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, September 12, 2013 6 7 1. CALL TO ORDER: 8 9 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'd like to call to order the November 12, 10 2013, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 11 Ask for roll call to be taken. 12 13 2. ROLL CALL: 14 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 15 (No response.) 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 19 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 21 MR. KRASNER: Here. 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 23 MR. SZE: Here. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Howell. 25 MR. HOWELL: Here. 26 27 3. PETITIONS: 28 29 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 30 So the next item on our agenda is the petitions. This is different 31 from New Business. 32 Are there any petitions from the audience at this time? 33 (No response.) 34 Seeing none, move onto the next item which is New Business. 35 36 4. NEW BUSINESS: 37 38 a. Variance application V1550-13 by Robert and Lauren Saenz to 39 allow a side yard setback of 4.9 feet instead of 14.8 feet on the left 40 (west) side of the property to allow for the construction of a second story 41 addition over the existing first floor and a two story addition to the rear 42 of the existing building on premises known as 1312 Seaton Lane, RPC #52- 43 506-012 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A low-density 44 residential, said property owned by Robert and Lauren Saenz. 45 46 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So the first item that we'll hear is 47 Variance Application V1550-13 by Robert and Lawrence Saenz to allow a side 48 yard setback of 4.9 feet instead of 14.8 feet on the left or west side of 49 the property to allow for the construction of a second story addition over 50 the existing first floor and two story addition to the rear of the existing 51 building on premises known as 1312 Seaton Lane, RPC Number 52-506-012 of 52 the Falls Church real property records zoned R-1A, low-density residential, 53 said property owned by Robert and Lauren Saenz. 54 I see you're both signing in. 55 MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. 56 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And actually the two of you are going to 57 give testimony and actually anyone who's going to give any testimony 58 tonight before the Board, if you can stand and raise your right hand and  59 you can be sworn. 60 Will you raise your right hand if you're going to speak tonight. 61 (Witnesses sworn.) 62 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 63 Okay. With that, let's proceed with this order of business. First 64 thing we'll do is we'll have a report from staff. 65 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 66 This application is for a residential addition to an existing 67 structure which is nonconforming for a couple of reasons. The existing 68 house is occupying a side yard setback and the lot is slightly substandard 69 for area and slightly for width, so there are some substandard 70 nonconforming issues with the property. 71 The applicant is hoping to do a couple of things: Continue the side 72 yard setback for a second story addition and then a new first floor and 73 second story addition out towards the rear using the existing side setback. 74 Staff has some authority to approve extensions of nonconforming 75 houses, however with a continuation of the side yard setback towards the 76 rear, that's not something staff could review. So the only option for the 77 applicant was to come before the Board, apply for a variance. 78 With that, I think we'll defer to the applicant's presentation and 79 we'll be available for questions. 80 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thanks. I do need to let you know, 81 we have another member of our Board who's not present tonight. So you have 82 the option of continuing, in the event you would like to wait to see if you 83 could have one more member of the Board, or you can simply proceed. 84 MR. SAENZ: I think we want to proceed. 85 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. If you could state your name and 86 then -- 87 MR. MANION: I'm Thomas Manion. I'm the architect of the project. 88 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You mind speaking up or moving the mic a 89 little bit closer. 90 MR. MANION: Tom Manion. I'm the architect of the project. 91 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 92 MR. MANION: This existing house is a substandard lot and one of the 93 things that we went through is it's a concrete house. It's built -- it's a 94 completely load-bearing house and it has two wings to the left and the 95 right. And in the center there's a room that has a storied and a half 96 ceiling which we didn't want to impact. This is probably is the best space 97 in the house. 98 In order to do an addition, we felt we would go into the back yard. 99 We did build partly over the house but we didn't want to impact the 100 structure of the house so we only brought a small section over the front of 101 the house. So that from the front the addition would look like it's 102 stacked up in stages. And that dormer was set up to align with the 103 existing dormer on the front of the house. 104 We wanted to keep as much of the rear yard open as we can for the 105 children who are back here, depending on the addition built, there may be 106 more of them. But we also -- I did a quick drawing. I made some more 107 copies for staff, if it helps. 108 We didn't have this when we made the first presentations. I just 109 added it to kind of clarify things. 110 So we put some dimensions on there. From us to the corner house is 111 almost 78 feet and that's the closest one and we do have a letter of 112 support from them. 113 On the other side, we're about 26 feet from that house and obviously 114 on the back side, we're over 100 something. And when you look at the 115 pattern of the block, the houses are all sort of sited similarly. To me it 116 feels like someone cut their lot short. But in trying to maintain as much 117 of the open property and to build over the structure, this was the area we 118 thought would work the best and also because this is a rear yard, this 119 person even if they came back wouldn't go closer to it than 35 feet. 120 The second drawing which you have in the papers is just kind of a 121 little massing model. This is a little bit like an architect talking I 122 realize, but the front gables of this house had a balance, they're not 123 equal gables but we were trying to step up and repeat that gable in the 124 back and then keep the rest of the house with a simple shed roof with a 125 small dormer on it. So most of our addition and openings are close to the 126 rear of the property so we could keep the scale and symmetry of that 127 neighborhood in tact. 128 The red line indicates where we would need to move that addition in 129 order to make it meet the setback lines. And it falls kind of in the 130 middle of the house and it falls right in the room that's a major room. 131 I'm not hitting my low bearing points etcetera, and so we felt strongly 132 that that may be a better option was to stay near the edge. 133 Just then responding to the requirements on the variance, we felt 134 that the strict application would shove us into the middle of the 135 structure. I know the cost is not an issue but structurally in massing the 136 scale, it was a much more difficult project. 137 I don't believe that this particular hardship is shared by other 138 properties because we're just jammed so tight on one side of the lot and we 139 have an unusual construction system which is the concrete load-bearing 140 walls. 141 The neighboring property owners have seen everything and seem to be 142 supportive of what we're doing. We're so unusual that I didn't think we 143 were setting any kind of precedent. 144 Any questions, we'll be glad to respond to. 145 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. So I guess looking to the Board 146 first, are there any questions for staff? 147 Are there any questions for the applicants? 148 MR. CALABRESE: In your letter, some of the comments you just made 149 you use the words like "better," "simpler," "more cost effective," and 150 you're correct, that under the law we have to look at some thing that is an 151 undue hardship. 152 MR. MANION: Correct. 153 MR. CALABRESE: So I'll ask you to describe the hardship. Currently 154 you're describing it as a preferable design rather than a design that 155 remedies an undue hardship. 156 MR. MANION: I think it helps to look at, I think you have a full 157 set of the plans. And so when you look at, let's start on sheet A-2 and 158 you'll see the structural condition of the basement which it shows where 159 all the masonry walls are, the fat walls, the masonry walls. The building 160 in the back is (inaudible). 161 The existing house is not insulated. So to go back and insulate the 162 house is significant and we reduce the overall square footage of the house 163 which we felt was counter-productive. 164 And on the first level we try to leave most of the existing walls 165 and cut openings that were fairly minimal. We're trying to leave that 166 major room on A-3 which is the living room space in tact, it's historically 167 kind of an interesting grand hall of sorts. 168 So most of the -- most of the layout was that in terms of someone 169 coming to the house, we kept the kitchen to the front because they have no 170 garage and someone could pull up and get into the kitchen quickly. So in 171 terms of the layout, we kept all the bedrooms to the other side, the 172 existing. So we tried to zone the house to side to side. If we were to 173 pull to the center, we didn't have the relationship of, with a lot of small 174 children most of my clients prefer to have an open kitchen-family area 175 where there can be a direct relationship and visual oversight of the kids. 176 In fact, we did it so much that we actually pushed the stair to the 177 center of the house so that that arrangement worked. And that is probably 178 the main living space, their dining and everything will be in that room. 179 So when we started to shift over, this is kind of false part, we have to 180 use the living room as part of that composition. 181 So in terms of function and efficiency of construction and also just 182 the economies of insulation and -- not everything we're doing is green but 183 we're trying to make it fairly energy efficient. To move it in, kind of 184 work against those pieces at some level. 185 Does that answer -- 186 MR. CALABRESE: Partially. I guess the design itself, you're going 187 up where there's an existing -- where the setback, where the house is 188 already over the setback. You're just going up there, which I understand. 189 But then beyond that, behind it, instead of conforming to the setback, 190 you're just extending that. So you are -- you're taking a design and as 191 you described it, it sounds like it's a preferable design for the house. 192 MR. MANION: Well, I think it's an efficient design and if we move 193 that space over, we have to come in almost 10 feet and then add 15 feet 194 back. We have to move in another 5 feet. And the whole space just becomes 195 kind of an "L" shape instead of an open area. 196 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 197 MR. MANION: And that's that is kind of counter-productive. 