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 October 16, 2014 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER 9 10 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'd like to call to order the meeting of the 11 Board of Zoning Appeals for October 16, 2014. 12 13 2. ROLL CALL: 14 15 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call please. 16 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 18 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 20 MR. KRASNER: Here. 21 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. 22 (No response.) 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 24 (No response.) 25 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Howell. 26 MR. HOWELL: Here. 27 28 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Before we get started, let me just tell 29 everybody, you can see we've got three members of the Board here tonight. 30 Normally we have a more full Board but we have folks who are unable to 31 attend. 32 So in order for your variance application to proceed or to be 33 passed, you need at least three people. So you need to have all three of 34 us approve the variance application. Because of that, you can actually 35 elect to defer until next month when we hope to have more of a full Board, 36 or you can decide to proceed tonight. 37 So I guess while we're getting started here, you all can think about 38 if that's something you want to do. But anyway, that's the approach. 39 One thing I will note is that even during the review of the variance 40 application, if before we make a motion, if you would like to chose to 41 defer until next month, you can as well. 42 43 3. PETITIONS 44 45 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So with that, let me see, next item on the agenda 46 is Petitions. 47 Are there any Petitions from the public? 48 MR. WADE: None from staff, sir. 49 50 4. NEW BUSINESS 51 52 a. Variance application V1565-14 by Roberta Mahoney and 53 David E. McCloud, to allow the rebuilding and alteration of an existing, 54 non-conforming garage in a required front yard setback (double-frontage MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014  55 lot) on premises known as 824 Villa Ridge Road, RPC #53-210-036 of the 56 Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R1-A low-density residential, 57 said property owned by Roberta Mahoney and David McCloud. 58 59 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Seeing none, let's move on to New 60 Business. 61 The first item is a variance application, V1565-14 by Roberta 62 Mahoney and David E. McCloud, to allow the rebuilding and alteration of an 63 existing non-conforming garage in a required front yard setback, on the 64 premises known as 824 Villa Ridge Road, RPC number 53-210-036 of the Falls 65 Church Real Property Records zoned R1-A, low density residential; said 66 property owned by Roberta Mahoney and David McCloud. 67 Actually for all of you, anyone who's intending to speak publicly 68 tonight, if you could stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. 69 (Witnesses sworn.) 70 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So why don't we start out here and first get a 71 report from staff and then we'll turn it over to the applicants. 72 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 73 The applicants came to our office some time ago and expressed an 74 interest in rebuilding, maybe repositioning on the lot an existing garage 75 that was in need of repair and were hoping to expand it somewhat. 76 And after some review, we determined that this was one of our 77 unusual lots we have in town in that it's a double frontage and there may 78 be more but in my experience I've come across three of these through the 79 permitting process. 80 And what that means is that the Code defines both of the street 81 frontages as a front yard and there is no rear yard on this property. So 82 the impacts for the use of the land are that accessory structures like a 83 garage are not permitted to be in the front yard; on this property that's 84 the first 30 feet off of both of the street frontages. 85 And in your information packet there is a plat of the property that 86 shows both the existing garage and what the applicants hope to build. 87 In a case where the existing structure is non-conforming, which this 88 one is, the existing garage, staff would not have the authority to permit 89 it to be taken down and then be rebuilt right back in place. It has to 90 conform to the Code. 91 So what the applicants were given the choice of doing is 92 reconstructing to meet the Code or come in for a variance to assist with 93 the positioning of it. And they'll make their case for the exact final 94 location where the building needs to go, but that's the background on the 95 nature of this lot and why the original structure could not be built 96 exactly where it is in place. 97 And with that, I'll defer to the applicant's presentation. 98 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Just before you get started, are there any 99 clarifying questions from staff or should we just proceed with the 100 applicants? 101 MR. KRASNER: I have a couple of questions for staff. 102 Mr. Boyle, the date that this garage, the Code defined as a legally 103 nonconforming structure at this point. 104 MR. BOYLE: The existing garage, yes. 105 MR. KRASNER: Legally non-conforming structure. And what is the age 106 of the house? When was this property built? 107 MS. MAHONEY: 1952. 108 MR. KRASNER: That's it for now. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 109 MR. HOWELL: Just to understand what's on the plan here which I'm 110 sure we'll get to in a minute, as I understand the second -- there is a 111 first page which says garage. There is nothing there yet but that's where 112 it would need to be if it were to be in compliance. 113 On the second page there is an outline dotted blue square of similar 114 size which presumably is the rebuilding we're now talking about. 115 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'll tell you what. If we could, why don't we 116 let the applicants proceed. If you could cover that please, we'd 117 appreciate it. 118 MS. MAHONEY: Okay. Thanks very much. 119 Well, David and I have lived in the City for over ten years now. We 120 did some renovation to the house. It was a small house built in 1952. 121 There had been a prior addition to it that was termite-infested. We 122 cleaned that up and we did some rebuilding. 123 Now we'd like to look at the garage which is not in good shape 124 either. And when we approached one architect about rebuilding the garage, 125 he told us it would have to conform, as Mr. Boyle just said, to the double 126 setback, and he indicated on that first plat where a by-right location of 127 the garage would be located. 128 You can see on that plat as well where the existing garage is. The 129 second page demonstrates where we would prefer to rebuild the garage in 130 essentially the same place but a little bit wider. 131 Now most of the page that we wrote here talks about why the by-right 132 location is not a desirable location. One, it would eliminate our use of 133 our lot by almost 25 percent -- 26 plus percent of our land would not be 134 able to be used by us. And that's an issue given the topography of the 135 lot. It rises, the highest point is in the back by Roosevelt Road. It 136 falls down towards Villa Ridge and it tapers off to the west where our 137 neighbors, the Huffmans live. 138 So if we were to rebuild the garage in the by-right location, it 139 would be very close to the house. It would disrupt the drainage on the 140 lot. It would block light to our house as well as to our neighbors, the 141 Huffmans, and we have a testimonial letter signed by the Huffmans in here. 142 And it would require the removal of a significant number of the 143 seven 110 foot tall tulip poplars we have in the back yard, as well as some 144 other desirable species of trees. There is a Carolina twin bell, some 145 kalmia. There is indigenous, deciduous azaleas. It's not a pretty yard 146 right now but there are some nice plants in the yard. 147 So we think that given the tree cover, given the slope of the land, 148 given the impact that the by-right location would have on our house and on 149 our neighbor's house, that really the most reasonable thing to do was to 150 come talk to the City to appeal to the Board of -- to you all, yes, the 151 Zoning Appeals Board, and to seek permission, a variance, to rebuild the 152 garage a little bit wider, because garages in 1952 weren't very big, 153 weren't very wide. But work with an architect, work with the builder to 154 reposition that so we have safer egress, better visibility, and a 155 structurally sound garage that does minimal impact, minimal adverse impact 156 on our lot, our house, and our neighbors, the Huffmans. 