Board of Zoning Appeals

1 REGULAR METING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 300 PARK AVENUE 4 FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22046 5 JULY 17, 2014 6 7:30 P.M. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER 9 10 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'd like to call to order the July 17, 2014, 11 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 12 And ask for a roll call please. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 17 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 19 MR. KRASNER: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 21 (No response.) 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 23 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Howell. 25 MR. HOWELL: Here. 26 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 27 So we have four of our five members here this evening. 28 29 3. PETITIONS 30 31 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are there any petitions that anyone has? 32 33 34 4. NEW BUSINESS 35 a. Variance application V1562-14 by David Smith of 444 Spectrum, 36 LLC, to permit the placement of more than 3 tenant names on the 37 freestanding sign on premises known as 444 West Broad Street, RPC #51-133- 38 100 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned B-1 limited business, 39 said property owned by 444 Spectrum, LLC. 40 41 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Seeing none, we move onto New Business and we 42 will begin with Variance Application V 1562-14 by David Smith of 444 43 Spectrum LLC, to permit the placement of more than three tenant names on 44 the freestanding sign on the premises known as 444 West Broad Street, RPC 45 number 51-133-100 of the Falls Church real property records, zoned B-1, 46 limited business, said property owned by 444 Spectrum LLC. 47 I see you're signing in right there. Thank you for doing that. 48 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. 49 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I just ask that any one who is going to be 50 speaking on this particular matter tonight, please stand and raise your 51 right hand to be sworn in. 52 (Witness sworn.) 53 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. Thank you. 54 Okay. If we could first get a report from staff on this variance MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014  55 application, then we'll turn it over to the applicant. 56 MR. WADE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Zoning 57 Appeals. 58 We have before you tonight the type of application we've seen 59 recently for monument signs, free standing signs, that the Code currently 60 allows for the name of one development and up to three tenants on a free 61 standing sign, which is a little bit restrictive and it's kind of hard to 62 find a building that needs a monument sign that has three tenants or fewer 63 around. 64 The Board's authority to grant a sign variance comes from Section 65 48-1297 (f), and per the Code this item has gone to the Architectural 66 Advisory Board, it went last Wednesday, and you have the minutes from the 67 Architectural Advisory Board and their recommendation. 68 The variance application description does not have an actual number 69 or sign, additional signs that they were requesting. We wanted the number 70 to come out of the discussion with the AAB and so you have that before you 71 in the minutes from the AAB. 72 And with that, I will defer to the applicant. 73 MR. SMITH: Good evening. I'm Carter Smith representing Woodmont 74 Properties. 75 MR. BOYLE: Excuse me. If I could, I think, could the Board offer 76 the applicant the opportunity to continue? 77 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. Thank you for saying that. 78 So we normally have five members. We have tonight four here this 79 evening. You will need three in order for your variance application to be 80 approved. So you have the option of continuing it to next month when we 81 have a full Board or you can go this evening. 82 MR. SMITH: Let's go ahead and continue tonight. 83 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thanks. 84 MR. SMITH: Essentially the current sign, if you look at the second 85 page or the second page on the package that I put together there, we 86 currently have five tenants on there. The property itself we have, 87 currently have nine tenants with one vacant retail space. 88 So we've gotten a lot of -- we've had a lot of questions from the 89 current tenants there about getting additional signage. I know right now 90 we currently have one blade signage available, which again, if you look at 91 the sign as it currently stands it's the residential information center. 92 That was originally the sales office for the condos above the property 93 which is no longer in use. That's now leased to a nail salon. 94 But essentially, you know, if you look at the site plan on the first 95 page, Suite A through F, it's set back about 400 feet from West Broad 96 Street. And right where the legend is on the site plan, we have a common 97 area, outdoor sitting area with a few benches and some vegetation. So due 98 to the setback and the vegetation there, it really hinders the visibility 99 of Suites A through F. 100 Two of those tenants are currently on the sign but we've had -- 101 let's see. We've had Moby Dick in Suite A. They've been asking for 102 additional signage on the pylon sign. 103 We recently signed a lease on Suite B to a Pilates Studio. They 104 again were asking about getting signage, and then also the nail salon, they 105 went in Suite E. They were also asking about additional signage. 106 And then another recent lease that we did was in Suite L and that's 107 Core Power Yoga and I know per their lease agreement, they were supposed to 108 take that last remaining blade on the pylon signage there. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 109 I guess in regards to the four findings here, number one, The strict 110 application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship relating to the 111 property. For those tenants in Suites A through F, not to have signage 112 would really again, hinder their visibility, affect their businesses, and 113 not -- they wouldn't be maximizing the location there. I think if they can 114 get some signage, Route 7 is a very prominent location to be and it would 115 really make a huge difference for them. 116 You know, in regards to the hardship, it's not shared generally by 117 other properties in the same zoning district in the same vicinity. Most of 118 the properties on West Broad Street are not set as far back as this section 119 of the building is. 120 And then, The authorization of the variance will not be a 121 substantial determent for adjacent property, the character of the district 122 will not be changed by the granting of the variance. 123 This sign, it's a custom sign. I personally haven't seen any other 124 signs that look like this in the area here. I think it does -- it adds 125 some character to the building there. It's a fairly new, upscale building 126 and again, it's a modern, custom sign. And it does currently have the room 127 for a few more, a few more blades. If you look at the concept drawing, 128 this is what we came up with after the meeting last Wednesday with the 129 Architectural Board. 130 And in regards to that fourth point there, I didn't completely 131 understand that question. 132 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Are there any questions for either staff 133 or the -- well, first for staff from the Board. 134 MR. KRASNER: Just a couple of questions for staff. 135 First question is, the ordinance currently permits three signs and 136 there is more than that there today. So technically they're in a violation 137 situation? 138 MR. WADE: Yes, technically. I don't think they were aware of it. 139 I think it's been this configuration for some time and it just wasn't 140 noticed. A little bit of testimony to how well the sign blends in at that 141 property. We just didn't notice it but -- 142 MR. KRASNER: Did you have to pull the sign permit to add additional 143 blades? 144 MR. WADE: Well, that's what they were trying to do, to add more 145 additional blades now. And so when it came before us, we realized that 146 they needed a variance for it. 147 MR. KRASNER: Other than the number of tenant names, otherwise it 148 conforms as far as setback area? 149 MR. WADE: Yes. Except for what you see existing now, you see that 150 there is three blades, if you will, on the street side. That bottom one 151 that says Residential Information Center, because it's over a right-of-way, 152 that one's actually within the area that it can't be. 153 So the proposal that's shown that came out of discussion with the 154 AAB has that removed and the clearance there is the minimum clearance that 155 would be required, the ten feet underneath. 156 MR. KRASNER: All right. Thank you. 157 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for staff? 158 Any questions for the applicant? 159 MR. CALABRESE: I have a question. 160 I think you identified some of the criteria in the Code that we have 161 to evaluate in granting a variance. Maybe if you can just describe a 162 little bit more detail of the hardship that would be on the tenants if this MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 163 variance wasn't granted. 164 MR. SMITH: You know, like I said, I think it really does come down 165 to the visibility. And like I said, the vegetation, if you look at the 166 site plan there with the legend, you know, during the springtime and summer 167 it really completely blocks that portion of the building. And there are 168 about, I guess Suite A through F, it's about 400 feet set back off Route 7. 169 So I think, you know, just a matter of being able to find where the 170 tenants are located. I know that would create an issue, people who are 171 looking for the destination tenants, trying to get there. 172 And it would also hinder, you know, hinder their business, you know, 173 in regards to kind of I guess like spontaneous drive-bys. People drive by 174 without noticing. Like I said, you know, we have Moby Dicks, and maybe 175 somebody's hungry and they drive by and they say, oh, there's Moby Dicks, 176 they're in the mood for that. 177 You know, they would miss those opportunities, the spontaneous 178 drive-by opportunities there that a lot of businesses get from being right 179 up on Route 7. 180 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. No further questions. 181 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Anyone else? 182 Go ahead. 183 MR. KRASNER: Just a question for the applicant. 184 Right now I know a lot of those uses over there that don't have 185 signs have sandwich board style signs out. 186 MR. SMITH: Right. 187 MR. KRASNER: If this gets approved, are those going to go away? 188 MR. SMITH: I believe I heard in a meeting last week that if the 189 tenants did not have a blade on the pylon signs there, then they were 190 permitted to have a sandwich board. So for every tenant that we were able 191 to fit on the sign, they would not -- not be putting the sandwich boards 192 out there. We will make that very clear to them. 193 MR. WADE: If I may, the Code actually does specify that sandwich 194 board signs are only permitted for tenants who do not have access to a 195 monument sign. So once they do, then they cannot have a sandwich board 196 sign. So it does clear that up, yes. 197 MR. CALABRESE: I have one additional question. 