198 And then in order to get the basic relationship that we see in a lot 199 of the stuff, we're out of line with our kitchen and then over the second 200 level we're starting to impact the two story space. I just thought those 201 were significant enough detriments that we -- 202 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Okay. Thank you. 203 MR. KRASNER: I have a few questions. 204 First of all, do you live in the house today? 205 MR. SAENZ: Yes. 206 MR. KRASNER: When did you purchase the house? 207 MR. SAENZ: December 6th of last year. 208 MR. KRASNER: December of last year, 2012? 209 MR. SAENZ: Yes. 210 MR. KRASNER: Okay. This may be for the architect. How large is 211 the current house today, approximately? 212 MR. MANION: It's about -- it's not a very big house. About 22, 213 2300 square feet. 214 MR. KRASNER: And how much -- how much are you adding as part of 215 this addition? 216 MR. MANION: We're adding a space that is 20 by -- about 20 by 30. 217 We're adding about 600 square feet. 218 MR. KRASNER: You're adding a total of 600 square feet. 219 MR. MANION: On two floors. 220 MR. KRASNER: On two floors. 221 MR. MANION: And that includes a new stairway. 222 MR. KRASNER: So the new square footage, the proposed addition, 223 would be what? How large would be the house be when you're done? 224 MR. MANION: The house, about 32, 3300 square feet usable space. 225 MR. KRASNER: Okay. And how -- I think, you know, what my colleague 226 was struggling with is one of the things that we're bound by is to try to 227 approve the smallest variance possible to apply a reasonable use of the 228 property. 229 Now in this case, clearly the existing house was built way over the 230 line. It predates the zoning ordinance. And so it was built less than 231 five feet from the property line. 232 So, you know, again, the idea of building up from that I think is 233 something that we see often and I think we're -- speaking for myself, I'm 234 often more comfortable in that situation. Now in this case you're adding 235 additional bulk and mass into the setback so I think we're trying to 236 struggle with, you know, the quantity of new structure that's down and in 237 nonconformance. 238 How long will that, I believe you said the western elevation, the -- 239 MR. MANION: We're increasing it by 20 feet. 240 MR. KRASNER: So it will be how long from front to back on that 241 side? 242 MR. MANION: I need to go to my scale. 243 MR. KRASNER: Sure. 244 MR. MANION: The existing house is 24 feet right now. And the 245 addition is about 20. So it will be about 44 feet. 246 MR. KRASNER: And on the other side of the house, the other -- 247 you're also nonconforming existing on that side? 248 MR. MANION: That is also correct. And that side of the house is 249 28 -- that side is a little over 30 feet. 250 MR. KRASNER: Right. So again, trying to get at the issue of, you 251 know, why this design you feel is necessary in order to make a reasonable 252 use of the property, it's existing nonconforming on that side. How much do 253 you estimate you're adding of new space that's within that -- within the 254 setback? It's possible to do that? 255 MR. MANION: Within the setback, roughly about 200 square feet. 256 MR. KRASNER: About 200 out of the total of 3200 square feet. 257 It's already on two levels. 258 MR. MANION: 200 on the two floors. 259 MR. KRASNER: 400 square feet? 260 MR. MANION: Correct. 261 MR. KRASNER: Out of a total of 3200. 262 MR. MANION: The other thing we considered, we do a lot of solar 263 work. The other thing, because where the house sits on this stuff, we were 264 really trying to make the house an "L" with a lot of glass open to the sun 265 and keep the yard free as much as we can. So we did shove over to that 266 side to get the yard as free as we can and we do have a small deck and 267 patio, as you can see down to the edge. But we were really trying to 268 squeeze away from a canopy so that we can match the light into the back of 269 the house. 270 MR. KRASNER: Okay. That's it for me for now. 271 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other questions? 272 MR. SZE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 273 I did actually have one question for staff. That is that this 274 request for variance was sent out to the neighborhood? 275 MR. WADE: Yes. 276 MR. SZE: And when was that done roughly? 277 MR. WADE: About two weeks ago. 278 MR. SZE: And can you confirm that we have heard nothing from 279 anyone? 280 MR. WADE: Staff has not heard anything from any of the neighbors, 281 correct. 282 MR. SZE: So can we then as of -- we're to assume that they've had 283 sufficient time for notice and no one has commented. 284 MR. CALABRESE: There was a letter they referenced to the neighbors, 285 did you see that? 286 MR. SAENZ: I verbally spoken to two of the neighbors, two on the 287 west side and one directly behind me. So I can confirm they received the 288 letters. And I have one handwritten from the first neighbor on my western 289 side that says it's not -- 290 MR. KRASNER: This is the letter from the neighbor on -- 291 MR. CALABRESE: Seaton Lane. 292 MR. SAENZ: 524. 293 MR. KRASNER: So the most directly affected. 294 MR. SZE: Is that the only correspondence we've received on this? 295 MR. WADE: Yes, sir. 296 MR. SZE: I think we can assume that's supportive of the effort. 297 Before I address the remaining question for the applicant, can I 298 just ask if you can shed some general knowledge on the -- how this was 299 subdivided, when it was done. It appears that this neighborhood was, I 300 guess if I were a politician I would call it gerrymandered but it does seem 301 to be a little strange in its configuration, especially when we refer to 302 524 in the way it almost touches the adjoining property. 303 Was that -- do we have any information on that? 304 MR. BOYLE: No, sir, we don't. We know the time the house was 305 constructed. 306 MR. SZE: Sure. With regard to this property, is the setback on the 307 side yard in question one of -- is there a factor or was that a result of a 308 variance request in its history? 309 MR. BOYLE: We have no record of variances and my experience with 310 subdivisions is that there's a long history of the Planning Commission not 311 drawing lines that create violations of the Code. We don't have a history 312 on when the subdivision was done. But, for example, we do have some 313 anomalies in application of Code back in the 70s and 80s that we're aware 314 of on some topics but I've never been aware of the Planning Commission 315 drawing a line that created a substandard setback, a nonconforming setback. 316 But we don't have a history of when the subdivision was done. 317 I agree it's -- the lots are kind of unusual and perhaps the 318 originals were subdivided for Poplar and then Seaton Lane came in as an 319 afterthought. That's quite a hill there, if I recall, in that 320 neighborhood. So perhaps when they were subdividing it was easier to do 321 Poplar first but that's just a speculation. 322 So I don't think you'll find a history of Planning Commission 323 drawing this line. With the house being constructed in '42, it predates 324 the City's zoning ordinance so I think it's a fact of the lay of the land 325 that we have that we see quite often throughout the City. 326 MR. SZE: Thank you. 327 MR. KRASNER: I have a question of the letter. I see the way he's 328 written this letter, he says that you informed him of what you're doing. 329 Did you show him the plan? Did you show him what that elevation was going 330 to look like? 331 MR. SAENZ: I walked him through it. I didn't have a drawing with 332 me but we sat there in the back yard and -- 333 MR. KRASNER: You explained to him? 334 MR. SAENZ: -- explained to him clearly. 335 MR. KRASNER: You didn't just tell him you were not going in closer 336 to the line, you explained to him the new addition that was being built as 337 well behind the house? 338 MR. SAENZ: Correct. 339 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any more questions? 340 MR. MANION: We had not done any particular research until the -- 341 but Lot 3524, that house actually touches the setback line. And what you 342 just raised is when you do the quick calculation of some of the others, I 343 don't think there's a number of houses, two or three here, that probably do 344 not meet the setbacks. 345 I thought it was a good question. I have no idea if they just 346 overlaid a grid on top of what was already there or moved it, I don't know. 347 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions? Okay. 348 Sorry to have to come back to this, I hope you'll forgive me. If 349 you would articulate what the hardship not generally shared by others is, 350 that would be helpful to me. 351 It looks like a wonderful design. It does look like a wonderful 352 design. Clearly a lot of thought and effort that's gone into it. I think 353 what we're all still trying to understand is what's the, you know, what's 354 the hardship generally not shared by others such that we're going to add 355 the amount of additional space that was described earlier, versus just 356 following where the current footprint of the house is. I think that's what 357 we're all trying to understand. 358 MR. MANION: I guess the main thing is that, if you can imagine this 359 shifted over, it takes up a lot of the yard. We don't have a huge yard. 360 We didn't really want to do that. Also, we would make this area of the 361 house darker. 362 And I just felt like we just -- if we hadn't had that setback, this 363 is where we would have done the addition just because of the structure of 364 the house, the light, the impact on the yard. And all those, if we had had 365 that extra space, that's where we would have put it. I think most any 366 architect probably would come up with the same solution. 367 So I felt strongly that we were being impacted by just where the 368 original house was set. And for me to do other -- and we did look at other 369 options. It impacted the yard negatively and it just impacted the design 370 and the structure of the house that was there now. 371 We could have, quite frankly, if we -- say this, my client's here, 372 if we tore the whole house down, we could have put it in a conforming 373 situation but it was just not feasible. 374 It's an extremely sturdy house and so we felt that the impacts on 375 the site, on the structure of the house and in maintaining the portions of 376 the house that we thought were not literally historic but kind of unique to 377 the neighborhood, that side line put us at a disadvantage. 378 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So it's the, what I'm hearing is it's the 379 width of the lot -- 380 MR. MANION: Which is undersized to start with. 381 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: It's the width, it's an undersized -- it's 382 the width of the lot which is undersized, relative to where the existing 383 footprint of the house was. And in order to -- I mean, there's a cost 384 minimization aspect to this, but also to retain the existing footprint of 385 the house, those are kind of the three components is what I'm hearing. 386 MR. MANION: Correct. And the interior arrangement of the house, we 387 just felt was -- well, I do a lot of historic restorations and sometimes if 388 you find a special room, we try to go out of our way not to destroy it. 389 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. 390 MR. MANION: And the other thing is we really do a lot of energy 391 efficient things and try not to stick something out in the middle of the 392 yard and heat up the yard is not our nature. In fact we were trying to 393 maintain all the periphery of the trees, etcetera. 