157 MR. MC CLOUD: What I would add is that the Huffmans are the other 158 property owners most affected because it borders their property. 159 MS. MAHONEY: On that side of our yard. 160 MR. MC CLOUD: Across the street is the cemetery, Falls Church 161 Cemetery. So, you know, there is not -- it won't be disruptive to any 162 living residents in the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 163 And the street is not commercial but there's no other houses 164 certainly in that block that exit from their property. The only other ones 165 I think are all the way down on Sycamore, where North Roosevelt and 166 Sycamore come together, right at the corner where the Oakwood Apartment 167 building is. 168 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. You want to pick up on your question. I 169 think I can probably benefit from the answer. 170 MR. HOWELL: I just want to make sure I'm reading the plan properly. 171 You're now proposing that the blue square with dotted lines, it says 172 rebuilding in same location. 173 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. 174 MR. HOWELL: And the square represents what you would be proposing 175 to build. 176 MS. MAHONEY: Exactly. 177 MR. HOWELL: And that would bring you within about 7 feet of the 178 edge of the property, 7 or 8 feet, the current distance of 11 foot, 7 179 inches. 180 MS. MAHONEY: That's right. I went out with a tape measure and I 181 guessed at where the actual border of the property was and I tried to do a 182 little diagonal line the way that there is a diagonal line there now. But 183 we've worked with, you know, property surveyors, to make sure. 184 MR. HOWELL: Related question is, one, I know it's a very steep sort 185 of lot but being that much nearer the road, whether that has implications 186 for two things. First is the grading down into the garage and how that 187 would work out. And then secondly, it's a double garage. It seems to be - 188 - are you proposing to broaden the driveway as well in front of the part 189 that abuts Roosevelt Street? 190 MS. MAHONEY: Yes, yes. I think we would and again, we would work 191 with an architect to do this. But I think that you're right on both 192 fronts, that there is a gradation from Roosevelt down to the garage and so 193 we would have to work with the person to see where that top left corner of 194 the garage would best be located. 195 And there may be an issue there about exactly what the shape of that 196 corner could be and exactly where it needs to be positioned. 197 The other thing is yes, the current driveway would have to be 198 widened. We were thinking of a permeable surface so that there would not 199 be additional runoff coming from that. And we were thinking that, in fact, 200 a widening of the driveway there would allow safer egress from the garage. 201 Because right now when we try to use the garage, we have to pull up. 202 We have to watch, we have to make sure there is no traffic coming. We have 203 to pull across both lanes of Roosevelt, and then back down and into the 204 garage. And if we have a slightly wider driveway there, we think that 205 entry and egress from the garage will, in fact, be safer. And it would be 206 more visible to drivers on Roosevelt. 207 MR. BOYLE: If it would help the Board, the plat is a little 208 misleading how engineers report out their data. 209 The property line in this case falls quite a bit short of the actual 210 right-of-way of the street rather. If I can call your attention to the 211 picture, second page. It's a little tough to see in the overhead but if 212 you look at the cross street on the other side of Villa Ridge, you see the 213 curb is a little more visible and you see the gap between the curb and the 214 orange property lines. That's actually present on the applicant's side of 215 the street also. 216 So when the plat indicates 11.7 feet of the existing garage, that's MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 217 from their property line. There is another good 5 to 6 feet to the curb of 218 City right-of-way. And you can kind of see that in one of the pictures 219 they've provided as well, where you see the apron of the driveway. That's 220 much further off the curb than it would indicate from the plat. 221 MS. MAHONEY: That's right. When I took that photo, I wasn't 222 standing on the road. I was still standing on the driveway area. So the 223 curb was out a bit. 224 And you're absolutely right, there is a distance between our 225 property line which is down by this large tree and the street. I think 226 it's more than 5 or 6 feet but it's a significant distance. 227 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Before you continue with your questions, just 228 make sure I understand that. So you said a good 5 feet, which I'm 229 interpreting is at least 5 feet. 230 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 231 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So then the 7 feet that was mentioned earlier 232 would be 7 feet to the property line, approximately 12 feet to the road? 233 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 234 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thanks. 235 MR. BOYLE: And as part of your deliberation, it may be helpful to 236 note that if this weren't a double frontage lot, a typical setback for a 237 garage is 3 feet off the property line. 238 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any more questions? 239 MR. KRASNER: I have another question, Mr. Boyle, and questions for 240 the applicant. 241 The reason I asked you whether or not it was a legally nonconforming 242 use, under the Code, these applicants have every right to prepare or 243 continue it as it is. So if they wanted to completely rebuild it 244 essentially or close to completely rebuild it, what I want to know is how 245 much could they do legally today to fix the garage? There's some garages 246 that need to be repaired. As a legally nonconforming right, don't they 247 have a right to continue it as it is in perpetuity as long as it's not 248 destroyed more than 75 percent by storm? 249 MR. BOYLE: Exactly. It could be continued as is and would be 250 allowed to be repaired. I think it would be fairly easy to reach the 251 demolition threshold of the structure. But you're right, it could be 252 repaired in place indefinitely. 253 MR. KRASNER: Couple questions that I have. You mentioned trees and 254 when I drove by, and there is a very large tree right next to the garage 255 today. 256 MS. MAHONEY: That's right. 257 MR. KRASNER: So your proposal would probably take down that tree. 258 MS. MAHONEY: Our proposal would likely take down that tree. It's a 259 triple leader tulip poplar which is not a strong design, we've learned. We 260 had another double leader tulip poplar on our property which we had to 261 remove. In part because we found that one of the leaders we found was 262 rotted inside. This tree is a triple leader, so three big trunks coming 263 out of the base, and it overhangs electrical wires. And so, in fact, I 264 think that somebody who owns and manages those wires should be worried 265 about that tree. 266 But you're right, and I do worry about losing that tree. I would 267 plant other trees. 268 ` MR. KRASNER: Is that the only tree that would be affected by this 269 larger garage? 270 MS. MAHONEY: There's a little trash tree right next to the garage. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 271 I don't know if you can see it in the photo that I have there. Oh, yeah, 272 you can see, but it's a much smaller tree. It's not a desirable tree. 273 There is a little one right there. We would try to have minimal impact on 274 the trees. 