198 So you'd like to add, more than 3 or more than 4 or 5 there now, do 199 you know exactly how many signs you want to add? Is there going to be a 200 limit to that or are you asking for an open authorization? 201 MR. SMITH: I think originally we were looking to add four 202 additional sign blades on there. Per the discussion last week, you know, 203 we came up with the number of eight additional blades. 204 And to be completely honest with you, I think with the size of the 205 sign and per this rendering, I think eight would really be the maximum that 206 we could get on there without adding some on the, I guess on the right hand 207 side per the concept drawing. 208 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Just to pick up on that, so this shows 209 nine. Am I reading this right? This shows nine. 210 The reason, I'll just tell you why I'm asking my question is as a 211 driver, you know, you come up by the Panera -- 212 MR. SMITH: Right. 213 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: -- go to the stop sign and I think you continue 214 to have signs down this, it would inhibit people from seeing down Route 7 215 and create a dangerous situation. So I think the number that gets set is 216 very important. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 217 MR. SMITH: Right. Did you all have this concept drawing? 218 Yeah, actually that last page there with the kind of the 219 unprofessional looking one, that was what I put together originally last 220 week trying to propose with I guess with the Architectural Board. 221 And then per the concept drawing, Tenants 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 222 that's facing like the back northeast portion of the building, Suites A 223 through F. So that that wouldn't be blocking any visibility from the 224 street or blocking the sidewalk there. 225 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So just to pick up on that, this wouldn't -- this 226 wouldn't be adding, this wouldn't be detracting from the visibility right 227 now at all. 228 MR. SMITH: Right. 229 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So as it currently stands right now. Because 230 tenant 3 and 4 would be above slightly. 231 MR. SMITH: Right. Facing West Broad Street there, pointing towards 232 West Broad Street. 233 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thanks. 234 MR. CALABRESE: Does the Archtectural Board, 235 for staff, do they make consideration for safety? We'd be referring this 236 back to them. We'd be approving this or conditionally approving this, and 237 then the Architectural Board would make a decision on the final design. Do 238 they make a decision considering safety and these types of questions? 239 MR. WADE: They did. Their recommendation to this Board has all 240 that considered in it. And then what you see in that rendering removes 241 that third sign that was out on the street side. That leaves that 242 clearance of ten feet as required by Code and that's the visibility part 243 there for both pedestrians and vehicles. 244 And then the base on the bottom was also a feature that came out of 245 discussion with the AAB, for the rear side, to provide some -- it's an ADA 246 requirement for people with disability issues so they know it's there 247 before they run into it. 248 MR. CALABRESE: So if we were to approve this, we'd be approving it 249 conditionally or conditioned on this design? 250 MR. WADE: Yes, yes. 251 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMSON: Please. 252 MR. HOWELL: One question. On that last point, does this mean that 253 the whole thing is going to be raised and that the two blades that will be 254 on the street side of this sign above the ten feet will be raised even 255 higher on the basis of this base that's put here, or is it going to stay 256 with the same base? 257 MR. SMITH: We're planning on adding the one foot 6 inch base and we 258 don't plan on raising the sign there. We plan on adding the blades on 259 that. 260 MR. HOWELL: The whole thing is going to be one foot 6 higher? 261 MR. SMITH: Well, we would add the base at the very bottom of one 262 foot 6 inch base and then just add the blades on above that base. 263 MR. BOYLE: Would you be putting the base around the existing sign 264 or would you be picking the sign up and putting it on a pedestal, do you 265 know? 266 MR. SMITH: I believe -- I believe we would be just adding the base 267 around the sign as it currently stands. I know when I talked to the sign 268 company -- 269 MR. BOYLE: It's pretty substantially anchored so I don't think the 270 intent would be to elevate it. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 271 MR. SMITH: Right, it took a good amount of work to get the sign in 272 there. It might be the simplest -- 273 MR. BOYLE: You might consider that as a -- 274 MR. SMITH: -- to add the original base around the sign. 275 MR. BOYLE: Yes, probably something like a curve around the existing 276 sign. 277 MR. SMITH: Right. 278 MR. BOYLE: Whatever's decided on, you might consider that as a 279 condition if you move forward. 280 MR. HOWELL: Why is that needed as a condition? 281 MR. BOYLE: If there's something, if there's a concern of this Board 282 not to pick the sign up and make it higher or if that's your intent, that 283 would be a condition that you could set. 284 The one thing staff reviewed and the AAB was concerned with was not 285 to have any blades projecting out over the 286 right-of-way lower than ten feet. So we're comfortable with the height as 287 it is. 288 MR. HOWELL: So without raising this up to the bottom of the second 289 sign pointing towards the street, you want the ten foot clearance, without 290 raising the level of the whole thing at all. 291 MR. SMITH: Correct. 292 MR. KRASNER: Just another question for staff. 293 So the minutes of the AAB where they're referring to the recommended 294 ground treatment to conform, is that what we're talking about now? 295 MR. WADE: Yes. 296 MR. KRASNER: Their recommendation was what we see here today? 297 MR. WADE: Yes. 298 MR. KRASNER: That's their issues, okay. 299 MR. WADE: If I can just clarify on the number of additional signs 300 that's being asked for. 301 The Code allows for the name of the development and up to three 302 tenants, so it would be one plus four. The AAB recommended the additional 303 -- if the variance were granted, it be granted for a maximum of four 304 additional tenants, so four additional blades. 305 And again, the configuration would be two maximum on the street side 306 for the ten foot clearance and then the rest would go on the inside 307 opposite of the street. 308 MR. HOWELL: I'm sorry, just to clarify. So the base shown in this 309 picture here, what you're planning on doing is just extending the existing 310 base inwards as it were so that the apparent end of the sign is -- 311 MR. WADE: Correct. 312 MR. HOWELL: -- is on the sidewalk, which doesn't have an 313 impediment. 314 MR. WADE: Right. 315 MR. HOWELL: I see. 316 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for either the staff or 317 applicant? 318 Any discussion among the Board? 319 Would anyone like to make a motion? 320 MR. KRASNER: I'll make a motion. 321 Before I do, I'll just say that I think that given the 322 configuration, I think this development was designed for the purpose of 323 having the open space integral to the project which put some of the 324 original spaces far back from the street. So I think the applicant's MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 325 request is not unreasonable. 326 And also I think the sign generally is attractive and if it helps to 327 clean up the sandwich boards which populate along that part of Broad 328 Street, in my opinion, I think that's a positive. 329 So I'd be happy to make a motion to recommend to approve the 330 Variance Application V1562-14 to allow four additional tenant signs. And 331 the design of the sign should be consistent with the graphic submitted 332 tonight prepared by Advice Studios dated July 15, 2014. 333 MR. CALABRESE: I'll second. 334 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a roll call vote? 335 Roll call vote please. 336 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 337 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 338 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 339 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 340 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 341 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 342 RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Calabrese. 343 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 344 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 345 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 346 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 347 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Good luck with your new sign and doing your 348 homework. 349 MR. SMITH: I appreciate it. 350 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 351 352 b. Appeal application A1561-14 by Spectrum Development, LLC c/o 353 Richard P. Buskell appealing a determination by the Zoning Administrator 354 that a new permit from the Historial Architectural Review Board (H.A.R.B.) 355 is required to demolish the historic structure on premises known as 920 W. 356 Broad St., RPC #51-202-004 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 357 B-1, limited business, said property owned by Pajelah Nabilah et al. 358 359 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We can move on to the next item of New Business 360 which is appeal application A1561-14 by Spectrum Development LLC, care of 361 Richard P. Buskell appealing a determination by the zoning administrator 362 that a new permit from the Historic Architectural Review Board is required 363 to demolish the historic structure on premises known as 920 West Broad 364 Street, RPC number 51-202-004 of the Falls Church real property records 365 zoned B1, limited business, said property owned by Pajelah Nabilah, et al. 366 I see you guys are signing in there. 367 I'd like to ask anybody's who's going to be speaking on this 368 tonight, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. 369 (Witnesses sworn.) 370 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you very much. 371 I will make the same comment as I did earlier that we have -- we're 372 missing one of our Board members tonight so you do have the opportunity to 373 continue this to next month when we may have a full Board. And I believe 374 we typically don't meet in August. So I'll just ask if you would like to 375 continue to our next meeting or continue on this evening. 376 MR. LASSO: Sure. Go ahead. 377 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Continue on? 378 MR. LASSO: Yes. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 379 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to before we get started on the 380 record I wanted to just disclose that in Fairfax County I'm currently 381 working with the applicant, Mr. Batten and Mr. Buskell, on a matter that's 382 totally unrelated to this project and has no bearing on this project 383 whatsoever and it's my intent to participate. 