394 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Those are all very commendable things that 395 you described. 396 Okay. Are there any other questions from the Board? 397 MR. CALABRESE: Real quick follow-up to what you're saying. At one 398 point in your presentation you mentioned some load bearing walls that were 399 impacted by this. When you say at a disadvantage, are you saying that the 400 placement would have an impact on those load bearing walls? 401 MR. MANION: Absolutely. 402 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And so is that a structural problem? 403 MR. MANION: Yes, because where I drew that red line, if I shifted 404 it over to the edge of the bearing wall, I'm not on any bearing situation. 405 I have to re -- reengineer sort of the old house. In addition to the 406 reengineering of the old house, I'm coming over into the one open space, 407 etcetera. And I don't have that just flow and I don't have the views in 408 the sun out in the back. 409 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. That's it. 410 MR. KRASNER: Just one more question. I know it's on the plan but 411 for the record, the distance between the subject's house and 524 Poplar? 412 MR. MANION: Correct. 413 MR. KRASNER: Is how much? 414 MR. MANION: 78 feet. 415 MR. KRASNER: And the distance between the house and the other 416 neighbor at 1310? 417 MR. MANION: It's 26. 418 MR. KRASNER: 26. Okay. So in your opinion as a licensed architect 419 in the Commonwealth, would you say that the effect -- 420 MR. MANION: Are you an architect? 421 MR. KRASNER: You're not -- sorry? 422 MR. MANION: Are you an architect? 423 MR. KRASNER: No, I'm not an architect. 424 Would you say that the effect of the addition being located where it 425 is is less than if the addition had been placed on the other side of the 426 house to that neighbor? 427 MR. MANION: Because it would have more impact. You know, in 428 looking at this, it's an unusual subdivision but literally in terms of 429 space, the reason we thought that this got done at some later point is 430 there literally would have been, had they done this slightly differently, 431 another building lot to their side. And it really looks like instead of 432 doing that, they just gave larger yards to those spaces. The other, the 433 other street, the 600 block, have a deeper back yard. 434 MR. KRASNER: So by locating the addition on that side of the house, 435 then any detrimental effects on the neighborhood is reduced as opposed to 436 locating it on the other side. 437 MR. MANION: I believe they're minimized. I think the overall 438 pattern is maintained better and everybody's privacy. 439 MR. KRASNER: Thank you. 440 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there anyone from the audience that would 441 like to comment on this matter? 442 Okay. We'll close it to the audience then, seeing none. 443 Any other questions -- well, let me just ask the applicants, any 444 final comments you'd like to make before we close it? Okay. It doesn't 445 have to be. 446 And, staff, any other comments you have? 447 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 448 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. So we'll close it to the 449 applicant and to staff. I think we may need a moment to review some of 450 this and decide how we're going to proceed. 451 So, look to my fellow Board members for discussion or to make a 452 motion. 453 MR. SZE: I do have a point. I'll leave it to others to make a 454 motion but it seems to me that when you look at this property and its 455 surrounding area that the hardship is created by the existence of the house 456 where it was placed prior to the enactment of Zoning that created these 457 structures. And it seems to me where this addition is being located is the 458 best way of addressing any perception of hardship to the surrounding areas. 459 That is to say, appear to be placed at a location that is the furthest 460 removed from one of the adjacent properties. 461 I think that from a perspective of construction, that this is 462 probably the one that creates the least amount of hardship with respect to 463 impact on structure. And so with the -- with those viewpoints, as I say, 464 understanding how this house is now before us for a variance request and 465 the hardship created by having to conform to the correct zoning, I think I 466 would be in favor of a motion to approve this. Thank you. 467 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other comments? 468 MR. KRASNER: Just quickly to follow-up, I tend to concur with Mr. 469 Sze. In this case I feel that the hardship is not so much the fact that 470 the lot is just a -- is just slightly undersized with respect to width and 471 to area, however the fact that the house was built so close to the property 472 line practically in the current zoning has been placed over the preexisting 473 house practically makes it difficult to build a conforming addition that 474 would have utility for this property, short of tearing down the entire 475 structure. 476 And so with that, I do tend to agree. I also again feel that given 477 the fact that the neighbor, the closest neighbor on the side where the 478 addition has been proposed is three times as far than on the opposite side, 479 despite the fact on the opposite side it might be closer to the zoning 480 ordinance, I feel that given the distance, the detriment to the 481 neighborhood would be greater on the other side. So where it's been 482 proposed I feel causes the least, if any, harm. 483 MR. CALABRESE: I would say I think on this Board we struggle with 484 determining what is undue hardship. And I must say initially I was 485 somewhat skeptical of this meeting that standard. But after we discussed 486 the various issues, I think I'm convinced more by the structural issue that 487 is raised. 488 When we have petitioners who describe more favorable, preferable, or 489 appealing-looking buildings, I appreciate and understand why they wish to 490 do that but I'm more convinced when we have issues that arise, that a 491 structural issue is more of a hardship that I would recognize and 492 appreciate. 493 So in that regard, I think I would favor the approval of this 494 variance. 495 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So is there anyone who would care to turn 496 those positive comments into a motion? 497 MR. KRASNER: All right. I'll make a motion that again, based on 498 the foregoing statements made by myself and other members of the Board, I 499 make a motion that we approve Variance Application V1550-13 to allow a side 500 yard setback of 4.9 feet on the west side of the property. 501 And is there another variance on the other side or no? Just for the 502 4.9 feet instead of the 14.8 feet on the west side of the property as 503 depicted on the plans prepared by Manion and Martin Architects, entitled 504 Saenz residence, variance dated August 20, dated August 20, 2013. 505 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 506 MR. SZE: I'll second that. 507 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 508 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 509 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 510 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 511 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 512 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 513 MR. SZE: Yes. 514 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 515 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 516 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Williamson. 517 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 518 Congratulations. You have your variance. We wish you well with 519 your new project and your family. 520 MR. SAENZ: Thank you very much. 521 MR. BOYLE: Excuse me. Here's a copy of the letter. 522 523 b. Appeal application A1549-13 by Quang Huynh, owner of VA Restaurant 524 Supply, dba VA Grocery Store, appealing the decision of the Deputy Zoning 525 Administrator to deny the application for Certificate of Occupancy 526 #20130127 on premises known as 311-315 South Maple Avenue, RPC # 52-306-017 527 zoned B-2 central business, said property owned by JFX6, LLC. 528 529 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. On to the next item of New Business 530 is Appeal Application A1549-13 by Quang Huynh, owner of Virginia V.A. 531 Restaurant Supply doing business as V.A. Grocery Store, appealing the 532 decision of the Deputy Zoning Administrator to deny the application for 533 Certificate of Occupancy Number 534 20130127 on premises known as 311 to 315 South Maple Avenue, RPC # 52-306- 535 017, Zone B-2 central business, said property owned by JFX6 LLC. 536 If the applicants would step forward please. 537 Thanks. 538 I guess we may hear from the Deputy Zoning Administrator, I don't 539 know if staff would have any opening comments or we'll just turn to the 540 applicants and let them make their statement. 541 MR. BOYLE: I'll defer to Mr. Wade. 542 MR. WADE: Mr. Chair, we have a -- we denied a application for 543 Certificate of Occupancy. You may recall there was, the same party was 544 before the Board late last year for a similar -- a similar case. That one 545 had to do with their application for a -- or their Certificate of Occupancy 546 which covered wholesale as well as retail and their appeal was denied 547 because the Code does not allow for wholesale, wholesale businesses in a B- 548 2 District. 549 So they reapplied for a retail only. And once the application was 550 processed and the City, because of some known issues on the property, the 551 City performed a full Code inspection and we found several violations. A 552 lot of them were pretty easily fixable and I believe they were. 553 But the CO ultimately was denied basically for two outstanding 554 reasons and the reasons are outlined in my staff report. I apologize for 555 not getting it out faster. 556 But the two basic reasons are there's approximately a thousand 557 square foot illegal addition on the rear of the building that we have no 558 evidence of permits for. And the building official for the City has deemed 559 it to be illegal and has informed us that it must come down. 560 And the other issue is that the grocery business is using parking 561 that is off site. It's not on their property. It's not on the property 562 owned by JFX6 LLC. Is actually owned by a different party and that is a 563 violation of the zoning ordinance as well. 564 So in the packet, the memo packet that I sent out this afternoon, it 565 included some of the correspondence from the Zoning Office to the owner of 566 the business, the owner of the property. And one of them I believe is 567 Exhibit 2 was the letter we sent outlining the results of the full code 568 inspection. And that has some fire code issues. The fire marshal has 569 informed us that those issues, for the most part he's satisfied they 570 they've taken been care of. I believe most of the smaller zoning code 571 issues have been taken care of. 572 So what's really left is the illegal building addition and the off 573 site parking. We requested and I thought we made it very clear that the 574 addition needed to come down before we could approve anything, before we 575 could approve a CO and also we had to resolve the issue of the off site 576 parking and neither of those happened. 577 And so we in that letter, the letter dated March 15th, we gave a 45 578 day compliance period. That ended up actually being 90 days to allow them 579 for even more time. Yet to this day, the parking for the grocery store is 580 still being used, they're still using a piece of property that belongs to a 581 different owner. We have no evidence of any type of agreement between the 582 parties for that use. And we also still have the illegal addition there. 