275 MR. KRASNER: So today this garage, it's a one car garage? 276 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. 277 MR. KRASNER: You're proposing a two car garage? 278 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. And I did some research on the size of two car 279 garages and it seems that they range in footprint from 20 by 20 to 24 by 280 24. And so the exact dimensions of that can be sort of fitted in. The 281 current garage is 14 feet wide. So it could be, that's why we said 6, 7 282 feet wider. 283 MR. KRASNER: I'll say that the issue that I'm wrestling with is the 284 fact that again, you're here asking for a variance which means you have to 285 meet the test of a hardship, a legal hardship under the Code of the 286 Commonwealth. 287 And so a hardship can't just be, again, a convenience. It can't be 288 something that it would be nice to have. It's got to be something that 289 without which you really don't have full utilization of your lot. So it 290 can't be like a nice bathtub. It has to be something that really meets 291 that burden. 292 So what I'm struggling with is the fact that you could legally 293 repair the existing one car garage and you have a second offshoot spot 294 that's apparently behind it. 295 And so you're looking to, and if it was a matter of this garage 296 being destroyed by a storm and you wanted to rebuild it, I think there 297 would be a good case. I'm struggling with the idea of wanting to build a 298 larger garage and actually increase the nonconforming condition. The fact 299 that it's a double frontage lot is not that unusual. Your neighbor on the 300 other side of you has a double frontage lot. 301 MS. MAHONEY: Neither have -- 302 MR. KRASNER: They do. 303 MS. MAHONEY: That's true. 304 MR. KRASNER: They have a double frontage lot as well. Their homes 305 were built with parking on Villa Ridge. 306 MS. MAHONEY: That's right. 307 MR. KRASNER: Yours was not. I don't know why that was. That by 308 itself is interesting but I don't know if it's unique or makes it a 309 hardship. 310 So that's what I'm wrestling with. I want to just say that on the 311 record for my colleagues and everyone else. 312 MR. MC CLOUD: One thing I guess I would consider our neighbors, for 313 example, the Huffmans, did a renovation of their house and put in a two car 314 garage. And we did a renovation of our house. And if you look at most 315 houses being done now, they have two car garages. 316 So it seems to me given the property value that's there for any kind 317 of resale also, which we're not planning on doing any time in the near 318 future, but to have just a one car garage in that neighborhood with that 319 quality of house would, in fact, undermine the value to some extent. I 320 think people would be looking for something like a two car garage just like 321 they're looking for a certain number of bedrooms or number of bathrooms, 322 that sort of thing. 323 So I think there is that rationale also that goes to wanting to put 324 a two car garage in, especially given the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 325 MR. KRASNER: Right. I understand that. But again, the fact that 326 you could fit a two car garage and still meet the ordinance, even though it 327 might not be ideal, is something we need to weigh. A variance is supposed 328 to be granted for the least amount of relief possible, if the relief is 329 justified at all. 330 And if you can do something that's legal, even if it's not ideal, it 331 becomes more and more difficult to meet the burden of a hardship. So 332 that's an issue I think that it's hard to get around in this case. 333 And so I'm still deliberating but those are things I think I want to 334 hear more about why having it being a conforming two car garage -- 335 MS. MAHONEY: That's why I have two pieces of paper. 336 MR. KRASNER: -- it's so difficult, I mean not just inconvenient or 337 undesirable but actually something that is almost difficult or impossible 338 to really make feasible. And that's really what I'm struggling with. 339 MS. MAHONEY: So I have two responses, if I may to that. One is 340 that, as Mr. Boyle pointed out, if we had the 3 foot setback at the back of 341 our property line, we would have access to 26 percent more of our lot than 342 we have by recognizing a second street frontage of the lot. We think that 343 is a hardship. We lose a quarter of the size of a nonconforming lot and I 344 think that is significant. 345 In addition, the garage that we're talking about would be here. Our 346 neighbors, the Huffmans, okay, so the current garage we'll put it, is here. 347 Our neighbors, the Huffmans, their extension goes to here. This is their 348 kitchen and their family room, okay, and if we were to rebuild the house 349 where we are allowed to rebuild it -- the garage, sorry, it comes back. It 350 starts basically at the back of the garage and it is three feet from their 351 house. 352 In addition, given the topography of the yards, this is much higher 353 than this. So it casts a shadow on their kitchen and their family room and 354 their space. They're not keen on that. 355 The other thing that happens, again given the topography, given how 356 our house, our addition is built, we'd have 5 feet to a retaining wall 357 which is then 5 feet from our house. So the new garage, now looking at it 358 sideways, would be sitting at least ten feet above the floor of our family 359 room and be just ten feet off our family room. 360 And so in addition to casting a shadow on our neighbors, it's a 361 significant construction. 362 MR. KRASNER: Sure. The effect on you is one thing, but the effect 363 on the neighbors, so your neighbors obviously putting it where you're 364 requesting, much less on your neighbors. And your neighbors have submitted 365 basically a letter in support. 366 MS. MAHONEY: Yes, they did. It sits in the packet. They strongly 367 support the rebuilding where it is. 368 MR. KRASNER: The effect on other properties is something we have to 369 consider and that is something to bear in mind as well. 370 MS. MAHONEY: And we looked at locating the property on the other 371 side but it's the shallower side of the property. So the garage would be 372 even closer to the house. It's at a lower point and it's under an 373 electrical substation-y thing. 374 MR. KRASNER: This is really not here or there, do you know any 375 history about why your house is the only one on the street that was built 376 that way? The other homes on the street are of the same vintage, some are 377 a little newer, and I'm aware of the topography nearby, and I drove by and 378 it wasn't clear to me why they chose, whoever built it, decided that's how MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 379 they wanted to do it. If they would prefer to have the parking in front, 380 maybe it was the grade, I don't know. Because your neighbors all park in 381 the front of their house. 382 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. I don't know why the original garage was built 383 in the back. I think the topography of the site has a lot to do with it. 384 You will have seen that we have a retaining wall in the front. 385 MR. KRASNER: Yes, there is a slope in the front, right? You walk 386 up to it. It's a number of steps to get up. 387 MS. MAHONEY: That's right. 388 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thanks. 389 The cause for the variance is you want to make the garage bigger, is 390 that kind of what it is? 391 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. 392 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You pointed out, you could just place the current 393 garage. 394 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. 395 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So why make it bigger? 396 MS. MAHONEY: Well, we thought if we were rebuilding the garage, 397 we'd like to rebuild with a two car garage, minimizing the size of that two 398 car garage but to accommodate two cars. 399 Because right now we are at the end of a dead end street as you saw. 400 Snow removal at the end of our little dead end street is not optimal. So 401 having a car in a garage in the winter would just be easier. And we have 402 two cars. We have three people and two cars. 403 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. The other thing I struggle with is we have 404 to follow the Code and there is a certain standard that won't allow us to 405 grant the variance. I think that's the kind of thing we're struggling with 406 in terms of a hardship. 