384 I just wanted to state that on the record that I do know the 385 applicant. Thank you. 386 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you for that. 387 All right. Well, any questions on that from the Board? 388 Seeing none, all right, I guess we'll have a brief comment from 389 staff before we turn it over to the applicants. 390 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 391 Generally with appeals I defer to the application and then respond. 392 However this one's a little unusual in regard to the background of the 393 structure itself and how the Code relates to it. 394 So with that, I think I'll give, in the spirit of kind of capturing 395 the setting of what staff's been engaged in, I'll draw from the memo that 396 the Board received. 397 I presented to the Board tonight my response to the request for 398 determination. You have it in the applicant's -- the appellant's documents 399 but I've pulled it out separately. It's identical to what's in the 400 applicant's package. 401 In April of this year I received a request for determination from 402 David Lasso, the attorney for the potential developers of a project in the 403 City of Falls Church. And you have there specific requests but before I 404 get to that, just some background on the site and this case. 405 920 West Broad Street is listed in the City of Falls Church real 406 property data base as having been constructed in 1903 and as such it's a 407 protected structure, historic structure subject to the provisions of the 408 City's historic and cultural conservation district. 409 In 1991 the owner of the structure at that time applied to the 410 Architectural Review Board which is the predecessor to what we currently 411 have, The Historic Architectural Review Board, as the Code provides, for a 412 permit to demolish the structure. And on May 13, 1992, the ARB approved 413 the application and a demolition permit was issued. 414 The original structure, subsequent to that approval, the original 415 structure was converted from a residential use to a commercial office 416 retail use. It was extensively modified and expanded from the original 417 2000 square feet to the present structure of approximately 5800 square 418 feet. 419 A recent inspection by a civil engineer from Walter Phillips 420 revealed that modifications to the structure include a new foundation, 421 porch, windows, sills, replacement of the original metal roof. Portions of 422 the original structure that remain include two and a half exterior walls, 423 some interior rooms, portions of the stone foundation. 424 During a recent inspection of the structure by City of Falls Church 425 staff, including the building official, the Planning Director, the staff 426 liaison to the HARB, and myself, a mix of old and new elements were also 427 noted. 428 And with that backdrop, a new developer now wishes to remove the 429 structure completely as part of a proposed mixed use development that 430 encompasses the site on which this building's located. 431 So you have this history of previous owner applying for demolition 432 permit according to the Code back in 1991, received that permit, for MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 433 whatever reason did not take the building down but subsequently added to 434 the building, improved it and expanded it, and it's in use to this day. 435 Staff went out and quite honestly we saw a mixture of old and new 436 and there was a lot of discussion about how much of the original structure 437 is left. And probably a fair amount of discussion regarding was the 438 structure actually demolished based on the amount of repairs that were done 439 or is the historic structure still there. 440 Some discussion as part of the -- my process in the determination 441 that I issued to the appellants, there was a lot of discussion about do 442 permits expire. And I consulted with the City Attorney who did quite a bit 443 of work in searching the history of the Codes in Virginia and couldn't come 444 up with any history on the expiration for permits. 445 So there was no -- there was no resource or information there on do 446 permits expire. 447 There was also some discussion about whether, does what the HARB 448 issue or the Board at that time, is what they're issuing a permit or is it 449 permission and is there a distinction there? Did they issue a document 450 that says, you know, take this forward and here's your written permission; 451 or do they simply make a finding where they grant their permission and then 452 subsequently the building official issues the actual document that 453 authorizes the demolition of the building. 454 In my research it was clear to me that the responsibility for 455 determining the necessity for a building permit rests with the building 456 official. The building official advised me that there are no active 457 permits on this site and any demolition would require a new building permit 458 to be issued, to be filed and issued by him. 459 So that's again with the distinction, that's the permit to take the 460 structure down. 461 I'm not aware of any local or state provision that grants the zoning 462 administrator or any staff member the authority to provide a greater period 463 of viability to a permit for a historic property versus a permit for a non- 464 historic property. 465 So one of the questions that came up is are historic structures a 466 special case. Do they, once permission is granted, do they have a special 467 standing in the Code that allows their permits to go on indefinitely. 468 Again, working with the City Attorney, we couldn't find any special 469 distinction that, yes, in general permits have an expiration; however with 470 historic structures, they have an open-ended approval. 471 The reverse is also true. We didn't see that they had any limited 472 period of viability different than a non-historic structure. 473 In talking with the building official, a few points came out. 474 Without the status or any special status given to a historic structure 475 versus -- historic structure's permit versus a non-historic structure, the 476 permit issued in 1992 must be viewed as having been acted on or closed. 477 There is a practice in issuing building permits that if there's a 478 period of inactivity, they're considered abandoned. But even again, even 479 that may be a policy as opposed to a statute. Again, it's unclear. 480 At best, to the extent the 1992 permit conveyed any right to 481 demolish any additional parts of the predecessor structure, that right 482 effectively expired many years ago when the permit itself expired due to 483 inactivity. 484 The fact that the structure was not demolished in its entirety under 485 the 1992 permit does not entitle the current or future owners to additional 486 work or demolition without a new permit. Again, that's citing back to the MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 487 building official who would require this new permit. 488 Extensive remodeling and alterations were done under the '92 permit 489 and work ceased many years ago. Building permits are assumed to have been 490 issued for all of that work over the years but the building official is not 491 required to retain them. So again, a bit of murkiness in the Code. 492 We'll give them the benefit of the doubt that the owner at the time 493 applied for and was approved for building permits and the inspections were 494 done. But there are no permits currently active on the site. 495 During inspections at the site, the new developers, engineer, and 496 city staff both noted that a mix of old and modern features were present. 497 Some of these appeared to predate 1910, which is the date for when 498 structures can be deemed protected under the historic ordinance. While 499 other features are less clear as to the time of -- to the time of 500 construction, but we felt they were clearly done after 1910. 501 And ultimately, staff lacks the expertise, we all felt, to 502 decisively conclude how much of the original structure remains. It was 503 very unclear. 504 Then just to draw up the conclusion, what I based my response to the 505 request for determination, again, they were requesting a response to -- the 506 appellant can draw that out in their presentation -- but they wanted to 507 know were they required to go back for a second permission from the 508 Historic Board to demolish the structure. 509 In my conclusion I found that the authority for requiring a new 510 demolition permit rests with the building official. The building officials 511 determine that there are no active building permits on the subject 512 property. Any new work including demolition requires a new building 513 permit. 514 I cite the Code section itself that requires permits to demolish or 515 modify historic structures: Specifically no structure designated in 516 Section 48-788, paragraph one or two, shall be razed, moved, or altered, 517 without first obtaining a permit from the building inspector which shall be 518 issued only after the approval of the same by the HARB, or on appeal by the 519 City Council after consultation with the HARB. 520 I read that language to mean that a building permit is required for 521 demolition and any such building permit of a historic structure must be 522 given approval by the HARB. 523 Because the building permit issued over 20 years ago for demolition 524 -- for demolition work on the property is no longer active, a new building 525 permit authorizing demolition of the current structure would have to be 526 issued and it cannot be issued until after the HARB has approved it. 527 Since the new building permit is required under the current 528 circumstances, a new HARB approval of that building permit is likewise 529 required. And for those reasons, I found that a new application to the 530 HARB would be necessary to demolish this structure. 531 Having said that, I think you can tell that staff really struggled 532 with what is the Code trying to guide us, what direction is the Code trying 533 to guide us in this question. 534 In my time usually if a piece of Code was not very clear on its face 535 and easy to interpret, you could at least glean some intent from it. In 536 this case we weren't getting a lot of help with what is an intent. 537 For example, does the Code make the case that the HARB did not 538 intend its permit to be immediately acted on; or would the HARB when it 539 originally heard this case, would they -- if it had been presented to them 540 that we don't intend to act on this now but we intend to improve the MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 541 structure and continue it in operation and then at some time in the future 542 demolish it, what would the Board's position been at that time? The Code 543 doesn't help us there. 544 So in making the determination, I will readily admit that it's a 545 fair question exactly what the intent of this Code is. And so my position 546 is that when there's that much doubt on behalf of the experts that we 547 called in, the City Attorney, the third party engineer, the building 548 officials, that it was best to send this back to the Board that issues the 549 original permission and ask them do they feel it was the intent of the Code 550 to allow the building to stand so many years after the original. 