583 It has not been torn down yet. 584 So those are the two things that are standing in the way of approval 585 of a CO for that business. 586 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 587 Any questions for staff at this point? 588 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask, when you say illegal building, what 589 does that mean? 590 MR. WADE: The rear of the building, the original -- the real estate 591 office has the footprint of the building or the finished area as 1844 592 square feet. A rough estimate from the real estate website puts what's 593 there now at about 2900 square feet. So when the building official or the 594 acting building official at the time did his inspection, he deemed that the 595 additional square footage was somehow constructed there sometime in the 596 last 10 to 12 years. We can't pinpoint it. 597 But there are no evidence of any permits or any inspections and the 598 building official himself said it is not a structure that meets the 599 building code and it needs to be taken down, no matter what they intend to 600 do. I believe they intend to rebuild it but what's there now needs to come 601 down first so. 602 MR. CALABRESE: Regardless of whether they had the proper permits, 603 the building now does not conform to the appropriate building code, is that 604 what you're saying? 605 MR. WADE: Correct, correct. 606 MR. CALABRESE: And then the parking issue, what is the violation on 607 the parking? 608 MR. WADE: The parking issue, I believe it's the last page in there. 609 If you look at staff report, Exhibit 3, it's an overhead view. It outlines 610 the separate parking -- the separate properties and the ownership. And so 611 you can see that the grocery store is sort of in the middle. It's on South 612 Maple. It's near Wallace which is this closest intersecting street. And 613 where you see all the cars lined up along Wallace, those are -- that is the 614 area where most of the customers for the grocery store park and then they 615 go in and use the parking. 616 The parking lot that's on the property itself for this grocery store 617 is really used almost entirely for loading and unloading of various 618 delivery trucks and quite a large amount actually. So there's very little 619 room for the customers to actually park. 620 So what they're doing is using an off site -- another property that 621 doesn't belong, that's not of the same ownership. So that's a violation of 622 the Zoning Ordinance. 623 And in that situation it's -- the Zoning Ordinance does permit the 624 use of off site parking. But there has to be -- there needs to be a 625 contract and it has to be presented to the City to make sure it conforms to 626 the Code. It has to be approved. And we requested that in the March 15th 627 letter and we never got it. And there seems to be a disconnect in what the 628 law requires and what we're explaining we're asking from them and what they 629 think they're meeting. 630 MR. CALABRESE: One last question. In 48-972, can you describe what 631 the provisions there, what is the violation. 632 MR. WADE: The 48-972 outlines the parking agreement, the 633 regulations for the parking agreement itself. 48-898 B is the regulation. 634 It specifically says that parking for -- associated with or for the use on 635 that property must be on site. So 48-898 says parking must be on site and 636 then 48-972 speaks to the parking agreement requirements. 637 MR. CALABRESE: And you determined this parking here, that's not on 638 site? 639 MR. WADE: Correct. 640 MR. CALABRESE: Because -- is that a street in between here? 641 MR. WADE: That's just an outline of where the property boundaries 642 are. 643 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions? 644 MR. CALABRESE: Do you have a copy of that? Because I've never 645 gotten it. I'd like to see what you're looking at. 646 MR. WADE: Sure. 647 MR. HOWELL: Just a question to staff. These photographs and then 648 looking at the plan in your report, it talks about 1000 square feet 649 approximately. Is that this gray container? 650 MR. WADE: The gray container is part of it. The gray container is 651 the first part that you will see from Wallace Street. It looks like a 652 shipping container but from what I have been told from the building 653 inspectors, it's the shell of a shipping container and it's basically being 654 used as a wall. I've also been told that there's no floor to that actual 655 part of the building. The floor is just the asphalt parking lot itself. I 656 believe they're being used for coolers and storage. 657 MR. HOWELL: Thank you. 658 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions? 659 Okay. Just before we start, you may have heard me earlier ask the 660 other applicant if they wanted to continue. There is an opportunity to 661 have one more member of the Board present next month. So I wanted to 662 mention that to you guys, you clearly have five people here but -- 663 MR. HUYNH: We're okay with it. 664 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. And do I understand you did not 665 receive a copy of this? 666 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Not this letter. 667 Not this one, no. I haven't seen it. 668 All the copies I got I made copies and gave to the Zoning 669 Department. This one I've never seen. 670 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Would you like a moment to review 671 that before you begin your -- 672 MR. FLEVARAKIS: There's a lot of stuff I agree and disagree with 673 what he said. But if you got questions or if you need me to say anything, 674 I'll be able to. 675 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: If you're ready to proceed, it's not like 676 you just received that and I want to make sure you're capable of 677 proceeding. Hearing that you are, is that right? 678 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yes, sir. 679 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So you want to just be able to share your 680 case or state your case. 681 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yeah. There were violations that the Zoning 682 Department found which we right away took care of. 683 The issue of the storage, it's not even an addition. It's a storage 684 facility that was attached to the side of the building that they use for 685 dry goods. 686 My dad always handled the property when he was alive so I never knew 687 what they did or where they got or all that stuff. 688 We went and looked at it and yes, it's not safe. The roof is a thin 689 plywood. It's just poorly done. And I never knew it. The City never got 690 anything from them permit-wise so I did tell them we're going to have to 691 end up knocking it down when all this came up. 692 But I had a meeting with the City manager and the Zoning manager and 693 they says as long as you keep on doing what you have to do to fix it, we'll 694 help you out. I did everything but that part but I was in the process of 695 getting drawings done which Wyatt and John knew about and when I was 696 getting all of that done, I got the drawings were rejected. So it's not 697 like we avoid the letters or we, you know, just didn't care about it. As 698 soon as we knew what we had to do, you know, I got on the ball and started 699 doing it to help them out. 700 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, for the benefit of the secretary, 701 could we have everyone identify themselves. 702 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, I was going to ask that after he was 703 done. 704 Could you state your name. 705 MR. FLEVARAKIS: I'm Jerry Flevarakis and my mom owns the LLC, JFX6. 706 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And you're able to speak on behalf of JFX6? 707 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 708 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. Please continue. 709 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Thank you. 710 And when they rejected the drawings, which I didn't know until I -- 711 I'm like a pest. I keep on calling, what's going on, where we at? And 712 when I went in to talk to somebody, they just rejected them without a phone 713 call, you know, when I submitted the permit. So it bothered me and we had 714 a little heated exchange. 715 So I was told that I needed to get a licensed engineer architect and 716 then get a survey plat. I did all that. I hired an engineer. I gave the 717 City the proper documents they wanted, and also the new plats that they 718 first surveyed. And submitted it, the gentleman helped me out fine there. 719 One week goes by, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, I hear nothing. 720 So when I called, they're saying it's still being processed but 721 there might be a site issue. So I was like, well, what do you mean? He 722 goes, As soon as we find out, we'll have someone from site notify you. 723 Another week, two weeks go by. I go by over there and they say, 724 well, site has your drawings or has a review. It took me another week or 725 so before I got a hold of Mr. Fuller. He's on the ball. He returns my 726 calls, says, Mr. Flevarakis, this is what you need to do. I'm going to go 727 upstairs and get a drawing of the blueprints and see what I can do to help 728 you out because of what you needed for site. 729 That's two weeks ago. And he calls me up and he says the Zoning has 730 no drawings of the proposed project. And I'm like, that's impossible. I 731 gave the City, I think the requirement was three, legal, you know, 732 drawings, like the ones you were looking at in the prior case. 733 So I said, I have my original here. I go, Would you like me to come 734 right away and give it to you. I trust you. And he goes, Just meet me 735 here and then I'll make copies, which he did. And then just yesterday I 736 received an e-mail from him of stuff that he wants me to do to help the 737 process go a lot easier. 738 We're not keeping it there because we just want it there. I mean, 739 it's empty. They emptied everything out. But I was under the assumption 740 that Wyatt and John told me that when we had a meeting it was the owner's 741 son, myself, and them two, and they knew what we were doing and what we 742 were going to do and they said they would work with us with that. 743 So, to me, when someone tells me that, I'm just still proceeding 744 with what I need to do but I'm not getting any help from Zoning, to be 745 honest with you. It's me having to call them all the time instead of them 746 calling me to let me know if it's denied or it's being reviewed, where it's 747 at in the process. I don't get any of that help. I have to go there and I 748 feel that I'm pestering them. But I shouldn't have to do that and all the 749 other violations were fixed. 750 Another issue, they were telling me that some of these violations 751 are still outstanding because of the fire marshal. When I finally 752 contacted the fire marshal, he got upset. He's like, It's not being 753 delayed because of me. Everything was clear with him. We've done 754 everything possibly we can do. It just seems like when we fix one thing, 755 they come up with another thing. And I'm just trying to help them out to 756 resolve it with contractors that I deal with to help them finish it and 757 save them money and save us money. 