407 MR. MC CLOUD: I think, what we may then present again next month? 408 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Okay. Thank you for appearing tonight and 409 providing the information. 410 John, is there anything we need to do? 411 MR. BOYLE: Motion to continue to the November 13th meeting. 412 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there such a motion? 413 MR. KRASNER: I'll move to continue it at the applicant's request. 414 I'll make a motion to continue it. 415 MR. HOWELL: I'll second that. I have a question for the staff 416 though. 417 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is it related to the motion? 418 MR. HOWELL: Yeah. 419 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 420 MR. HOWELL: You know, we're talking about the brown garage on the 421 plan and then the extended blue square garage. It seems to me that they're 422 sort of -- there's room for wiggling within sort of the boundary line you 423 say exists up toward the street. Putting it slightly at an angle or 424 something like that. And I'm just wondering how we would resolve that, if 425 we were to feel that there was justification in the argument, but what is 426 exactly proposed on the sketch we have is a little too close to the street. 427 And so we would be able to address it in that way, is that something 428 that might be more acceptable to the Board? 429 MR. BOYLE: Are you asking if staff could address that? 430 MR. HOWELL: Yeah. 431 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. We can discuss that with the applicants and it's, 432 I think ultimately it's their option what they would like to present. But MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 433 I'm sure they have -- they'll come away from this discussion tonight with 434 some ideas and if they wish to continue, you may see a revision or some 435 additional information, it sounds like the Board is asking for in November. 436 We can do that. 437 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 438 MR. HOWELL: I second. 439 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. We need a roll call vote. 440 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 441 MR. KRASNER: Yes, continue. 442 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 443 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 444 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Howell. 445 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 446 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. 447 So we'll continue to next month, November 13th, suggesting to see if there 448 is another solution with staff and look forward to speaking with you again 449 next month. 450 MS. MAHONEY: Thank you. 451 MR. MC CLOUD: Thanks. 452 453 b. Variance application V1567-14 by John Boeddeker to allow the 454 construction of a carport/car cover in a required front yard setback on 455 premises known as 800 Ridge Place, RPC 53-215-001 of the Falls Church Real 456 Property Records, zoned R1-A low-density residential, said property owned 457 by John and Brenda Boeddeker. 458 459 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Moving on to the next item of New Business, it is 460 Variance Application V1567-14 by John Boeddeker to allow the construction 461 of a carport/car cover in a required front yard setback on premises known 462 as 800 Ridge Place, RPC 53-215-001 of the Falls Church real property 463 records zoned R1-A, low density residential, said property owned by John 464 and Brenda Boeddeker. 465 All right. Did you sign in? If you could sign in please. And I 466 think I get -- just note that everyone was sworn in earlier. 467 Okay. If we can get a report from staff. 468 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 469 The Board should have a staff report that I submitted. The 470 applicant had requested that I inspect the property and come up with my 471 sense of what could and could not be done there. 472 In the staff report I report to the Board on what I feel are 473 typically the features that this Board considers in a variance application, 474 and have briefly summarized them there. I'm prepared to speak to the 475 memorandum if you have any questions. 476 But a couple of points to make are that it was pretty clear that 477 there is not a lot of options for placing something like this elsewhere on 478 the property. Hopefully the Board had a chance to go by and see the 479 property. There's a few features such as the changing grade from the 480 street and this absolutely monstrous hedge that had to be planted very 481 early in the history of the residence there. 482 As staff, when applicants come to us and propose something of this 483 nature, or it could be a deck or a room addition, we're sensitive to the 484 Code in that if it can be done elsewhere on the property, we suggest that. 485 We let them know that that is a burden that they'd have to bear in front of 486 this Board. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 487 I found myself struggling with looking where, if I had to build 488 something else on this property, what could be done elsewhere. And it's 489 unusual for a number of reasons, in that the property seems to be pretty 490 well filled with items already, whether they be trees or the hedge or the 491 grade. 492 In that, this was not something staff could approve by right and we 493 explained the option and encouraged the applicant to craft an application 494 for variance. 495 So with that, we'll defer to the applicant's presentation. 496 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any clarifying questions at this point or should 497 we just hear from the applicant? 498 MR. KRASNER: Just a quick one for staff. 499 Just so I'm clear -- I think it's better for the applicant. I have 500 a question exactly what is being proposed. It's just not clear to me what 501 exactly is being requested. I'll let the applicant present and that may 502 answer my question. 503 MR. BOEDDEKER: You don't understand what I want here or what I've 504 written here? 505 MR. KRASNER: I don't know exactly what you're proposing. 506 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: If you would state your name and present your 507 request for variance. 508 MR. BOEDDEKER: I've done this so many times, it's very clear to me. 509 So that's why I asked the question to you. 510 John Boeddeker, 800 Ridge Place. 511 If you take a look on attachment 2, I desire to put ideally this 512 first awning over that driveway. That's what I want to do. 513 MR. KRASNER: Exactly that front one right there. 514 MR. BOEDDEKER: Yes. One like it. Not exactly this one but it's 515 going to be one built like this one. 516 Failing that, it would be one of those other ones. You can see 517 where my car's parked and I guess on the back page that you guys got it, 518 shows this gentleman here standing in the driveway. They have closer up 519 pictures on the end of how that would fit in there over that driveway. 520 Reasons for that. I cited this all in my application but to 521 reiterate, one, I have two automobiles. One stays in the garage. It's a 522 classic car, stays in the garage. I spent a lot of money on my 523 automobiles. I want to protect them. I've been wanting to do this for 524 six, eight years, but personal issues come up, health, death, etcetera, and 525 I just haven't had the time to do it. So I decided to do it now when all 526 of those things are in the past. 527 Also myself, there is a letter in there from my doctor that states 528 I've had several cancer procedures on my head, ears, cheeks, so I need to 529 stay out of the sun. I do a lot of work in the driveway and I generally do 530 it like 6, 7, 8 o'clock in the morning before the sun comes up. Taking 531 care of the cars, other activities, lawn mower, etcetera. 532 And I also want to protect that property. I have spent probably 533 about $25,000 on those walls and those steps coming down from the door over 534 the years. I'm not exaggerating the amount of money. I just had it 535 repointed. You can see on the sides there the fresh cement on the edge 536 there. 