551 So that in a nutshell is the position that staff took in the history 552 of this case. And I think with that, we'll defer to the applicant's 553 presentation. 554 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We'll hear from the applicant and then we'll open 555 it up to the Board for questions of either staff or the applicants, so if 556 you could defer those questions until then. 557 And so here we are this evening, if you want to proceed, state your 558 name and go ahead and get started. 559 MR. LASSO: Sure. My name is David Lasso. I'm an attorney with the 560 Venable Law Firm and I represent the contract owner. This is Peter Batten 561 with Spectrum Development as well as the owners of the site. 562 I certainly, I guess I appreciate my friend John's difficulty here 563 but it really isn't very difficult. 564 I have a long history with this ordinance. I was City Attorney when 565 it was drafted. In fact, I'm the author of most of the language in the 566 Code. But I want to just go and be clear about the legal principles that 567 are applicable here. 568 You don't need to go into what the intent might have been or what 569 people might have thought when the language of the law is clear on its 570 face. And so the first rule is to go and to see what does the Code 571 provide. 572 Secondly, this is an issue of what does the historic ordinance 573 provide on its face as a matter of the Zoning Code. And I guess I would 574 disagree with John. This is not an issue for the building code official to 575 decide how the Zoning Code is to be interpreted. The building code 576 official is required and authorized to deal with the Building Code, not the 577 Zoning Code. 578 So whether or not the Zoning Code and the historic ordinance is but 579 one chapter of the Zoning Code, has a time limit on the HARB. permits to 580 demolish a structure, is gleaned simply by looking in the Zoning Code. And 581 if you look in the HCC ordinance, you will not find a expiration dates for 582 the permits issued by the HARB. It isn't there. It doesn't exist. 583 And that's because when the HARB.issues a permit to demolish a 584 structure and the requisite time to appeal expires and the provisions of 585 the Code that you have ten days if you're an aggrieved party to file an 586 appeal, once that time expires, the permit is final and it cannot be 587 changed. 588 Now this would also perhaps be a difficult case if we didn't have 589 some prior history in the City, but we do. And so we have a case, and I 590 have a witness here this evening who will tell you about it, of a very 591 similar situation. In fact, it's an identical situation of a historic 592 property. It's 472 North Washington Street, the old Pearson's Funeral 593 Home, which is the current site of the Northgate property, where it's been 594 developed. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 595 And that was a structure built during or before 1910; hence on the 596 official register when the Code was adopted and subject to its protections. 597 Mr. Baskin who is here will provide testimony that the owner of that 598 property while operating the funeral home sought a demolition permit in 599 1989-1990 in order to future develop the site in the future and have it 600 torn down when the time came and a permit was issued. 601 And by the way, when the HARB. acts, they issue a letter to the 602 owner, it's in your record, telling you when they acted and that's your 603 permit. 604 That permit was issued in 1989. And the funeral home continued to 605 operate for a time and then later, years later when the Northgate property 606 came along, this went through the development process and ultimately 607 approved. 608 The Pearson's Funeral Home was not actually torn down until 2009- 609 2010. And, in fact, Mr. Baskin went to the City, went to the then zoning 610 administrator and later and asked, Do I need to go back to the HARB. and 611 get a second permit for any reason? And the answer was no. And that's 612 really the only answer that there can be. There is no expiration date to 613 an HARB. permit when it's issued. 614 And I suspect that what happened here and what I ask you to think 615 about is, is the predicate for what's been put before you tonight at the 616 very beginning is really wrong. This shouldn't be and it should not have 617 remained on the official register. The official register should be updated 618 whenever these permits are issued. And, in fact, in the case of 472, it 619 was. The house after the permit was issued was updated. The house was 620 taken off the register and there was no protection any longer because the 621 HARB. had acted. 622 What happened here, for reasons that simply aren't known, is that 623 the permit was issued. The house remained on the register and it stayed 624 there. But it doesn't mean that it's actually entitled to a new 625 protection. It simply was there perhaps by clerical error. Maybe they 626 didn't have the processes in effect. 627 And actually in 1993 and '94 is when the ARB was changed to the 628 HARB. and some other procedural mechanisms were changed. So it's entirely 629 possible that at that time they simply didn't take the property off the 630 list. 631 But I want to also make some corrections here in terms of the 632 characterization of this as simply repairs having been made. It wasn't 633 just repairs. 634 There was a house on 920. It was lived in by Mrs. Lillian Henderson 635 for decades. She didn't want her house protected. She didn't prevail. 636 And then when she wanted to sell to developers, she wanted to have a 637 demolition permit so she could convey that to the purchasers. 638 She got the demolition permit. The house wasn't deemed worthy of 639 retention or it was too expensive to do that, and a demolition permit was 640 obtained. She transferred it to the owners who are the current owners. 641 Those owners to their, it turns out, peril, worked with people in the City 642 who said, Can you save some of the house. And they did save some of the 643 house. 644 That "some of the house" amounts to some siding. That's all that's 645 left. The porches that were on that house, we all agree, are gone. All of 646 the porches that you see on that house are brand new, brand new in the 647 sense of roughly in the mid-1990s. New construction. 648 The foundations for the porches are gone. Much of the foundations MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 649 for the house are gone. The windows throughout the house are gone. The 650 trim, the moldings that were around those windows are gone. The metal 651 roof, that was probably the most important characteristic of that house, is 652 gone. That's where it was joined together to the now roughly 5700 square 653 foot commercial structure, three times the size of what it is. 654 So it wasn't just repaired. It was essentially dismantled so that 655 to this day all that's left is some of the original German lap siding, some 656 scale shingles of the one gable end, and probably the front door looks to 657 be original. Otherwise it's all gone. 658 So make no mistake, that structure is gone. It isn't protected. 659 The Code is very clear: There is no expiration date. So when the building 660 official, you know, requires a new demolition permit under the Building 661 Code, one will be provided to him. There has to be one. And when he asks, 662 Is there an existing HARB permit, of course there is. It was issued a long 663 time ago. That's what happened in the case of Pearson's Funeral Home and 664 that's really what should happen here. 665 Another rule that's important to take into account, and it's whether 666 there should be any deference given to the ruling of the zoning 667 administrator and the answer is no. The law does not require any deference 668 to a determination by the zoning administrator unless there's a consistent 669 pattern of the application of the law in case after case that you can rely 670 on. 671 But here, when the zoning administrator himself observes and 672 rightfully so, that he's really not sure how this should go and the City 673 attorney doesn't seem to know how it should go, the acting City attorney, 674 you can't give any deference to that. You have to approach this matter as 675 a new matter, apply the rules of law that are in here and do the best that 676 you can. 677 Another rule of law: Virginia follows what's called the Dillon 678 Rule, meaning local governments only have that authority expressly granted 679 to them by state law or necessarily implied from whatever grant they argue 680 of it. 681 There is a grant of authority in an enabling statute that allows the 682 City to have the historic ordinance. And the historic ordinance is 683 essentially engrafted from that grant. There's nothing in that enabling 684 legislation that says you can take away the demolition permit once it's 685 been issued. There's nothing in the City ordinance that provides for this. 686 It's almost as if this is a Catch-22 here. You work a little bit 687 with some well-meaning citizens who ask the owner to save some of the house 688 and somehow this house got put back on the register. And now, decades 689 later when development is finally coming there and these owners have a 690 chance to make some money, and I think we all admit, you would know, 691 they're going to make some money. They're going to lose that money 692 potentially if you go to the HARB and they should decide now they don't 693 want to issue an HARB demo permit. 694 How unfair could that possibly be? Frankly I think it's a taking of 695 the property to apply the law in such a way. But you only have as a local 696 government the authority given to you by state law. There's no authority 697 for what's taking place here. And part of that rule of law is that these 698 statutes and these ordinances that take away property rights have to be 699 strictly construed against the government. Not the other way around. 700 So strictly construed, you have to look and resolve all favors, all 701 -- I'm sorry, doubts if you will, if you have any, in favor of the land 702 owner. Not in favor of the government. That's how it works. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 703 And so as we go through here, that's what we would submit to you is 704 how this Code should be interpreted. 705 In fact, another example of where an instance came up of whether or 706 not there's a time limit in the Code is the zoning administrator's approach 707 to what he ruled on in a determination that I asked for regarding 311 Grove 708 Avenue. 709 And the issue there was whether an owner years earlier who had got 710 and asked for a demo permit, actually was denied, then appealed to the 711 Council, was denied there, put the house on the market, tried to get 712 somebody to buy it. Nobody would buy it. 713 Years passed. And so he wanted to come in, the new owner who had 714 bought the house, and get a demo permit. And the issue is whether or not 715 that whole process somehow ran out. 716 And here's what the zoning administrator said: Without a specific 717 limitation in the Code, I am aware of no mechanism to rescind the right to 718 demolish once the prerequisite steps have been taken, or to restrict that 719 right to one party and not another, or prevent the right from transferring 720 to a subsequent owner. Therefore, the right to demolish runs with the land 721 for as long as the structure exists. 