795 MR. KRASNER: I understand. I guess I'll have to amend my motion 796 then. 797 So I move that we approve Variance V 1545-13 for Option C as 798 depicted on the plan labeled Option C prepared by CBG Architects presented 799 to us tonight which allows for a 25 foot front yard setback and I guess 800 it's a 10.2 foot side yard setback only for that portion of the structure 801 which is -- only for that portion of the structure which -- I'm sorry, 802 which allows for 10.2 foot side yard setback only for new bulk added above 803 the existing structure. 804 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would you accept that amendment? 805 MR. SZE: Only if he corrects the 10 foot 2 to 10 foot 2 and three 806 eighths inch. 807 MR. KRASNER: I was doing it in tenths of a foot but we can do it 808 either way. The survey shows 10.2 feet, 2 tenths of a foot, which is how 809 architects do it, however you -- 810 MR. SZE: 10.2. 811 MR. KRASNER: Yeah, we can do it either way. I think it's the same 812 measurement. 813 MR. BOYLE: Your intent is clear to staff. 814 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there a second? 815 MR. SZE: I second that. 816 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call vote. 817 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 818 MR. HOWELL: I'm sorry. Yes. 819 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 820 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 821 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 822 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 823 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 824 MR. SZE: Yes. 825 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much. We appreciate all the 826 time you've put in this process. We wish you the best success with your 827 new project. 828 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 829 830 3. PETITIONS 831 832 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I do note that we need to go to Item 3 which 833 is Petitions. Are there any petitions in the audience? 834 Seeing none. 835 836 4. NEW BUSINESS - none 837 838 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 839 840 Discussion of minutes from the April 11, 2013, BZA 841 842 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We do need to approve the minutes 843 from April 11, 2013, which I believe were included in our packets. 844 (The Board reviewed the minutes.) 845 846 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a motion? 847 MR. SZE: I move to approve the minutes as presented. 848 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 849 MR. HOWELL: Second. 850 VICE CHAIRMAN WILLIAMSON: All in favor? 851 (A chorus of "ayes") 852 853 6. OLD BUSINESS: 854 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Old Business. 855 856 7. OTHER BUSINESS: 857 858 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other Business. There is no Other Business. 859 MR. KRASNER: One, actually. One other item of Other Business. 860 Just an update. 861 MR. SZE: Never ending effort. 862 MR. KRASNER: Well, we made progress. On Monday I had a very 863 productive meeting here at City Hall with our illustrious staff that where 864 we discussed the scintillating topics of check lists, admission check 865 lists, and motions. I think we basically reviewed some of the documents 866 that I've provided from adjacent jurisdictions and I believe staff is going 867 to work on providing or drafting some both new submission check lists and 868 sample motions. 869 And, staff, do you want to update on any progress you've made since 870 our meeting. 871 MR. WADE: The update is there's been no progress in updating the 872 forms. Staff has been bombarded by end-of-the-year budget changes over and 873 over again. But I don't think we'll have a meeting in July and since we 874 don't have in August, we'll have plenty of time to have some drafts for you 875 by the next meeting. 876 MR. KRASNER: So the rest of the Board knows, what we'll do once 877 Brandon and company produce drafts of both these documents, we'll circulate 878 them in advance of the meeting and discuss it with any changes and 879 hopefully we can move forward. I think it will be very productive for 880 everybody. I think it's going to be a good thing and help the Board run 881 smoothly. 882 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We thank everybody's effort in this process 883 as we seek to continually improve. 884 MR. SZE: Look forward to that as well. 885 I did have one question which goes to the annual report. I think 886 there's one that's under review and one that has yet to be written or are 887 they both under review? 888 MR. BOYLE: I believe there's one yet to be written. 889 MR. SZE: Okay. So I don't know what's the best way forward on this 890 but, you know, as the newest member, as one of the newer members of this 891 Board, I'm just wondering if there is a way of combining these things or 892 just getting it out of the system so it gets presented to Council. And 893 because I, for one, would like to make editorial comments in the report as 894 well with regard to some of the zoning areas. 895 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, I would suggest if staff could 896 recirculate the last annual report, I think it would be beneficial for 897 everybody to see it. And then we can use that e-mail process to determine 898 if someone would like to raise their hand to prepare the annual report for 899 this year. 900 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. We have sufficient time I think to start that 901 conversation up again and circulate a draft for comment and have it come 902 back for our next meeting which is likely not to be until September. 903 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 904 MR. BOYLE: And perhaps we can get a draft framed up via e-mail and 905 then have a product in September. 906 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. But if I can ask staff just to, shall 907 I say, be persistent. It doesn't appear like anybody's raising their hand. 908 I'll try to do my part in that process as well. 909 MR. BOYLE: Certainly. 910 MR. HOWELL: I'll help. 911 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You'll help. Okay. 912 MR. BOYLE: The annual reports from this Board have taken many 913 different forms. Most recently they've been very detailed, very complex. 914 We've had everything from simple bullet lists of here's what we did, how 915 many times we met, to very, very detailed along with comments by Board 916 members and request for assistance from City Attorney and what City Council 917 can do in terms of training funds. 918 So it's really kind of a broad option this Board has in how it wants 919 to report out to Council. So we'll circulate the last couple of reports 920 and start the conversation and take your suggestion and keep moving. 921 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, guys. 922 Any other comments from anybody? 923 MR. BOYLE: Before we adjourn, the Planning Director, Jim Snyder, 924 asked me to solicit comments from this Board on the split lot ordinance 925 that Council has moved forward after first reading. 926 The plan is to consider substandard lots that had one house 927 straddling the common property line, administratively consolidate it with a 928 one year window from August 1st for which that option would no longer be 929 available to homeowners. That's essentially the topic that has been coming 930 before this Board, one house built across two lots. The house comes down, 931 two houses go up. 932 They did not deal with any of the other features of substandard 933 lots, reduced setbacks and reduced height, what have you. So the 934 opportunity is there for this Board to comment. It's gone out to comment 935 to the Planning Commission, it's scheduled, then it will come back to the 936 Council for second reading. 937 So there is time for this Board to comment. If you'd like, we can 938 distribute the draft ordinance and weigh in or choose not to. 939 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thanks for that reminder. We'll all 940 take a look at that and comment if you so choose, that will be great. 941 942 8. ADJOURNMENT: 943 944 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? 945 MR. SZE: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. 946 MR. KRASNER: Second. 947 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Oh, so moved have a good summer everybody. 948 949