537 And I also, if you look at the picture in the left hand corner above 538 where the gentleman is standing, I just had drainage pipes put in on the 539 left hand side all the way around that strip of lawn between my and my 540 neighbor's, so it would drain better. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 541 And I'm eventually going to have the same thing done on the right 542 side. That is depending on the width and how far over this proposed awning 543 extends. 544 Those are the reasons. Because if I don't protect this, when I 545 moved in there 13 years ago, this thing was a mess. All the steps, because 546 nobody had done anything with it, I don't know how long. I think it was 547 original. So I had everything that you see there, I had built. And I want 548 to protect it and continue to protect it. 549 I can't put it any place else because if I tried to do that, I'd 550 have to have a -- request a roadway, a driveway off of Roosevelt Street, 551 cut through those row of hemlocks. And if I want to have difficulties 552 getting a variance like this, I can only imagine what it would be like, you 553 know, trying to get a roadway built off of Roosevelt and have this put in 554 the back yard. Plus there is several trees back there that would have to 555 be removed and I know Falls Church frowns on that but I frown on it also 556 myself. 557 That hedge row hemlocks has been there for 25, 26 years, according 558 to my next door neighbor. It used to be kept lower. But over the years, 559 I'm the only one that's done any work on it. I have spent probably as much 560 as $10,000 trimming and taking care of those trees. I just had them cut 561 and brushed out a month, two months ago, as I said. And also the City has 562 taken away in that special pick up vehicle seven to eight loads of limbs 563 that I've cut out of there myself. 564 I'm not a lazy person. If I could do this, I'd do it myself. I 565 don't have the talent to do it so I have to pay somebody to do this. 566 I'm not asking to put up something ugly and something that's an eye 567 sore for the City. 568 I went around my neighbors. My neighbors are okay with it. They 569 all signed it except one. They all thought it was a good idea. 570 I'm coming here, it's up to you what I get to do here with this. As 571 I said, I'm not asking for something that's out of line here. And it's my 572 understanding, discussing with various neighbors, people, and the City, 573 that there's a lot of people that want these carports built. We spend 20, 574 30, 40, 50, 70, 80,000 dollars for our vehicles. 575 I don't know where you folks live or what your thoughts are on this, 576 but to park on the street in Ridge Place is dangerous. You go in there and 577 you watch that trash truck come through there or that snowplow, or exactly 578 where I live, when I first moved in there, I parked my car, my Supra, which 579 I consider to be a classic car, right there in front. And they use that 580 Ridge Place to turn around to beat that traffic light down there on Route 581 7. 582 And those people that come in and turn around, I saw my car almost 583 get hit at least once being parked there. Because they come in and they 584 don't care. They're just in a hurry to try to turn around and get there 585 and beat the light. 586 So that's another reason I want my car up off of the street, you 587 know, to protect it more. 588 We used to have three cars when my wife was alive but she passed 589 away and I only got the two cars now. So that's when we started wanting to 590 have the cover put on over this, you know, over this driveway. 591 And I'm a reasonable person. Very reasonable. And we want to live 592 differently than grandma and grandpa and great grandma and great grandpa 593 did. Don't you all? Do you want to go back and live like your great 594 grandparents did? Do any of you have to go to an outside toilet? I grew MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 595 up like that. And there is nothing more telling than setting down on an 596 outside toilet in January at 20 degrees. I don't want to live like that. 597 Most of them had one car or no cars so they were -- and the cars 598 they did have were narrow and, you know, they could park on those streets 599 easily. These vehicles we got today can't. I'm surprised that somebody's 600 -- some of the houses in that U that I live in, they don't even have 601 driveway. I'm surprised more of them haven't come down here and requested 602 a driveway. 603 But they have their reasons and I'm sure I understand why they 604 haven't done it. I'm here with their support, my doctor's support, and 605 hopefully your support to put this thing up so I can live safer and cleaner 606 and protect my property. 607 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you very much. 608 Are there any questions for the applicant? 609 MR. HOWELL: I have a question for staff. 610 MR. KRASNER: So do I. 611 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 612 MR. HOWELL: I just want to get clear what we're talking about here. 613 You mentioned the use of a garage carport as an accepted accessory use for 614 a single family residence. And Mr. Boeddeker says that he really wouldn't 615 be building a building or a structure. I'm just wondering what the 616 position is in terms of something like this which is a semi-permanent, 617 let's say, which comes across the respective lines and so on, what the 618 position is in terms of some such thing which could, for instance, be 619 quickly removed if somebody objected to it and so on. 620 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: When you also answer that, could you also answer 621 why this simply could not be approved by staff, why it came to the Board. 622 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. It comes down to the definition of what a 623 building is in our Code which is very broad. It's a roof supported by 624 columns or walls. And that takes in quite a bit of, what I'm finding is 625 what a lot of people don't think are buildings. 626 So for that reason this meets the technical definition of a building 627 and it's placed in the front yard and so that's the reason staff couldn't 628 approve it. 629 So it is an acceptable use. It's something you would find 630 reasonable in a property but the position of it and its definition as a 631 building is why the applicant's here. 632 MR. KRASNER: So you're saying it's a building versus -- isn't it a 633 carport? Isn't it essentially a carport what he's proposing, detached 634 carport? 635 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. I think if you had a room full of reasonable 636 folks and showed them what he was going to build, they would call it a 637 carport. But as defined in our Code, it's a building. 638 MR. KRASNER: Does our Code define carport? 639 MR. BOYLE: No. 640 MR. KRASNER: Are there any separate rules for carports, is that 641 term even mentioned in our ordinance at all? 642 MR. BOYLE: Not that I'm aware of. They're treated as buildings and 643 we've had this similar debate, usually in the side yard. And we have 644 carports. What I would call a carport. And they're in the side yard and I 645 can't explain how they got there. Maybe once upon a time the Code called 646 them out but I'm not aware of it. 647 Folks will come in and want to put a simple roof with posts 648 extending off the side of the yard along the driveway covering maybe the MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 649 side door. And I'd agree, that's probably a reasonable use of their 650 property but it meets the technical definition of a building and they'd be 651 putting that into the side yard then. 652 MR. KRASNER: So the City Code treats a detached carport and a 653 detached garage the same. 654 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, if it's got a roof and posts, it's the same. 655 MR. KRASNER: Whether it's a garage and it's got four walls and a 656 door or it's a -- or it doesn't in the sense of a carport, the ordinance 657 applies the same setback requirements for an accessory structure. 658 MR. BOYLE: Yes, which also draws attention to could it be placed 659 anywhere else like as though it were a room addition or so on the property. 