722 That was a little bit different case but the point's the same: It 723 doesn't go away. And it's a property right that's owned and can't be taken 724 away. 725 So that's the legal argument. If it's okay with you, I'd like to 726 ask Mr. Baskin to come up and provide the evidence relating to 472 or I can 727 address questions, however you'd like to do it. 728 MR. CALABRESE: I have a few questions. 729 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, and we've heard a lot thus far. If we 730 could get maybe some clarifying questions. 731 MR. LASSO: Sure. 732 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And then certainly hear from Mr. Baskin and come 733 back. 734 MR. CALABRESE: I guess the first question of staff or maybe of the 735 petitioner. I saw in the record in 2000, the current owner or some owner 736 of this property, had gone back to the Board asking for permission to make 737 these modifications to the structure. 738 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 739 MR. CALABRESE: So they got a permit. There was this existing 740 permit to raze the property but then they went back and they got a second, 741 subsequent permit. 742 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 743 MR. CALABRESE: So I guess the one question then for you is your 744 comment that because the law does not say there is a termination date, 745 therefore there is no termination date. 746 Let me ask you, I work with many statutes in which certain concepts 747 aren't elaborated, yet it doesn't mean that there are, you know, certain 748 legal principles apply. 749 So, for instance, the concept of laches. In something like this 750 could apply, and we're talking about 12 years, they didn't exercise their 751 rights to execute the permit and, in fact, they went back to the Board, 752 ignoring the fact that they had the ability to raze the property and they 753 said we want to make these following changes, as if the first permit didn't 754 even exist. 755 So I guess the first question for you is how do you reconcile the 756 fact that, yes, the statute doesn't say that MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 757 that's the termination date, but how does that affirmatively say there is 758 no termination date? 759 And especially how do you reconcile that with that basic legal 760 principle of laches, which is you cannot -- rights do not exist in 761 perpetuity. They only exist for 20, 50 years and there are changed 762 circumstances which certainly as that equitable principle establishes, it 763 changes the, as you know. 764 MR. LASSO: Right. But there's no equitable principle involved 765 here. In other words they acquired the right to tear the house down. That 766 right runs with the land and can be transferred from owner to owner. There 767 is no party asserting laches here. That somehow you sat on your rights and 768 you could have gained some advantage. 769 The fact is they have the right. They transferred the right and it 770 had value to them and they kept the right. 771 If you notice in the record, the record reflects that when they went 772 back to -- to make changes later, they did so voluntarily. That's the 773 point. That shows up in the record relating to this house. That when they 774 went back and asked for additional changes to the house, they did so 775 voluntarily. 776 Again, they're trying to just be helpful and yet they're being 777 penalized. Now they want to tear it down and somehow it's back on the 778 register and they can't tear it down. 779 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. And just to clarify, the 311 Grove case, one 780 thing I found in one of the final paragraphs is a limiting condition in 781 which, you are correct to assert that the building administrator or whoever 782 had originally written the decision, said the Code does not place a time 783 limit. 784 However on paragraph 5 he notes that, Notwithstanding the above 785 considerations, it's reasonable to limit this determination to a structure 786 that has not been substantially approved, updated, or altered since the 787 steps found in this section are satisfied. 788 To me that says, is that what he's saying is that yes, there is no 789 limit, however I'm limiting that statement by the fact that the building in 790 this case had been substantially altered, or in a case where a building had 791 been substantially altered, this principle would not apply. 792 How would you address that? 793 MR. LASSO: Well, I think the same thing is true. I don't know why 794 he felt he needed to put that in there. There was no need to put that 795 limitation in there. I think perhaps he felt -- I don't want to opine as 796 to what his feelings were. But it's not necessary to the opinion. 797 The opinion is right when he says it runs with the land. And the 798 fact that somebody may change the property later shouldn't work to their 799 detriment. There's nothing in the law that says that it does. There's 800 nothing in the Code that says that it does. 801 I want to read from or just say that in the record that I found from 802 City Hall indicates that when they -- when the owners went back to work on 803 this building, they did so with, you know, they did it voluntarily. And 804 just to be clear about that. 805 So again, yes, they were asked to work with the City. They did work 806 with the City when they could, and so that seems to be the pattern. 807 MR. CALABRESE: One last question and I'll let others speak. 808 As far as your takings argument, wouldn't you agree that before you 809 could make appropriate takings allegation, there has to be exhaustion of 810 administrative remedies? MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 811 MR. LASSO: That's right, and there hasn't been. There hasn't been. 812 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 813 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are there any other clarifying questions before 814 we hear from Mr. Baskin? 815 Okay. You want to -- did you want to ask Mr. Baskin to come 816 forward. 817 MR. LASSO: Yes. You want to come up. 818 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let the record show he was sworn in earlier with 819 these two gentlemen. 820 You want to sign. 821 MR. BASKIN: Sure. 822 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And state your name. 823 MR. BASKIN: My name is William Baskin, 301 Park Avenue, Falls 824 Church. 825 MR. LASSO: And, Bill, would you please go ahead and just state your 826 relationship and what you did when you worked on the property involving 472 827 North Washington Street. 828 MR. BASKIN: Sure. That property was owned by Steve Wooddell and I 829 guess it's still owned by a trust of his now and has since been leased, a 830 long term lease to Northgate, I think Hekemian Company, which has built the 831 Northgate project. 832 Mr. Wooddell came to me in 1989 about looking into the prospect of 833 securing the right to demolish the funeral home. He didn't have any 834 particular building plans at that time but he was interested I think in 835 moving ahead to at least get that cleared up so it wouldn't, you know, when 836 he did have either a developer or a plan of his own to develop the 837 property, that that wouldn't throw a monkey wrench into the timing. 838 So we proceeded to file an application. The property was on the 839 historic list so we had to go through the application to the Historic 840 Architectural Review Board which might have been Architectural Review Board 841 at that time. 842 We ultimately got the approval sometime in the early 90s. I no 843 longer have the file on that. But then I called Steve just to ask him what 844 he recalled about it and he knew that it had been a long time ago and he 845 remembered that the property remained there for a long time before it was 846 actually demolished. 847 Sometime after the HARB granted its permission, he contacted me, 848 Steve contacted me to find out whether there was any time limit, whether 849 this permission would expire, because he didn't want to, you know, 850 encounter that. And if there was a time limit, he would have proceeded to 851 pull a permit and demolish the building but he didn't feel the need to do 852 that if he was not constrained by having a time that he had to act within. 853 I contacted I believe the zoning administrator at the time and was 854 advised that there was not a time limit. 855 I think the question came up again and I contacted the City 856 attorney. I want to say it was Roy Port but I'm not 100 percent certain. 857 He agreed and assured me that no, there was not time limit that would 858 expire on applying for a permit. 859 In 2004 the Hekemian Company approached Mr. Wooddell about either 860 acquiring the property, I think they may have tried to buy it first but 861 anyway started negotiation on a lease. And at that time Steve filed an 862 application for a demolition permit with the building department and I did 863 have that. It was in a different file that dealt with the Hekemian 864 property. And I've got a building permit application with the City's MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 865 letterhead that was signed by Mr. Bell in September of 2004. And -- 866 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Can be sure to use the microphone. 867 MR. BASKIN: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 868 So he actually filed a regular building permit or demolition permit 869 application with the building department at that time. 870 But of course the approval process was stretched out and then, you 871 know, the recession stretched out the time frame even more and Hekemian got 872 its approval but there was a lapse of time between their approval and when 873 they actually wanted to start building. So the Pearson's Funeral Home 874 building wasn't actually demolished until sometime after 2009. I think it 875 was as late as 2010 or '11 I think. 876 And to my knowledge, well, I know that there was never any 877 reapplication to the HARB or the historical permit and I don't -- I'm not 878 aware of whether or not there was a subsequent demolition form filed with 879 the building department or whether this one was still active, but that's 880 sort of the history of that. It seems like a similar situation to this and 881 so they asked me to come in and express it. 882 MR. LASSO: Did you have a chance to look at the official register 883 for 1997 to determine whether or not 472 was still on the official 884 register? 885 MR. BASKIN: I did. I did -- I think the list or the register is 886 included in the City's 1997 Comp Plan and in the section that deals with 887 historic properties and their preservation, there's a map that shows with 888 numbers where the various historic sites are around the City. 889 And there is a number on the map at the location of Pearson's 890 Funeral Home, number 47, and went to the list and looked down to the number 891 47 on the list. It listed a property on, I think it was 312 Maple Avenue. 