758 But that's where we're at. 759 As far as the parking situation, the father had an agreement with 760 the owner of the property but they stopped and he tells his clients not to 761 park there. And I've said to -- not to neither one of these gentlemen, but 762 someone from the Zoning, they need to get the owner to put a sign up there 763 for no parking or towing. I mean I can't make people leave. You're not 764 allowed to park there, you going to get it towed. But I'm not going to 765 call the tow company. The owner's got to call the tow company. 766 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Are there -- do you have any other 767 comments to add? 768 Are you Mr. Quang? 769 MR. HUYNH: Yeah, I'm Quang. 770 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Do you have any other comments to 771 add? And I think what may be helpful to the Board, I think we've heard, 772 describe a general time line with interactions with the City and with the 773 Zoning office. 774 MR. HUYNH: Yes, sir. 775 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think what would be helpful for either one 776 of you to add really is if you're appealing the denial of a Certificate of 777 Occupancy application and I think if we heard a time line, I think what may 778 be helpful, if you could address, you know, the reasons for appealing or 779 for appealing the denial of the Certificate of Occupancy. I think that may 780 help the Board. 781 MR. FLEVARAKIS: I mean, the reason why they're appealing is because 782 they're telling us that because of these two violations. And he's 783 appealing it because, you know, first of all he doesn't want to lose his 784 business because they got shut down already for three days which they 785 reopened it right back up because they saw what we did. He's appealing 786 because we were under the assumption, like I said, that we can pare down 787 and build at the same time. 788 When Mr. Fuller said that it's got to come down, I said, it would 789 come down. You know, I have no problem with that. And they already 790 emptied, they just finished another project in D.C. where they can store it 791 again, all their dry goods. So the storage facilities are empty. It's 792 just a matter of us, we were waiting for the City to say, okay, your plans 793 are approved, go ahead proceed with your project. 794 MR. HUYNH: But they're not doing that so that's why we're 795 appealing. 796 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 797 MR. FLEVARAKIS: All the plans, everything submitted to the City. 798 We're just like you said, yesterday I got an e-mail from Mr. Fuller from 799 site telling me these are the items that you got to do, that are required 800 to help get the site approved. The drawings already went through two 801 departments which I think they were okay with. Then it was site, it had to 802 go to site after that. And they didn't know what we had to do for site so 803 that took another two weeks. 804 And then Mr. Fuller, like I said, I got an e-mail yesterday. I can 805 give you a copy to look at but I only got one. I got it late yesterday and 806 I was on the road all day for work. 807 But I'm not disagreeing with any of the stuff a lot of people are 808 saying. I'm just following whatever leadership directions I'm getting. 809 I'll come to you and you'll say, okay, Mr. Flevarakis, you need to go and 810 see this gentleman. And then I go to this gentleman, it seems like I'm 811 getting pushed around to other people. That's when I finally sat down with 812 the City manager and the manager for Zoning and we came to agreement, we 813 would do all this and also what the future plans are for the City of what 814 they want to do. 815 And with Mr. Snyder, we agreed, even with the homeowner next door, 816 you know, they wanted to put a mirror on the side wall of my building and I 817 said no problem, as long as the City approves it, you can put whatever you 818 like as long as it's approved. And they already applied for a grant 819 because they want to do it. 820 So I'm working with everybody the best I can but I don't feel that 821 I'm getting that back. 822 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 823 Any other? 824 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yeah. It's not thousand square feet. The project 825 is only like 26 by 15 or 18. So it's not a 1000 square foot. And it's not 826 an addition. It's just a storage. 827 MR. CALABRESE: Well, that's why I'm confused. On the map here 828 there's this red area which I assume is the thousand square foot that's in 829 question. On the map that the gentleman has right here. Yeah. The memo 830 says that there is an illegal building addition, a thousand square feet. 831 I'm looking at the map and there's a red area which is identified as a 832 thousand square feet. Is that where the -- 833 MR. FLEVARAKIS: That's where the coolers are, the refrigerators, 834 and then the old portion. But the new construction is nowhere near that. 835 I can't read because it's small. This is all they can print. I 836 think the whole project is like -- I need my glasses. What's that right 837 there? 43. 43. 838 MR. KRASNER: If I may, once again, I think it's important for us to 839 step back here and I think we should address one issue at a time. Now 840 we're talking about the illegal building so let's stay on that for a 841 second. That seems to be actually the more complicated issue. 842 So, if I understand it, the chronology here, you've submitted an 843 application to the zoning department, you referring to Gary Fuller. He's a 844 planner. 845 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yeah, site. 846 MR. KRASNER: And Jim Snyder is the planning director, the 847 development director. So you've applied, you have an active application 848 for a site plan? 849 MR. FLEVARAKIS: I just got -- 850 MR. KRASNER: I'm sorry. Staff, do you know what he's applied for? 851 Does he have a pending application? 852 MR. WADE: He originally applied for just a building permit and he 853 was told that -- and I agree, there was a lot of undue delay during this 854 whole process. And I, as manager of that operation, I was very unhappy 855 with that. I'm not sure why there was so much delay. 856 But regardless of that delay, if you refer to the March 15th letter, 857 I don't know how we could as staff had made it any more clear to them, that 858 the addition that was on the back of the building that had no permits and 859 was illegal had to be torn down, regardless of what they were going to do 860 to proceed and move forward. 861 And if you look at that last paragraph, I outline that under the 862 second page at the very top, Building Code Violations. It makes it 863 perfectly clear. 864 And then if you go to the last paragraph, I even reiterate it just 865 to make it completely clear. Please understand the illegally constructed 866 addition in the back of the grocery store must be removed whether or not 867 you intend to obtain the proper permits to replace it. So it has to come 868 down. 869 MR. KRASNER: Sure. Do they have a permit for that? 870 MR. WADE: They do not. 871 MR. FLEVARAKIS: I was told different. When I came to Zoning about 872 that, they told me I have to get a permit for that. This is where the 873 problem, the communication is terrible. They tore half of it down already 874 and I stopped them because of I was told that I needed a permit and they 875 said that if you tore it down -- and then we joked about it, you know, 876 we're going to get fined for not having a permit for tearing down something 877 that we didn't have a permit to have it on. 878 MR. KRASNER: Is the reason he didn't have a demolition permit is 879 because it's not a natural structure? Is it considered -- 880 MR. WADE: I'm not sure what the reason is. The building official, 881 that's his determination. 882 MR. KRASNER: So building part made a determination he does not need 883 a demolition permit. 884 MR. WADE: Correct. 885 MR. KRASNER: To tear it down. 886 MR. WADE: Correct. 887 If he was told that, you know, I apologize. I don't know who told 888 him that and it wasn't the building official. 889 MR. KRASNER: Again, he has a pending application you said just for 890 a building permit. He needs to go to the Planning Department and site 891 plan, I'm directing it to staff, you know, you can chime in. What is the 892 pending application for? 893 MR. WADE: Originally it was just a building permit application. 894 And again, I refer you to that March 15th letter, the last paragraph also 895 spells out that if you wish to replace it, submission of a site plan will 896 be required. The Code says that in a commercial property if it's bigger 897 than a 5 by 5 area, a site plan is required. 898 MR. KRASNER: So the plans that are in our package here, these 899 engineering plans for additional storage by TTVNP Consulting Engineers, our 900 plans are dated from June 22, 2013, we all have the same set here, these 901 were submitted to the City? 902 MR. WADE: They were never -- we had never seen those plans. We had 903 not seen them until they were submitted to us for the package for the BZA. 904 MR. KRASNER: So no one else in the City has these plans? 905 MR. WADE: No, not that I'm aware of. 906 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Not these little ones. They have the actual 907 blueprints. 908 MR. KRASNER: Is there a large version of these plans? 909 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Oh, yeah. They have them. They have them. 910 MR. KRASNER: Who is "they"? 911 MR. FLEVARAKIS: The Zoning Department. 912 MR. KRASNER: They have them because you're applying for site plan? 913 MR. FLEVARAKIS: No. Site plan didn't come until way later. 914 MR. KRASNER: I'm just having trouble following what -- what I'm 915 trying to establish is whether or not you're in process. 916 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Oh, yes, sir. 917 MR. KRASNER: Formally in process, not just through conversations, 918 but formally in process. 919 MR. FLEVARAKIS: No, I got the -- Mr. Fuller -- 920 MR. KRASNER: Do you have a copy of the application that you've 921 provided? 922 MR. FLEVARAKIS: I just received everything yesterday. Because Mr. 923 Fuller was sending me information of what I needed for site. For me to 924 find out for site was like maybe four weeks ago total that I was told that 925 I would have to do it. There was such a big gap of them not telling me 926 anything. When I went there, they told me you had to go to site. 927 MR. KRASNER: I understand. You were talking to Mr. Fuller over the 928 course of several weeks. 929 MR. FLEVARAKIS: In the last couple of weeks Mr. Fuller was helping 930 me out of what I needed to do for site. And he told me, and it's me saying 931 what he said it's hearsay because he's not here, but he wasn't brought up 932 about it. He didn't know anything about it. 933 MR. KRASNER: So you have to formally file a site plan application. 934 MR. FLEVARAKIS: That's my next step. 935 MR. KRASNER: That's your next step. So you haven't done that yet. 936 I'm trying to establish what has been done, what hasn't, just formally. I 937 understand there's been a lot of conversations. I know you're working with 938 the City over the course of many months on issues here on this property. 939 I'm trying to understand formally where we're at. 940 So, okay, so no site plan has been filed. You don't need a demo 941 permit but the structure has not been demolished. 942 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Half. 943 MR. KRASNER: It looked like something had been -- 944 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yeah, the right side of it was almost tore down 945 completely except the other half of that. And then the other part on the 946 left side, all there is the little walkway that takes to you the back door. 947 MR. KRASNER: So things have changed since these photos. 