660 MR. KRASNER: You can't have an obstruction on the front. 661 MR. BOYLE: Exactly. 662 MR. KRASNER: That's my concern. 663 MR. BOYLE: Or if it were a room addition, a building addition, that 664 would need a variance in the front yard. 665 As opposed to say a porch. It's interesting that the Code 666 specifically allows a porch with a roof and posts to project into a front 667 yard as much as 8 feet but there is no provision for something like this. 668 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Mr. Boyle, I'm looking at the Code updated 669 through March 25, 2014. I'm looking at the definition of a building. I 670 want to make sure I've got the right thing here that you're referring to 671 because it does say, A roof supported by columns or walls. That's very 672 broad as you point out. 673 It also says, Used or intended to be used for the shelter, housing, 674 or enclosure of persons, animals, or chattels. Do I have the right or the 675 most up-to-date version? 676 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 677 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: It does seem to be modified to say housing, 678 enclosure, animals or chattels. It doesn't say car, right? And it refers 679 to enclosure or housing. 680 MR. BOYLE: I see. I wouldn't be surprised if the Code was written 681 before cars. Your horse but not your car. 682 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. 683 MR. BOYLE: But you see how we're obligated to consider it as 684 applying. If the Board feels otherwise, one of your roles is to define the 685 Code. 686 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. I just want to make sure we've got the 687 right thing. 688 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, that's the definition. 689 MR. BOEDDEKER: May I say something here on this? Mr. Boyle and I 690 went round and round on this thing about building. If you look up in 691 Webster or Merriam Dictionary, it's different than what is in what you just 692 read. A building has walls and walls are not poles or columns. 693 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And we are bound to follow the Code, not the 694 dictionary. 695 MR. BOEDDEKER: Whoever wrote it should have had your attitude. And 696 you folks have the authority, I believe, to right somebody who did 697 something wrong for whatever reason. You have the authority to right that 698 wrong. That's what this variance is about. 699 MR. KRASNER: We can interpret the Code. We can't second guess what 700 the legislative intent was. That's not our role unfortunately. We can't 701 de facto change the law of the City. We can grant exceptions to that, 702 grant variances to that where it meets the test. But we can't sit up here MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 703 and say, well, we don't like the law. We think it should be this. That's 704 up to the City Council and then the proper venue is to lobby the City 705 Council to change the law to allow it. 706 But we, as this body, do not have the power to legislate new City 707 Code because we don't like it or because we think it's strange, or 708 whatever. That's not our role. We do not have the power to do that. 709 MR. BOEDDEKER: Well, I disagree with what you're saying. I think 710 when you're sitting on a Board like you are, you have the authority to 711 approve or disapprove these points. And to continue to support something 712 that is miswritten, misinterpreted, I don't think that's the way to go 713 about doing business. Because if we did that, if we did that where would 714 we be in many other circumstances? I mean I don't want to compare this to 715 the United States government saying, well, the hell to what England is 716 telling us, but there's certain things about being right and wrong here and 717 there's been plenty of laws that have been modified, if I may say. 718 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: If we can just keep this, I appreciate your 719 comments, let's just keep it focused on the case and questions at hand. 720 Do we have additional questions? 721 MR. HOWELL: I have a question for staff, if I may, please. 722 I couldn't find anything, perhaps I'm missing it, about the 723 dimensions of this, where the measurements are. 724 MR. BOYLE: Yes. At the time of the application the applicant 725 wasn't sure exactly how far forward it would go. But I think that's been 726 determined. So if a motion were taken tonight, I'd suggest the Board set a 727 dimension forward from the house. 728 MR. HOWELL: I'm sorry? 729 MR. BOYLE: I'll leave it to the applicant to request that but I 730 think that should be part of your motion, if you chose to make one. 731 MR. BOEDDEKER: It would be, you see where the driveway starts 732 coming down? It would be from there, back to the end of the brick, to the 733 end of the brick wall. Total thing is going to be about 15 plus feet long. 734 Because it's not going to go all the way to the house. There is going to 735 be an opening back there of about 6 feet. And it will be anchored into the 736 wall with two pipes coming off of the frame. 737 MR. HOWELL: It would be helpful to know what the distances involved 738 are, what the setback is there and what distance is being proposed. 739 Because I don't see how we can really make a decision without knowing that. 740 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, what's the setback today of the house? How 741 much room in front of the house is there that's not front yard, that's not 742 required front yard, if any? Or is the house right in the center? 743 MR. BOYLE: I saw something that indicated the house was sitting 744 right at the setback but I don't think it amounted to a plat. 745 MR. KRASER: The other question, followup to that, the applicant 746 mentioned the term awning and I don't want to muddy the waters here. Our 747 Code looks at an awning which is attached to a building different. Aren't 748 there certain projections permitted into the front yard for an awning and, 749 if so, how many feet is an awning allowed to project? 750 MR. BOYLE: I'm familiar with the Code for commercial. I'd have to 751 confirm it for residential. 752 MR. KRASNER: Trying to see if there is any way he can build an 753 awning attached, coming off the house, that the Code might allow, at least 754 to some degree. 755 MR. BOYLE: We discussed that. I think it's still going to have to 756 be supported by posts just for snow, snow load, what have you, and it's MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 757 going to fall back into. 758 MR. KRASNER: I'm thinking about a porch which is also supported by 759 a post but because it's attached to the house it treats it different as a 760 protection into the yard. 761 MR. BOYLE: An awning instead of a hard structure. 762 MR. KRASNER: We're talking about a free standing carport. It may 763 not make a difference. At the end of the day, the calculation of this 764 house, it may not be enough. I don't think the front porch is allowed to 765 extend 20 feet or 15 feet into the yard, I know that. I know it's probably 766 just a handful of feet. It might not be enough for what he's trying to 767 accomplish. I'd be curious to know what that was. 768 MR. BOYLE: Let me take a look in the Code. 769 I know this Board, at least on one occasion, the Board spoke as 770 opposed to interpreting the Code as it came up, the Board spoke in the past 771 on a variance application, upon reviewing what was being asked, the Board 772 did decide that a variance wasn't necessary and instructed staff that this 773 was something by right. 774 So if that's kind of where you're going with the awning discussion 775 or is this a carport that's not enclosing the items in the definition, that 776 I think has been established by some of this Board's authority. 777 Let me look at projections. 778 MR. KRASNER: There are questions like that that needs to be 779 answered. I don't think we have all the information. 