892 Sort of confused by that but I looked back and forth several times and came 893 to realize that there was another second number 47 on Maple Avenue 894 presumably which of course corresponded with the historic dwelling at that 895 location. 896 So it appeared that the Pearson's Funeral Home at 472 North 897 Washington site had been removed from the list. It just hadn't been 898 removed from the map. 899 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any questions for Mr. Baskin? 900 MR. KRASNER: The only question I would ask is do you see a 901 distinction between the case that you were involved with where in that case 902 the approval was granted and then basically activity ceased. In this 903 situation, by contrast, approval was made to demolish the structure and in 904 lieu of demolishing the house was altered. 905 Would you draw a distinction, in this case permission was granted, 906 action was taken. In that case, permission granted and action was delayed 907 and eventually taken. Do you draw a distinction? 908 MR. BASKIN: I don't know. I mean, what was the application to make 909 alterations done through the HARB or was that just the building permit was 910 done through the HARB? I don't know why they would do that but -- 911 MR. LASSO: Was asked to do it and as I said the record indicates he 912 did it, the term "voluntarily" is used. So they did it voluntarily. 913 MR. KRASNER: Who asked? I mean, so that's not clear. When they 914 went back to the HARB in 2000, who asked them to go back? Would they only 915 go back if they were required to go back? 916 MR. BOYLE: I wouldn't know. It predates me. But I'd be 917 speculating. 918 MR. KRASNER: Another question for staff. Did the process to be MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 919 decertified off the list, has that changed at all over time? If it had, 920 could you describe and when it changed? 921 MR. BOYLE: Yes. If you'll give me some time, I'll find the Code 922 section. 923 MR. KRASNER: Okay. 924 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Do you have any other questions of Mr. Baskin? 925 Okay. If you can stick around for the remainder of this, in case we 926 do have questions. 927 MR. BASKIN: Yes. 928 MR. HOWELL: Another question. It seems to me that what has 929 happened in this instance where what you describe as the voluntary request 930 to undertake the alterations seems to be the distinguishing factor from the 931 case we just identified. 932 It seems that the work that was done has muddied the waters as to 933 the status of the 1992 grant. And it would be your assertion, would it, if 934 I understand it, that that intervention by the owner, that voluntary 935 intervention, does not disturb the 1992 order. Is that your understanding? 936 MR. LASSO: That's my understanding. And I would say, and Mr. 937 Batten is here to confirm this, the owners who are, you know, they have 938 asserted repeatedly when they transferred, contracted, that this comes with 939 the demolition permit. They have assumed that they have the right to tear 940 this building down any time that they want and it's taken into 941 consideration as part of the purchase price. 942 And so in effort to be good neighbors, if you will, and to work with 943 people in the City, now it means that it goes back on the official 944 register. That's certainly not their understanding. Their understanding 945 is we have the right to tear it down. We've been nice but we want -- we 946 want to see it come down. We don't want to have to go back through the 947 process. 948 Which gets to the last point that I was trying to make, which is: 949 What is it that the HARB is going to review anyway? Whether or not you can 950 tear it down, you know, remove the final pieces of siding? 951 MR. CALABRESE: So I guess I have a question, but observation is, I 952 think there are two issues here. There's this kind of factual finding that 953 I don't think we're qualified to make, that the building has been 954 transformed into something different from what it was. I don't know, there 955 is not enough evidence here and I think there's conflicting determinations. 956 MR. LASSO: It's agreed. 957 MR. CALABRESE: It's agreed. 958 MR. LASSO: It's agreed. 959 MR. CALABRESE: So then there is this legal issue which is also 960 somewhat muddied. 961 Let me ask you, what is the harm or what is the problem with going 962 back to the HARB? 963 MR. LASSO: It is unpredictable. It is expensive. And it is 964 unnecessary. 965 And if, for example, they should say that you can't tear it down, 966 then where are we? Then we have to appeal to the City Council and hope 967 that and maybe they'll reverse it. 968 MR. CALABRESE: What is the status -- so this whole area had been 969 approved for this new development, am I correct? 970 MR. BOYLE: Not approved but a concept has been proposed and it's 971 going through staff reviews and this is one parcel of many that are on that 972 proposed site. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014  973 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, did you find that? 974 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. By Ordinance 13-01, City Council amended the 975 Zoning Code in 48-801 to provide a decertification process for properties 976 listed on the City of Falls Church official register of protected 977 structures. And it goes into pretty good detail, including returning the 978 plaque that was issued for the structure and what have you. 979 So that was done in 2013. 980 MR. KRASNER: That was done in 2013? 981 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. 982 MR. KRASNER: That's the part of the Code that talks about listing 983 it for sale, a period of time, that is where it talks about -- you 984 referenced the situation on 311 Grove. 985 MR. BOYLE: Yes. That's been in the Code, the listing it for sale. 986 It was a little murky on the actual decertification process so this Code 987 section clarified that. 988 MR. LASSO: Decertification, prior to this change there was 989 literally no mechanism to decertify a house. If it was built during -- or 990 a structure. If it was built during or before 1910 and on the register, it 991 stayed. And over time there were houses that had been so completely 992 changed by renovation, that they had no historical significance whatever. 993 But there were also instances where houses were being -- or 994 structures were being destroyed by fire or by other act of God. But when 995 the change to decertify was made, it is restricted to acts of God or fire. 996 So we don't have that mechanism available to us. We can't say that this 997 house, first of all we'd have to admit that it's on the register and we 998 don't. 999 We'd have to say that by some act of God or by a fire it should be 1000 decertified. The mechanism just doesn't apply. 1001 MR. CALABRESE: A question. I'm not unsympathetic to your situation 1002 but I'm having a problem, I would feel move comfortable with a situation 1003 where you've been granted the permission to demolish and nothing happens 1004 for a period of time. For whatever reason, the economy falls, people have 1005 a change of life situations and they don't do it. 1006 The problem I'm having is that the permit was granted in '92 and 1007 then in 2000, is it the same owner or a different owner, applies back to 1008 the HARB. 1009 MR. LASSO: It's the new owner. Mrs. Henderson sold it in 1993 with 1010 a permit to the new owner who thinks he still has the permit. 1011 MR. CALABRESE: But instead he goes back and gets a permit to modify 1012 the house. 1013 MR. LASSO: Voluntarily. He knows he has the right to tear it down. 1014 People ask him to try to save some of the house. He tries. And they ask 1015 him, come and let us give you some professional guidance. And he does and 1016 they do. 1017 MR. CALABRESE: Why didn't he just demolish it and start over? 1018 MR. LASSO: Because they encouraged him to keep the house as best he 1019 could. And frankly, by keeping the house where it was, he got the benefit 1020 of some nonconforming setbacks and some other issues. 1021 MR. CALABRESE: Who's "they"? Who encouraged him not to? 1022 MR. LASSO: I don't know who the people. It's not clear. He hasn't 1023 made it clear to us. The owner hasn't explained it to us. 1024 MR. CALABRESE: Someone in the City? 1025 MR. LASSO: Somebody in the City. Possibly the historic people 1026 involved in saving historic structures, I suspect, but I don't know. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1027 MR. CALABRESE: Because what I'm having a problem with is in effect 1028 there's two permits out there: A permit to raze and a permit to modify. 1029 Which one -- I'm having a problem with it. 1030 MR. LASSO: Which you shouldn't. Because the core question is: 1031 Does the HARB permit that was issued in 1993 have an expiration date? It 1032 doesn't. That's the end of the discussion. Everything that happens after 1033 that point really doesn't matter. 1034 Because the fact is that the owner at the time, Mrs. Henderson, 1035 applied, she got the permit. She transferred the permit to the new owner. 1036 The new owner wants to transfer the permit to the contract purchasers and 1037 it runs with the land. There is nothing in the Zoning Code to indicate 1038 that it comes to an end. 1039 MR. CALABRESE: I agree with what you're saying. I'll let the 1040 gentleman speak. 1041 I'm also just troubled with also this determination or what's in 1042 this ruling in the -- in the September 20 of 2013 letter to you. 1043 MR. LASSO: No, no. 1044 MR. CALABRESE: Yeah. Where a comment is made, number 5, That 1045 notwithstanding that it's reasonable to limit this in cases where there's 1046 been alterations. 1047 So I'm feeling that the City believes that it isn't an 1048 indeterminate -- there is no expiration. That, in fact, if there is a 1049 change, an alteration, that should be a consideration. Again, I'm 1050 struggling with this. 1051 MR. LASSO: I think you can see the internal inconsistency of the 1052 letter. You can't say it's final and it runs with the land and then say, 1053 but I may want to hold this back and say it only applies in limited 1054 circumstances. It doesn't. 1055 Peter. 1056 MR. BATTEN: I was just going to add what the owner told me. It's 1057 not a legal comment. But the owner told me that there was a lot of 1058 dialogue when they were looking at adding to their property, trying to 1059 create some more space than what was there. They felt confident that they 1060 had a permit to demolish this structure. 1061 It's not clear to me what all of the dialogue was about. Mr. Niazi 1062 is -- the family is from Afghanistan and the uncle who was in charge of the 1063 construction, dealt with a lot of dialogue. I think the people he dealt 1064 with mainly in the City are no longer here and the uncle is in Afghanistan 1065 and I've asked the family if they can reach him and there could be some 1066 recollection as to what that dialogue is about. 