948 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yeah, on that photo, let me see if those are -- 949 MR. KRASNER: I thought that was the case. But these photos look 950 like it's earlier in the summer, in the spring. 951 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yes. This part is still here. This part right 952 here. And then, yeah, you can see where they started building. This is 953 part of the roof that one of the inspectors almost fell through at one 954 time. It was cheap. I'm not going to hide it. I don't know who they had 955 to put it up or not but when I saw it myself with the inspectors, I told 956 him it's probably going to have to come down. 957 MR. KRASNER: One more statement I'll make and then I'll let my 958 colleagues ask some questions. Just so you know, you've applied for an 959 appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination and they determined that 960 you had existing violations that prevent them from issuing a CO. I know 961 there are a lot of issues here but for the purposes of tonight's 962 discussion, we're really down to discuss these two issues that they've 963 cited you for typically and whether or not they were accurate in citing you 964 for those, you know, and if they were not and we determine that they were 965 not accurate, then that gives us -- we have the ability to overturn it or 966 we can sustain what they've done. 967 Just so you know the framework of what we're working. It's somewhat 968 more narrow than some of the bigger picture issues on the site. Just so 969 you're aware. We really have to focus on whether or not their 970 determination of your violations were technically correct or not. 971 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Okay. 972 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions? 973 MR. SZE: Good evening. 974 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Hi. 975 MR. SZE: There's a lot of documentation here and I think what I see 976 before me is that in the January-February time frame you were cited with a 977 list of light safety violations on behalf of the fire marshal. And if I'm 978 reading this package correctly, most of those were correct as to the point 979 where it no longer became an issue. 980 In March you were cited by the Zoning Administrator. Primarily you 981 were told to take down an illegal addition. And if I'm understanding your 982 testimony tonight correctly, the addition is still up. 983 MR. FLEVARAKIS: A portion. 984 MR. SZE: Is that true? 985 MR. FLEVARAKIS: A portion. 986 MR. SZE: What I'm also hearing is that in June, 22nd of June, you  987 filed a set of plans that we haven't -- 988 MR. FLEVARAKIS: That's the second set. 989 MR. SZE: Reproduced in small form here. So do you have a copy of 990 the receipt of this application you've told us about? 991 MR. FLEVARAKIS: They never gave me copy of. I just filled out a 992 form and they took my drawings with the permit, the application. 993 MR. SZE: So maybe this is more a question for staff and I think 994 that staff said you affirm that these drawings are in the system somewhere. 995 MR. WADE: Those drawings that you have in your hand, I can't 996 confirm that those are in the system. 997 MR. FLEVARAKIS: I'm sorry, you don't have this. Because I didn't 998 have a big drawing, I had the engineer e-mail me this. So the City doesn't 999 have this. The City has the actual -- yeah, this but in -- 1000 MR. SZE: Large size, reproduction. 1001 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Those were submitted to the City, just in a 1002 much larger form? 1003 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Correct. These are the minimized ones. They don't 1004 actually have this little copy. They got the actual blue -- you know, 1005 legally done blueprint. 1006 MR. KRASNER: I'm sorry. That seems contrary to what you just told 1007 me. Those were submitted to who? 1008 MR. FLEVARAKIS: To the Zoning Department. 1009 MR. WADE: The development services counter. 1010 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Wade? 1011 MR. WADE: No. This development counter. The development 1012 department. It's all in the same office. 1013 MR. KRASNER: But for the purposes of what? Did he fill out an 1014 application he says for what? 1015 MR. WADE: Originally he had submitted a building permit application 1016 to redo the illegal addition. And I want to also mention, take the 1017 opportunity to mention that at the time he's submitting a building permit 1018 application for a building that does not have a valid Certificate of 1019 Occupancy. If it does not have a valid Certificate of Occupancy, yet it's 1020 still being used as a business and that is counter to Chapter 48, the City 1021 is under no obligation to review any plans or approve any building plans 1022 for a property that is in violation of the Code. 1023 And, you know, again, the March 15th letter clearly explained that 1024 he needed a site -- need to submit a site plan, not just building permit 1025 applications and also he needed to remove that addition. None of that was 1026 done. 1027 MR. KRASNER: Is there typically -- are those typically submitted 1028 currently or is he supposed to submit the site plan first and then the 1029 building permit? 1030 MR. WADE: Well, the site plan would, in effect, be before the 1031 building plan but the building plan details would be within the site plan, 1032 yes. 1033 MR. KRASNER: They would be in the same set of plans submitted 1034 concurrently? 1035 MR. WADE: Usually they're included so that the scope of work is 1036 understood. 1037 MR. KRASNER: So he submitted and I imagine he paid the fee for a 1038 building permit application. 1039 MR. WADE: No, we don't accept a fee until the permit is approved 1040 and already issued. So there's no fee and there's no receipt. 1041 MR. KRASNER: How was that processed then? Did you provide comments 1042 and a letter that the permit cannot be approved because of X, Y and Z? 1043 MR. WADE: The intake was done. I'm not sure exactly what staff did 1044 to inform him but it did for a couple of weeks, you know, management, 1045 Development Services management, had to -- we did hold on to it because Mr. 1046 Flevarakis was meeting with the City Manager and with Jim Snyder, Director 1047 of Planning and Development Services. So we had a lot of questions we 1048 needed to answer. 1049 Mr. Snyder requested that we hold off on processing anything while 1050 they had their discussion. But at no time did either the City Manager or 1051 Mr. Snyder give permission or authority to leave the addition there or 1052 disagree with anything that we had already -- any of the orders we had 1053 already given to the property owner. 1054 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Comment to my fellow Board members. You 1055 were asking about this site plan and perhaps one of you is going to 1056 continue this line of questioning to help me understand how this is 1057 relevant to the fact there's an existing building addition there and an 1058 existing parking issue that was in a letter sent several months ago. It 1059 may help me, you know, with my frame of reference for some of these 1060 questions. 1061 MR. SZE: I'm starting to understand your concern, Mr. Chairman. 1062 The thrust of my question was to see whether there was some parol evidence 1063 or other form of cross structure that would have given the impression that 1064 there is a different circumstance other than the procedures before it. 1065 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 1066 MR. SZE: And so I think you've answered the question of the first 1067 part, the existence of an illegal building addition to my satisfaction. 1068 Let me just continue here and finish very quickly with a request on 1069 the time line for the use of off site parking. 1070 Was that part of an earlier citation or was that part of the 1071 September 12th letter? 1072 MR. WADE: It was included in the March 15th letter, sir. 1073 MR. SZE: All right. 1074 Okay. I would agree with Mr. Krasner here that just for my benefit 1075 that what we have here is a lot of process. Clearly I would say that what 1076 we have that we need to look at here is these two issues right before us. 1077 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yes, sir. 1078 As far as the parking goes, we had an agreement with Foxes Music 1079 which goes through the owner of the property over there. We've cut them a 1080 check, 400 bucks every month to let our customers park there. But down the 1081 road, I think maybe 2008 or 9, something happened and they never asked for 1082 a check anymore. And we even went over to pay them but they didn't accept 1083 it for some reason. And they started putting up the signs, you know, only 1084 Fox Music and restaurant's parking. So I started telling my customers not 1085 to park there and that was it so. 1086 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let me clarify that. So the parking, this, 1087 we're kind of referencing this picture here. And I guess it's -- we're 1088 referencing this picture. 1089 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Yeah, that area. 1090 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: It's this parking right here, right? 1091 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Correct. 1092 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are you saying there is signs there that say 1093 parking for -- 1094 MR. FLEVARAKIS: They were but it's been knocked down and they 1095 haven't, you know, put them back up yet. They're still laying on the 1096 ground over there. 1097 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So there were signs standing there that said 1098 -- 1099 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Correct. 1100 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: -- Foxes Music? 1101 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Right, exactly. 1102 MR. WADE: And the restaurant. 1103 MR. HUYNH: And the restaurant, yes, sir. 1104 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And the restaurant. And so they're on the 1105 ground, they were just -- 1106 MR. HUYNH: Yes, I spoke with -- 1107 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: -- just need to be erected. 1108 MR. HUYNH: Right. I spoke with the manager at Foxes just last 1109 month and he said he didn't plan to put them back up because he saw no use 1110 of them. 1111 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see. 1112 MR. CALABRESE: Do you have a sign on your property saying you can't 1113 park in that location? 1114 MR. HUYNH: Yeah. We have signs on the side of our buildings saying 1115 no parking, you know, on that side, park in the rear. 1116 MR. KRASNER: So your customers are not -- 1117 MR. HUYNH: Yeah, they're just not -- they're pretending they're 1118 not seeing it. 1119 MR. CALABRESE: So there's cars parked here, we don't know why 1120 they're parked here. I mean, the ones that are here, we're assuming 1121 they're coming to your establishment but -- 1122 MR. HUYNH: Yeah. I mean some of them, you see people walking from 1123 there to Foxes Music or the restaurants behind us. I mean it's not all of 1124 our people, you know. 1125 MR. CALABRESE: But you're aware of people parking there and coming 1126 to your -- 1127 MR. HUYNH: Right, exactly. 1128 MR. CALABRESE: -- business. 