780 And there are other issues related to the hardship factor but before 781 we can get to that, I'd like to know exactly what we're dealing with. 782 It's up to the applicant, but maybe a continuance for this might be 783 appropriate as well to answer some of these questions to make sure we have 784 all of the information we need to make a decision. The application packet 785 is missing some key information that I'd like to know. 786 MR. BOEDDEKER: When I use the word awning, that's what the company 787 calls that. 788 MR. KRASNER: I understand that. The Zoning ordinance treats 789 porches and awnings differently because they're attached to a house. There 790 are certain things that are permitted to encroach to the front yards, 791 projections off a house or structure, as opposed to a free standing 792 building, a structure in this case, which has different rules that apply to 793 it. 794 So the rules, they're made, again at the end of the day the houses 795 may show you still can't comply, even if it were attached to your house and 796 technically became an awning as far as the Code is concerned. 797 I'd like to know the answer to that question. I'd also like to know 798 exactly the setbacks that we're dealing with as far as where the house is 799 today and how far this would encroach and exactly what the relief is that 800 he's asking for is. Whether it's one foot, whether it's eight feet, ten 801 feet, you just don't know. And I think that is a key number we need to 802 know to be able to weigh the amount of relief that he's seeking. 803 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The way this would work if we chose to proceed, 804 we would put together a motion that says how tall it could be, perhaps how 805 far back from the setback or the road it would be. Those are 806 specifications that we need. It's difficult to look at a marketing picture 807 or something. 808 MR. BOEDDEKER: I can tell you how far back it would be. I can tell 809 you all that information. 810 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Can you tell us that. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 811 MR. BOEDDEKER: It's going to be back from the street, is that where 812 you want, from the end of the street? 813 MR. KRASNER: We need to know precisely. We can't approve something 814 that -- 815 MR. BOEDDEKER: You need precisely, it's going to be like ten feet 816 two inches from the street, from the edge of the street. 817 MR. KRASNER: From the street. But from the property line. The 818 variance needs to be approved for a specific number. In any event, if we 819 were to approve a variance, we would approve it for a specific amount of 820 relief and no more. So we need to know exactly what it is you're 821 requesting. How big it is, how far it's going to sit into the front yard. 822 MR. BOEDDEKER: I'm trying to tell you. 823 MR. KRASNER: You said off the street. The street may not be where 824 your property line is. We measure off the property line. 825 MR. BOEDDEKER: I'm being told that that's where it is, right there, 826 where the gutter is. 827 MR. KRASNER: We need to know precisely. I don't know if there is a 828 house plat, you have it. 829 MR. BOEDDEKER: I measured that. Or my workmen measured that. 830 MR. KRASNER: It's not part of the package is what I'm saying. It 831 needs to be part of the package. 832 MR. BOEDDEKER: What my idea was, he's made a drawing of what it is. 833 And I didn't have him bring it down here with the building, you know, to 834 turn it in until I went through this. 835 MR. KRASNER: You wouldn't be turning it into the building folks. 836 You'd be turning it in as part of your variance request so that this Board 837 can know exactly what it is we would be approving, if we were to approve 838 it. We want to know exactly what it is. We don't want to be surprised 839 later -- 840 MR. BOEDDEKER: I'm not going to surprise you. 841 MR. KRASNER: -- you said it's going to be like this, it turns out 842 it's not what it is. So we need to be precise. 843 I'm not trying to delay you unnecessarily but what I'm saying is we 844 need to have all the information to make an informed decision. 845 MR. BOEDDEKER: Like I said, I'm trying to tell you what it is, you 846 know. And I'm either not talking right or you're not listening right. One 847 of the two. 848 MR. KRASNER: I heard what you said. You mentioned ten feet two 849 inches off the street. I don't know if the street is your property line. 850 Sometimes the property line is in from the street. Sometimes it's not. We 851 need to know precisely what the relief is that you're asking. 852 There is a certain amount of setback that a structure is supposed to 853 be from the property line. You're asking for some number to encroach into 854 that. We need to know exactly what that number is. That's how we operate 855 no matter what the variance request is. 856 For the previous application that you just saw, it's the same issue. 857 They were asking for a similar type of request. We need to know exactly 858 what it is. They provided a document with their house plat and they drew 859 exactly what it was they were requesting with a dimension on it to show us 860 what the setback would be if we were to approve it and we need to know the 861 same information from you. 862 MR. BOEDDEKER: You said that five times. I get it. Okay. I get 863 it. And I've told you what the property line is what I was told, what it 864 is. It's ten feet two inches from that property line back to the top of MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 865 those walls. Ten feet two inches. 866 That structure is going to be between 15 and 16 feet long and it 867 doesn't have to necessarily be attached to the house. The way the picture 868 shows there, it shows two poles on the outer end and then it's anchored 869 into the house. But it can also be built with four poles, one on each 870 corner and not anchored into the house. 871 That is a decision that the builders when they start doing the 872 welding, is what they have to determine. 873 MR. KRASNER: See, that's a key factor you just mentioned. Our 874 ordinance treats something that's attached to the house differently than 875 something that's not attached to the house. 876 So those are things, that's what we just spoke to Mr. Boyle about, 877 trying to figure out how that is treated in the Code because it's 878 different. And it might change the amount of relief you're seeking. 879 So these are all unknowns. These are all question marks that we 880 don't have. And I'd like to see an actual survey that shows the property. 881 MR. BOEDDEKER: I'm not going to pay for a survey. 882 MR. KRASNER: I'm not saying you have to go out and do a new survey. 883 I'm sure there is a house plat that's on file, you may have one when you 884 bought the house, as part of your deed. We'd like to see the house plat, 885 see where it's going to lie, not in relation to the street, in relation to 886 the front property line, the legal front property line. 887 MR. BOEDDEKER: We can stop. Because I can see you don't want this 888 done. 889 MR. KRASNER: I want all the information, that's all I'm asking for. 890 MR. BOEDDEKER: You just don't want it done. So I'm going to ask 891 for a continuance here on this. I, you know, I came down here trying to be 892 reasonable, etcetera, with, you know, with my information. And if every 893 time I come down here I'm going to run into more and more and more 894 questions, I don't understand what you expect. I'm not talking to you two. 895 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let me just pick up on this. I think you're 896 asking for a continuance. If we do continue next month, are you prepared 897 to come back with on a piece of paper that says where the property line is, 898 how far back it is, how tall it's going to be, and how far back from the 899 house. 900 MR. BOEDDEKER: Well, that's all been done already. 901 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So there is such a document that could be 902 presented and we could review. Because where we're trying to get to is to 903 see what is going to be placed there so we can either choose to approve or 904 not. 905 MR. BOEDDEKER: Again, I thought it was pretty obvious because it's 906 just going to fit right over that. 907 MR. KRASNER: Sir, with all due respect, that's a photograph. We 908 need precise numbers. I understand from a conversational point of view 909 what you're proposing. And I have a general idea of what it might look 910 like. But we need to see precisely the dimensions of what it's going to 911 be. 912 Someone comes to us and requests a variance to build an addition to 913 their house, they usually come with at least basic plans that show the 914 addition they want to build and how far it's going to sit from the line. 915 MR. BOEDDEKER: I didn't know I needed to bring that down here for 916 this. 917 MR. KRASNER: That's communication with staff, normally that's 918 something that we need to see. It's not a "like to see". We really need MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 919 to see that. 920 I don't want you to misinterpret where I'm coming from, I haven't 921 made my mind up on this one way or the other. I want to have all the 922 information so I can deliberate. 