1067 And they've been unsuccessful in tracking him down and trying to 1068 understand what he recalled then. 1069 But they made it clear to me that they thought that when they made 1070 the decision to -- to I guess go in some form forward with development on 1071 the property because of what that dialogue was, that they were never giving 1072 up their rights to ultimately take the structure down as the permit 1073 provided them. 1074 If they knew that, they would not have done that. They would have 1075 looked to sell the property with the demolition permit in place and they 1076 would have done -- and as a developer I know they would have been more 1077 successful financially with the property than if they are in a situation 1078 like this. 1079 Because if they're in a situation like this where that structure, 1080 what's left of it, does not permit anybody to do anything with the MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1081 property, they're going to lose substantial value in the property over what 1082 they had invested in the property. I don't recall exactly what they paid 1083 for it. 1084 But there is definitely a serious deprivation in value to them if 1085 they can't move forward with what they thought they had. 1086 MR. KRASNER: To raise a point, just reading through the October of 1087 2000 memo from the Historical Architectural Review Board, and it's 1088 interesting to me and I want to raise it for discussion because internally 1089 there's some inconsistencies in here but there's mentioning points. 1090 It acknowledges the 1992 permit being issued for demolition but it 1091 then talks about in between 1992 and 2000, in 1996, it mentions, as you 1092 said, they voluntarily sought a review of renovation plans in 1996. 1093 Then what seems to happen is, this memo then is four years later in 1094 2000, and they're continuing to make additional changes and the building 1095 inspector issues a stop work order and says you're changing the historic 1096 roofing materials, permission to stop work order, go back to the HARB. 1097 If they'd already had a valid permit to raze the house in 1992, why 1098 in 2000 are they then being issued a stop work order by the building 1099 official, building inspector at that time, which in case they didn't go 1100 back and get permission to approve their alteration? 1101 Again, it's internally inconsistent, because if they were 1102 voluntarily seeking review of the plans in '96, why in 2000 is it no longer 1103 voluntary, now they have an official stop work order? 1104 So I'm not sure what happened between during that period of time 1105 when that order was issued, whether it was issued correctly or not. I 1106 can't say. I don't know the details behind it. But it raises an issue, 1107 that at least in 2000, it was the opinion of the building official that 1108 they were not entitled to launch construction, am I right? 1109 MR. LASSO: No. I mean they issued a stop work order and they then 1110 subsequently allowed them to take the roof off. 1111 MR. KRASNER: Yeah, because they went back to the HARB. 1112 MR. LASSO: And they say in there voluntarily. I mean, these are 1113 not sophisticated people, the owners. 1114 MR. KRASNER: That's besides the point. 1115 MR. LASSO: I guess my point is that's why I say the City has 1116 treated these people shabbily. I'll be blunt. They treated them shabbily. 1117 They issued a demolition permit to allow them to tear their building down. 1118 It's a right that they have. 1119 There was no appeal. It belongs to them. They should be allowed to 1120 tear this house down. 1121 They tried to work with people who for, let's just assume the best 1122 of intentions, please save the house. Please save the roof. Please do 1123 this. Please do that. They did the best they can, as they've told us. 1124 Frankly, probably taken advantage of. 1125 And now their ship has come in and they have to go back all over 1126 again as if nothing ever happened. It isn't legal, and it isn't right to 1127 treat them this way. 1128 They got that permit. The same thing happened on 472. That sat 1129 around for 20 years and the owner was allowed to come in and then tear it 1130 down, after repeatedly asking does it expire. No, it doesn't expire. It 1131 runs with the land. And he tore it down. 1132 I'm just -- and as I said, when you look at the determination letter 1133 here that John struggled with so hard to come up with an answer, the 1134 questions that you're asking really aren't what his determination letter is MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1135 all about. It's about the Building Code. The Building Code official got 1136 nothing to do with this. It's a zoning question. 1137 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any final questions? 1138 MR. HOWELL: Yeah, can I just seek a little bit of clarification 1139 whether from staff or from you about why the issue is on the table. 1140 I mean, let's just speculate. They knock it down tomorrow. Where 1141 do we all stand then? What's stopping them doing that on the basis of the 1142 1992 authorization? 1143 MR. BOYLE: I think everyone agrees that they would apply for a 1144 building permit to demolish from the building official. I don't think 1145 that's in dispute. The question is what would happen after that. Would 1146 they have to take that permit back to the HARB for their concurrence or -- 1147 MR. HOWELL: But they would say that they've gotten the HARB 1148 concurrence from 1992 and their assertion would be that nothing has 1149 happened to change that. 1150 In your review letter, the one about Grove, paragraphs 3, paragraphs 1151 5, how does that sort of play with what you're saying really is it runs 1152 with the land forever. However it could be substantial altercations. It 1153 might be to go back again for further consideration. 1154 I'm a little unclear from those two things, work and sort of related 1155 to that. Is the concern that whether the HARB authorization of '92, 1156 whether anything has happened to disturb that in these sequence of events. 1157 Now I take your point that there may be people who may be trying to 1158 sort of get the thing right and have activated various apparently 1159 conflicting processes which is giving us this issue tonight. And I'm just 1160 concerned with how we move through to find the most satisfactory 1161 conclusion. 1162 And I suppose, is there anybody who doesn't think they ought to go 1163 ahead on the basis of the 1992 authorization, make the necessary 1164 submissions to proceed with the demolition, or is that -- 1165 MR. BOYLE: I should clarify. They would make application for a 1166 demolition permit and staff would send that, decide that such permit needs 1167 to be approved by the HARB at that time. So it wouldn't actually be 1168 issued. You're asking could they go out tomorrow and demolish. They'd 1169 make application for a demolition permit and I'd envision staff would say 1170 that a demolition permit on that structure has to go back to the HARB. So 1171 they wouldn't have a permit to demolish. 1172 MR. HOWELL: So zoning staff would do that. 1173 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. We'd hold that and that gets back to the issue we 1174 have before us. 1175 So they'd apply for a permit but it wouldn't be issued. They 1176 probably came to that conclusion which is why they appealed. So cut to the 1177 chase. 1178 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So again, Mr. Boyle, it seems you've sort 1179 of expressed to us you were struggling with this and in effect turned it to 1180 the Board of Zoning Appeals to weigh in and make a determination based on 1181 the appeal. 1182 And I mean, I guess what I'm hearing is it's kind of boiled down to 1183 they applied for a permit to demolish it and now they are trying to finish 1184 what they previously started. 1185 Is that kind pretty much what you're saying in fact? 1186 MR. LASSO: That's it. 1187 MR. BATTEN: Yes. 1188 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. All right. Are there any other questions MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1189 for applicant or for staff? For Mr. Baskin? 1190 Okay. Well, we'll close it -- any closing comments? 1191 MR. LASSO: No. Just to thank you. 1192 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And we have no -- anyone's going to speak on it 1193 this, if anybody else wants to speak on this from the public? 1194 Okay. We'll close it to any comments. 1195 And I guess I'll turn to the Board and see if there is any 1196 discussion amongst the Board. 1197 MR. HOWELL: If I might make an opening comment. It seems to me 1198 that the legal position is unclear and there are different views are out 1199 there and taken from different time as to what the interpretation ought to 1200 be and what happens. 1201 And it seems to me that nobody is saying, from staff for instance, 1202 that this is a firm determination. There seems to be enough variables to 1203 make it difficult for us to think that the 1992 authorization is 1204 overwritten. Nobody seems to say it's definitely overwritten. 1205 And so I would find myself inclining to the view that we need to 1206 respect it. The reservation that I have is the one, you know, in paragraph 1207 5, as to whether the substantial alteration has actually changed the status 1208 of that 1992 determination. 1209 MR. CALABRESE: I guess I would just comment again, I'm not 1210 unsympathetic to the situation that the appellant is facing. I feel that 1211 the law is unclear and I am troubled by the paragraph 5. 1212 I also believe that if we were to deny this appeal, they're not 1213 certainly denying anyone rights, that this of course will go back to the 1214 HARB. I think the appellant has a very strong case. If they go back and 1215 they would assert that, you made this decision before, for a variety of 1216 reasons changes were made and you should do the same now. 1217 So I feel that the appellant would have a very strong argument. Of 1218 course that is additional money and it's time and just more bureaucracy. 1219 So I feel though that if we were to make that decision, it would not 1220 be -- it may be delaying the inevitable result which is that this property 1221 will be demolished and/or sold. 1222 MR. KRASNER: I guess I would just comment here that certainly the 1223 record here is murky at best. I mean we have a lot of facts but there are 1224 some gaps in the history. It's difficult. I mean I guess I would say 1225 clearly in 1992 the City decided, the powers that be at that time, that it 1226 was okay to demolish this house. 1227 In the interim, changes have been made but those changes have only 1228 probably reduced the historic value of the house, although I don't think 1229 we're here to determine that. None of us here are historic preservation 1230 experts. And to be frank, the BZA probably has dominion to have that 1231 discussion but I don't think that's what's being asked. 1232 I feel that it was okay to demolish it in '92. It's not clear it 1233 was ever taken away, despite the fact that they went back several times for 1234 advice on alterations and received additional approvals from the HARB. 1235 It's not clear to me whether that was required or they did it voluntarily. 1236 There seems to be evidence on both sides of that. 1237 But I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Howell, that the City determined 1238 it was okay to demolish it then, we weren't presented with evidence that 1239 shows it's still not okay to demolish it now. 1240 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I have nothing to add to what's been said. 1241 So I guess I would see if there is anybody who would be calling for 1242 a motion on this application. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1243 MR. KRASNER: I'll make a motion that we -- we are sustaining the 1244 appeal, correct? We are sustaining -- I make a motion to sustain and 1245 uphold the Appeal Application A1561-14, by Spectrum Development LLC, to 1246 appeal the zoning administrator's determination that a new permit from the 1247 HARB is required to demolish the historic structure known as 920 West Broad 1248 Street. 1249 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Before I ask for a second, this is essentially 1250 saying that they can proceed to demolish the structure. 1251 MR. KRASNER: Correct. 1252 MR. HOWELL: I'd second. 1253 MR. BOYLE: With a little clarification, that they could apply for 1254 the permit and staff would not be obligated to send it to the HARB before 1255 issuing the permit. 1256 I don't think the motion needs to be changed but your understanding 1257 what the motion would bring should be clarified. 1258 Right now as it stands, staff would be obligated to send a permit 1259 application to demolish. We'd be obligated to send it to the HARB. They 1260 couldn't with your finding go out tomorrow and demolish the structure. 1261 They'd still have to pull a permit. 1262 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I guess I'm proceeding to the event. Yes, thank 1263 you for that clarification. I think throughout this dialogue that's what 1264 we've been working, trying to understand but you're right. That is 1265 essentially saying that would not have to occur, the permit doesn't have to 1266 be -- 1267 MR. BOYLE: Reviewed by the HARB. 1268 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Reviewed. Thank you. 1269 Okay. Roll call vote please. 1270 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1271 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1272 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1273 MR. CALABRESE: No. 1274 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1275 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1276 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 1277 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 1278 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. I thank everybody for their contributions 1279 to this particular application. I wish the applicants well. 1280 MR. LASSO: Thank you very much. 1281 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And thank everybody for their time. 1282 MR. LASSO: Thank you all. Appreciate it very much. Thank you, 1283 John. 1284 1285 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We have a couple more items of business and we do 1286 have two items listed as other business. And I wanted to ask, let me 1287 before we proceed to minutes, just ask if anybody wants to consider whether 1288 we cover items 6 a and 6 b, which are really requests for the Board to 1289 comment, to defer those to another meeting. 1290 Before I ask if we want to do that, I have to ask staff is there any 1291 time limitation on us that should require us to do that this evening. 1292 MR. WADE: No. The purpose of placing these two items on the 1293 agenda, it's a Code requirement. Once the City Council sends these items 1294 out for comment from Boards and Commissions, they do have to be placed on 1295 the agenda. It's not required to actually comment but if you'd like to, we 1296 certainly welcome your input on it. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1297 We had mentioned the downtown area, downtown Falls Church Small 1298 Area Plan at the last meeting but we had not officially placed it on the 1299 agenda so that takes care of that requirement. 1300 In the meantime, the 366 North Washington referral went out from the 1301 City Council. That, they are looking for, if you'd like to comment there 1302 is an August 15th deadline for comments on that. 1303 But again, it's not required. It doesn't have to be done tonight. 1304 It just needed to be placed on the agenda as an item of business for the 1305 record. 1306 MR. KRASNER: I would just note that as far as 6 a, the City Council 1307 -- I'm sorry, the downtown Falls Church Plan, even if we wanted to comment, 1308 I think it might be too late. The City Council adopted that at their June 1309 meeting. 1310 So that has gotten the blessing of the City Council, correct? 1311 MR. WADE: Correct, but it's going to be a working document so any 1312 of the comments made by Boards and Commissions will be added as an appendix 1313 to the end. So your comments will still count for the record. 1314 MR. KRASNER: The plan needs to live on. But as far as leading up 1315 to their formal adoption of that new plan. 1316 MR. WADE: Correct. 1317 MR. KRASNER: But I believe the other one which, for the edification 1318 of my colleagues I'm familiar with that proposal. I think it's B, it's the 1319 City-owned property that is right next to the assisted living facility and 1320 it's a vacant house that's owned by the City. I think they're looking to 1321 use for either a group home for developmentally disabled people or 1322 handicapped people and they're looking for somebody to renovate it or build 1323 a new structure there and use it for that purpose I believe. 1324 MR. WADE: I may not have sent out the proper information in the 1325 packets last week so I apologize if I didn't. I can forward it tomorrow. 1326 MR. KRASNER: That is the background. I found it online, but for 1327 others who haven't seen it. 1328 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think it's important that we do take the 1329 opportunity to comment on these or at least to defer these issues. So 1330 let's just stick with the agenda as we got it now. And then we need to get 1331 to these minutes and we can get to these items and also continue the 1332 discussion to another date. 1333 1334 1335 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1336 Discussion of minutes from the April 17, 2014 BZA 1337 1338 CHAIR WILILAMSON: So let's just quickly turn to the minutes if we 1339 could. We have the minutes from April 17, 2014. 1340 (Discussion of the minutes.) 1341 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Seeing no changes, is there a motion to approve? 1342 MR. HOWELL: I move. 1343 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 1344 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 1345 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All in favor? 1346 (Voice vote.) 1347 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So the minutes are now approved. 1348 1349 1350 6 OTHER BUSINESS: MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1351 a. Referral from City Council of the Downtown Falls Church POA 1352 Small Area Plan to boards and commissions for review and comments 1353 1354 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let's continue on. Item 6 A. You want to take a 1355 few minutes to discuss this. I did have a chance to look at it. 1356 Any comments from my fellow Board members? 1357 MR. KRASNER: I reviewed it briefly. I think overall I think the 1358 plan is a good plan. It's looking to, as opposed to I think previous 1359 iterations of a downtown plan that looked at wholesale redevelopment of 1360 large parcels, this is looking at more of a targeted strategy of sort of 1361 infill mixed with redevelopment projects. 1362 It seems to be -- I know it's been well received by the public and 1363 others in the Planning Commission. So, overall I agree with what's been 1364 said by other groups in the City that it's a positive step in the right 1365 direction for downtown. 1366 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And I would agree with that. I think it's a 1367 thoughtful use of the space. I think some creative -- creative design 1368 ideas to address things like parking, parking challenges that we've had 1369 historically in the City. 1370 So I concur with what you said and I think it's a good plan and 1371 don't have any further comment on it. 1372 MR. HOWELL: Nothing further. 1373 1374 b. Referral from City Council to boards and commissions for comment 1375 regarding the proposed issuance of a Request for Proposals to develop the 1376 city-owned property at 366 North Washington St. (Miller House) 1377 1378 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Item 6 B, which is the referral from City 1379 Council regarding what you heard earlier, the proposed RFP for 366 North 1380 Washington Street, the Miller House. 1381 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask what that is. 1382 MR. WADE: I apologize for not sending the information. The 1383 existing property, it's a house that's not been occupied for I believe the 1384 last six years. It was previously used as a group home for physically 1385 challenged residents. 1386 MR. CALABRESE: Where is it? 1387 MR. WADE: It's actually the little house that's right in front of 1388 Sunrise Retirement Community there. 1389 And it's interesting in looking at the plat that we have online or 1390 in our files for that 366 North Washington, it shows the lot continuing 1391 clear back onto Sunrise Property. But that's been changed. So the 1392 property, and I'll send you the updated or a plat showing the change. It's 1393 a much smaller piece of land they're working with now. 1394 But it possibly could be used for redevelopment in conjunction with 1395 the Sunrise site because the Sunrise site has good access for ambulances 1396 and emergency vehicles and such. 1397 Again, I apologize. I'll send out the report and the background 1398 information on it tomorrow. The comments aren't due until August 15th so 1399 they can be collected electronically and we can put them on record. 1400 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. We'll look for that and 1401 provide any comments via e-mail. 1402 MR. BOYLE: If you'd like, if the Board agrees, staff could draft 1403 maybe a brief paragraph for the first item, 6 a, and through an e-mail that 1404 we intend this language to be attached to that plan and then you have a MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 1405 discussion. Kind of in the spirit of proposing a resolution for the Board. 1406 Go ahead and we'll draft some language for your consideration and send that 1407 out and then if you agree, we'll attach that to the process then. 1408 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah. Offered and accepted. 1409 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 1410 1411 7. OLD BUSINESS 1412 1413 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And just before we start to wrap up here, I will 1414 just say, Old Business, I will mention that I have received the information 1415 from staff regarding the information needed for the report to Council and 1416 we'll be getting that done shortly and circulating it to you all for review 1417 prior to working with staff and getting it submitted to Council. 1418 Thank you for that. 1419 Okay. Any other Old Business? 1420 1421 8. ADJOURNMENT 1422 1423 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a motion to adjourn? 1424 MR. KRASNER: So moved. 1425 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 1426 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. This meeting is adjourned. 1427 1428 MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 11, 2014