1129 MR. KRASNER: Bottom line is you don't have any agreement for off 1130 site parking. So legally all the parking for your business is on your 1131 property or on your land. 1132 MR. HUYNH: Yeah. At the moment, yes. 1133 MR. KRASNER: And this is to staff. Does their on site parking 1134 conform to City ordinance? 1135 MR. WADE: No. There's no parking, there's no striping, there is no 1136 loading or unloading zone. 1137 One of the benefits of the site plan process which we were actually 1138 looking forward to proceeding with them is that these things, those 1139 nonconformities, those issues are part of the resolution during the site 1140 plan process. 1141 MR. KRASNER: I'd like to say that is an older building so after, 1142 over time it probably was, you know, I don't know if the parking 1143 regulations changed, what the use was previously. 1144 Do they have enough room to fit their requisite number of spaces? 1145 MR. WADE: I did a rough calculation and it appears that they might 1146 but nothing official. It looks like they might have just enough for the 1147 minimum number of parking spaces and just enough for a loading and 1148 unloading zone. And that's another issue that we'd like to resolve in the 1149 site plan process. 1150 MR. CALABRESE: If I can just ask. So if we were to reject the 1151 appeal, what would their next step be? If they were to lose their 1152 Certificate of Occupancy, what would they do next? 1153 MR. WADE: They would have to cease operations. 1154 MR. CALABRESE: And then reapply for -- 1155 MR. WADE: Well, they could continue with the site plan process. 1156 They could go a number of ways. They could continue with the site plan 1157 process. But operating, occupying that and operating their business 1158 without a Certificate of Occupancy is a violation of the Zoning Code. 1159 MR. KRASNER: A question. If they have a site plan filed in their 1160 process and they obtain a CO, while it's a temporary CO or if the City has 1161 any protocol for that, while they're in process? 1162 MR. BOYLE: It wouldn't be our practice to shut the business down. 1163 We're trying to get the property into compliance and we're struggling with 1164 convincing them to do what we've asked them to do. 1165 A building that was built without permits needs to come down. And 1166 we've got public in there. We've got a residential historic structure next 1167 door. And we're seeing plenty of interest in expanding the business but 1168 not bringing into compliance with parking or the existing violations. 1169 So we would like to have some leverage that this Board would provide 1170 in its determination in bringing the property into compliance before we 1171 proceed with any thoughts of expansion. 1172 And I think the Board is correct in reiterating what the burden is 1173 here. Did staff err in the issuing of the determination that the occupancy 1174 permit could not be issued because of violations present on the property. 1175 And as the Board has heard from the City Attorney, the presumption 1176 of correctness resides with the zoning official in issuing the notice of 1177 violation. And the burden is on the appellant to show where that that 1178 determination is flawed. 1179 And so you're right, there are many issues here but I think it's 1180 helpful to redirect to the issue at hand. And whatever the Board decides 1181 here, it's our goal to not see a business go out of business. We want to 1182 see the Code complied with and we don't want injuries or damage to abutting 1183 properties and that's really the limit of our purpose here. 1184 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Are there any other questions? 1185 MR. HOWELL: I just wanted to get in practical terms in sharing the 1186 interest in the "nobody being put out of business" and recognizing all the 1187 other features that occur at this site. 1188 What in practical terms would be the next step? Clearly some 1189 frustration has crept into the process and, you know, I'd be looking to see 1190 what they should do in the immediate short term and thereafter to bring 1191 themselves into compliance and to get as quickly as possible back onto a 1192 basis of earning the Certificate of Occupancy so that they could continue 1193 with their business. 1194 MR. BOYLE: I think we would, if the Board upheld the determination 1195 of Mr. Wade, that occupancy permit could not be issued, I think what our 1196 immediate next step would be is to give them a time frame to take that 1197 structure down. And if they intend to continue using the parking adjacent, 1198 to provide us with an off site parking agreement. That would remedy all of 1199 the violations that are preventing us from moving forward with any of the 1200 permit review. 1201 We've -- we have authority at that point to stop the operation on 1202 the property. So I think -- and that has happened in the past with the 1203 fire marshal and the building official so they know it can happen. I think 1204 at that point I'd hope that they would believe that we're serious at that 1205 point and would take that structure down. And if they intend to use the 1206 parking, provide an off site parking agreement. 1207 So I think the -- getting back to your question, I think the reality 1208 of the next steps would be that we would ask them to put their reference 1209 into taking that structure down and deciding if they need that off site 1210 parking, we'd give them I think a reasonable time through the City 1211 Attorney's Office to comply with that and do it in a manner that would not 1212 reopen the question but continue what's already before you. And after that 1213 expired, I think we would have no choice but to stop the operation on the 1214 property. 1215 So after we hear from the Board tonight, I think the ball will be 1216 firmly back in their court with no lack of clarity of what needs to be done 1217 next. 1218 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other final questions? 1219 Is there any other -- I don't believe I asked, if I did I'll just 1220 double check, is there anyone from the audience that wants to speak on this 1221 tonight? 1222 Any other closing comments? 1223 MR. HUYNH: As far as the parking goes, I can get that settled 1224 tomorrow right away. If I go over there and tell him to write up a 1225 contract and so we can come to an agreement on the parking, that's fine. 1226 That can be fixed easily. 1227 But as far as the permits for the building, the new structure, I 1228 mean it would help us a lot if you guys could supply the permit so that we 1229 can start building the structure. Because we have, you know, thousands of 1230 dollars of products back there and which we are clearing out, even with the 1231 thousands of dollars we spent to rent a warehouse up in D.C., we still 1232 don't have enough space to move it all out. 1233 So what I'm asking is if you could supply the permit so we could 1234 start on the structure and tearing this down and we can have at least some 1235 space where we can keep our stuff at the same time as we're building it. 1236 Instead of tearing it down and leaving it in the rain and I have no room 1237 left in my warehouse up in D.C. 1238 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, where our role is -- I understand what 1239 you're asking. Our role is to decide if the C of O was denied 1240 appropriately. So we're not able to issue a permit. So we wouldn't be 1241 able to do that, just so you know. 1242 MR. HUYNH: Yeah, the occupancy permit is basically because of that 1243 structure that is still up there. So that is why I say we need to progress 1244 and get the permit to start building so that we have, you know, storage in 1245 the meantime the same thing as meeting up to Code, and building the right 1246 structure up to Code. 1247 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. Yeah. 1248 MR. CALABRESE: Can I ask a quick question to clarify. 1249 You're saying is that you would give them almost like a provisional 1250 Certificate of Occupancy that was -- I think they were denied the current 1251 one, but they'd be given some kind of temporary or provisional certificate 1252 until they remedied the defects that have been identified, is that -- I 1253 don't know if it matters but -- 1254 MR. BOYLE: In effect. They're operating there now and so it's a 1255 question of how do we bring the site into compliance. And there's several 1256 horses and several carts here that are out of order. And I think what you 1257 heard is there's a great desire to not take that structure down because 1258 there's materials there. They want permission to build this new structure 1259 and not correct the violation first. We can't do that. The violation has 1260 to be corrected before we can even entertain the occupancy or the building 1261 permit. 1262 MR. CALABRESE: One last quick question. A few moments ago, sir, 1263 you had said that the parking situation, that you tried contacting the 1264 other party. You couldn't get in contact with them so you've kind of 1265 thrown your hands up. 1266 Just a moment ago you said it would be a very simple matter to get a 1267 contract signed? 1268 MR. HUYNH: Yeah, I wasn't able to get in touch with the owner -- 1269 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Owner. 1270 MR. HUYNH: That they were renting from or whatnot. But like I 1271 said, I can go to Foxes, have them contact that person and we could come to 1272 an agreement easily. Because we've already, you know, rented from them 1273 before. 1274 MR. FLEVARAKIS: The owner of that easement he's very hard to get. 1275 Because my dad, I know for a fact, tried to buy it from him so they can 1276 have more parking space, probably ten years ago. It's very hard to get a 1277 hold of the owner. It's a corporation I think. And my dad had the hardest 1278 time to get a hold of him. 1279 So the guy from Fox Music I think has a connection with them, so 1280 they tried to work the connection again but we're just not getting no 1281 response. 1282 The storage, it's not an addition so it's a storage. I have no 1283 problem taking it down. It can come down in a matter of a couple of days. 1284 I just followed the footsteps of what I'm being told. 1285 And I think I'm being misled. Or I can understand, I mean I do 1286 stuff like this for a living so I'm being told what to do and how to do it 1287 from letters. So when I have the meetings, they're saying, yes, you know, 1288 we'll work with you to keep it in there and try to process everything. 1289 When I came to a decision, you have to tear it down, is with Mr. 1290 Fuller. Because Mr. Fuller said are you willing to tear it down before 1291 this goes up and I said yeah, if I have to, this is what I got to do. 1292 And we also talked about taking some of the dry goods because they 1293 have a big van or truck, can I store some of the stuff in the van. You 1294 know, because they have such -- because one customer come in and buy one 1295 bag, another customer come in and buy 30 bags of a product and he agreed on 1296 it. 1297 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. I think we're hearing tonight that, 1298 correct me if I'm wrong, we don't need a -- there's no need to have a 1299 permit to tear it down. 1300 MR. WADE: Correct. 1301 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So that's a clarification you're getting 1302 tonight. 1303 MR. FLEVARAKIS: And that's good for me, correct. 1304 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So you're getting the clarification. 1305 And it sounds like we're hearing the ability to, I guess, move 1306 expeditiously to get something arranged with the parking as you described. 1307 MR. HUYNH: Yeah. 1308 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So I would suggest, I think we have heard 1309 the information that we would need unless there are any other questions 1310 anybody has. 1311 Okay. Let's -- we're going to close it off. The Board will decide 1312 how we're going to proceed and we'll render a decision. 1313 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Thank you. 1314 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Turn to my fellow Board members for any 1315 comments or a motion. 1316 MR. KRASNER: I would just say possibly I think that we're actually 1317 there. This is -- there is a lot of issues floating around. I think 1318 considering these narrow issues, I think we're there. I think whatever 1319 miscommunication or misunderstandings may have occurred up to this point, 1320 I'm hopeful that after tonight that has been cleared up on these matters 1321 and you can proceed. So I think the new revelation is that you don't need 1322 a, demolition permit to take that down. So that makes it very easy to 1323 address the first violation. 1324 You said it's very easy to work out an agreement, if you do, in 1325 fact, want to continue to utilize that off site parking, you made it seem 1326 it's not that difficult to achieve that. So I feel like we're basically 1327 there. 1328 In my opinion I feel that given the conditions present when they 1329 were inspected and today, those violations were accurately cited and I 1330 don't see any -- I personally don't see any error on the part of our zoning 1331 staff. And so I think that there was no error there. 1332 But I do think luckily for the property owner and the tenant, it 1333 seems like alleviating that is not a difficult thing to do and if you work 1334 with City staff, it sounds like you can continue. It sounds like you have 1335 long range plans to improve the property which is a good thing I think for 1336 everyone involved and I think you're there. But as far as our narrow issue 1337 tonight, I feel there was no error made that I can see. 1338 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other comments or motion? 1339 MR. SZE: I agree with Member Krasner that on the two issues that we 1340 have before us tonight, the existence of an illegal building addition and 1341 the off site parking, that what we have before us is the appeal of the 1342 denial of the Certificate of Occupancy. And to point out what would be 1343 comfortable to me is that we would uphold the violation and provide that we 1344 allow a period, not to exceed a reasonable period of time, I don't know 1345 what that is, 30 days for the denial to be suspended after which time if 1346 the situation is not resolved with respect to the demolition of the illegal 1347 building and the approval on evidence of construction of the new approved 1348 addition and the resolution of parking, that the denial would take hold 1349 with that and you would have to cease operations, I would be comfortable 1350 with that. 1351 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Can I say something? 1352 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm afraid we closed it for any further 1353 comments. 1354 MR. CALABRESE: What is the recommended time for this remedial 1355 action? Are we talking about 30 days or are you thinking about longer, 1356 shorter? 1357 MR. WADE: 30 days would be reasonable. 1358 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let's keep the discussion amongst the Board, 1359 okay? 1360 Is there any other comments or is there a motion? 1361 MR. KRASNER: Okay. I think I'm ready to make a motion. 1362 I would move that we sustain the Zoning Administrator's 1363 determination and sustaining it we're rejecting the appeal based on the 1364 fact that the conditions cited were accurate and continue to this day. 1365 So I would move that we uphold the determination and direct the 1366 applicant to work with City staff within 30 days to remedy the cited 1367 violations. After -- during which time any suspension of the operations 1368 would be stayed, if we can do that. So it is a little convoluted but -- 1369 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let me ask a clarifying question. So you 1370 are sustaining the decision of the Deputy Zoning Administrator and 1371 therefore denying the appeal. 1372 MR. KRASNER: Correct. 1373 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are you also suggesting that this Board 1374 order the applicants to remedy this within 30 days? I'm asking because I'm 1375 not sure that's within our power of authority to do so. 1376 MR. KRASNER: I guess more to direct or advise, maybe that can be a 1377 separate motion after the appeal. I'm not sure of the protocol. 1378 MR. SZE: If I could offer a friendly amendment here or do we have 1379 to second it first before offering an amendment? 1380 MR. CALABRESE: I'll second. 1381 MR. SZE: So thank you. The amendment that I would offer is that 1382 the -- that this, our decision, is held in suspense without effect for 30 1383 days from the day of an affirmative vote after which time if the situation 1384 is not remedied, then the full force and effect of the denial of the 1385 Certificate of Occupancy takes place. 1386 MR. KRASNER: I'll happily accept that amendment. 1387 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm not sure we have the authority to do 1388 that. 1389 MR. CALABRESE: I would agree. I think we have before us a request 1390 to uphold or reverse the denial. I don't -- 1391 MR. SZE: We can condition it. That's what I'm offering, a 1392 condition. 1393 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I could, depending on what the Board does, 1394 the appellant has a 30 day appeal window. The staff would be reluctant to 1395 act on this within that appeal window anyway, so there is, in effect, a 30 1396 day period that we would work with them. 1397 If you wanted to phrase that as some form of direction from the 1398 Board, I think the Board has authority to speak on its motions. There are 1399 some sections of the Code that speak to any actions taken in the 1400 furtherance of compliance of the Code are acceptable. So that may be a two 1401 part, a motion on the application itself and then a statement from the 1402 Board. 1403 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah. What I would suggest and look to my 1404 colleagues to make this motion, is there is a decision on the matter before 1405 us and then we could further advise the applicant on their course of action 1406 should the Zoning Administrator be sustained. I don't think, I'm not sure 1407 we have the power to direct but we can certainly advise, especially based 1408 on what we're hearing from the Zoning Administrator tonight. 1409 So therefore, having heard the comments, would you care to amend? 1410 MR. KRASNER: Sure. Well, I'll retract my previous motion that is 1411 on the floor. I'll retract that and I make a new motion. 1412 I move that we uphold the determination of the Deputy Zoning 1413 Administrator thereby rejecting the appeal of Appeal Application A1549-13 1414 based on the testimony we heard tonight and the fact there is evidence the 1415 cited conditions were accurate at the time they were inspected and continue 1416 to be present. 1417 MR. SZE: I'll second that. 1418 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call vote. 1419 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1420 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1421 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1422 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. I'm sustaining the decision of the 1423 Zoning Administrator. 1424 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1425 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1426 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Mr. Krasner. 1427 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1428 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sze. 1429 MR. SZE: Yes. 1430 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Howell. 1431 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1432 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. The appeal is denied of the Zoning 1433 Administrator is sustained. 1434 I think while you did not get the outcome that you wanted this 1435 evening, I think you got the clarity that you sought which is to -- that 1436 there are two remaining issues relevant to a Certificate of Occupancy which 1437 are the illegal building addition on the back which would need to come 1438 down. You now know you don't need a permit to do that, and pursuing the 1439 agreement with the parking lot. 1440 You further heard from the Zoning Administrator their willingness to 1441 work with you within this 30 day time period in order to accomplish those 1442 steps. 1443 So I guess it would be our view that you would take those steps but 1444 that will be up to you and the Zoning Administrator to work around. 1445 MR. FLEVARAKIS: Thank you. 1446 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 1447 1448 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1449 1450 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We have several more items which I 1451 will seek to move through quickly. And so first let's look to the approval 1452 of the minutes and we've got the minutes from May 16, 2013. So I will 1453 speed through this. 1454 (Minutes reviewed among Board members.) 1455 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a motion to approve the minutes of 1456 May 16, 2013? 1457 MR. SZE: Mr. Chair, I vote to approve the minutes. 1458 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Voice vote. 1459 MR. KRASNER: I'll second it. 1460 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Second. 1461 Voice vote. 1462 (Upon voice vote, the minutes of May 16, 2013, were approved.) 1463 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. June 13, 2013, minutes. 1464 (Minutes reviewed among Board members.) 1465 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the 1466 minutes of June 13, 2013? 1467 MR. SZE: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the minutes of June 13, 1468 2013. 1469 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 1470 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 1471 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Voice vote. 1472 (Upon voice vote, the minutes of June 13, 2013, were approved.) 1473 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you, gentlemen. Both sets of minutes 1474 are approved. 1475 1476 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 1477 1478 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any Other Business? 1479 1480 7. OLD BUSINESS: 1481 1482 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any Old Business? 1483 MR. BOYLE: Just to say I don't think we've got an agenda yet for 1484 October. And that's unlikely. There's an application I think is going to 1485 be withdrawn but we'll advise the Board. There are several revisions to 1486 the Zoning Code that Council will ask for comment from this Board. If we 1487 don't meet in October we may have to decide whether to meet just to review 1488 those or if we can do that electronically. That's all staff has. 1489 1490 8. ADJOURNMENT: 1491 1492 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? 1493 MR. KRASNER: So moved. 1494 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 1495 (A chorus of "ayes."), 1496 VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you, gentlemen. Have a good evening. 1497 The meeting of the board of Zoning Appeals is adjourned. 1498 1499 1500