923 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So you'll be prepared to come back next month 924 with such a depiction of it. 925 MR. BOEDDEKER: Yeah. Because I can come back tonight, you know. 926 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, we meet once a month. 927 I would ask and I would ask staff, staff, you've seen many of these. 928 If you would be able to look at what he's providing and see if he's 929 providing the kinds of dimensions the Board is typically used to seeing 930 with applications like this. 931 MR. WADE: Sure. 932 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Will you do that for him. 933 So you've requested a continuance to next month. I'd like to see if 934 there is a motion to do so with the understanding you'll come back with 935 those dimensions. 936 Is there a motion? 937 MR. HOWELL: I move. 938 MR. KRASNER: Second. 939 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote please. 940 941 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 942 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 943 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 944 MR. KRASNER: Yes, a continuance. 945 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 946 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 947 948 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Mr. Boeddeker, I appreciate the time you spent 949 tonight and we'll see you next month. Thank you. 950 951 952 c. Variance application V1563-14 by FastSigns for Falls Properties 953 LLC, to permit the placement of 3 additional tenant names on the proposed 954 freestanding sign on premises known as 300 (306) N Washington St, RPC #53- 955 103-013 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned T-1 transitional, 956 said property owned by Falls Properties LLC, c/o Jackson Prentice 957 Management. 958 959 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Moving on to the next item of New Business, 960 variance application V1563-14 by FastSigns for Falls Property LLC, to 961 permit placement of three additional tenant names on the proposed 962 freestanding sign on the premises known as 300 (306) North Washington 963 Street, RPC Number 53-103-013 of the Falls Church Real Property Records 964 zoned T-1, transitional, said property owned by Falls Property, LLC, care 965 of Jackson Prentice Management. 966 If we can have a report from staff. I see the applicant is signing 967 in and then we'll proceed with the applicant. 968 MR. WADE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 969 The applicant came in a few months ago to inquire about signage for 970 this property. It's listed in the application as 300 North Washington. 971 Technically it's 306 North Washington. 972 The building owners have quite a few tenants in the building that's MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014  973 set back a good deal from the road and this is pretty much all a T-1 zone 974 up there, which further restricts the size of a monument sign that's 975 allowed. 976 So I think the maximum allowed for any monument sign in the T zone 977 is ten square feet. And so the applicants are looking to add more than the 978 additional three allowed tenant names to their monument sign. 979 And they presented some good options here, good depictions of where 980 it would be located and what it's going to look like. 981 It did go to the AAB in the September meeting. It wasn't able to 982 make the BZA September meeting because of advertising issues, but the AAB 983 seemed to have no issues with it and they've given their recommendations as 984 shown in the minutes. 985 So with that, I'll defer to the applicant. 986 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any clarifying questions for staff or can we go 987 to the applicant? 988 Please state your name. 989 MR. BHARMAL: My name is Hank Bharmal from FastSigns. I'm 990 representing the owners of 300 North Washington Street, 306. 991 This property from the photographs, as you can see, it's hard for 992 their tenants and their tenants' clients to see where they're located. And 993 so they're looking at putting up a sign that not only has an address number 994 on it but also advertises the tenants' names on it. 995 Because of the T-1 issue, they're only allowed three names 996 currently. By staying within the ten square feet of signage space we can 997 still meet, you know, but would request to get three additional names so 998 all the tenants of that area in those properties can be represented fairly. 999 The hardship is, quite frankly, you know even when I was trying to 1000 find my client there, I drove past it three or four times. Their tenants 1001 have the same issue. They're just not able to find where they're located. 1002 And so we just, you know, respectfully request that we're provided 1003 that. 1004 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? 1005 MR. KRASNER: I just have a quick question. I notice that this 1006 property, there is like a -- there is 306 North Washington is like another 1007 freestanding building that appears to be on the same property, looks the 1008 same. Is that part of this property? 1009 MR. BHARMAL: I believe so. 1010 MR. KRASNER: Would that be part of this freestanding sign as well? 1011 MR. BHARMAL: It is. If we can look at the plat, so that it's 1012 representing. So this is -- I think the reason this proposed sign is being 1013 put over here, because it's the only sort of curb cut to get into their 1014 parking area. 1015 MR. KRASNER: But the tenants that would be on this proposed sign 1016 are not from 306. The reason I'm asking is because 306 is right on the 1017 street. 1018 MR. BHARMAL: I see what you're saying. 306 is a single use tenant 1019 and I believe they're -- I think there is something already there. 1020 MR. KRASNER: Something in there. There is a sign. I wanted to 1021 make sure we're only talking about the rear building. 1022 MR. BHARMAL: Absolutely. 1023 MR. KRASNER: You said there is six tenant spaces in that building? 1024 MR. BHARMAL: I believe that's what my client is requesting. 1025 MR. KRASNER: There is one sign for each tenant plus the realtor's 1026 component basically? MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1027 MR. BHARMAL: Absolutely. So if we can look at the sort of the 1028 mockup we created. 1029 MR. HOWELL: While we're on the plan, could I just ask one question. 1030 The building we're discussing, number 300, is this large empty square where 1031 there is an existing office building, correct? 1032 MR. BHARMAL: Absolutely. 1033 MR. HOWELL: That is 300 and the sign is then on this street which 1034 leads off of North Washington up to the frontage of that existing office 1035 building? 1036 MR. BHARMAL: Right. This actually is their parking lot, if I 1037 understand it correctly. It's not a street. It's their private. 1038 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Which one? 1039 MR. BHARMAL: If we're looking at -- I just want to make sure I'm 1040 looking at the same page you are. 1041 MR. KRASNER: We're looking at the plat. 1042 MR. BHARMAL: If this is North Washington Street and the curb cut is 1043 here, this is their entire parking lot area. 1044 MR. KRASNER: I see. 1045 MR. BHARMAL: Yeah. 1046 MR. KRASNER: Quick question for staff. 1047 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 1048 MR. KRASNER: I know it specifies three tenant names. The extra 1049 space that is shown for the realtor, property manager, phone number, do we 1050 consider that an extra tenant sign? How is that treated in the Code? 1051 MR. WADE: Oh, it's actually included. The Code says it can be up 1052 to -- the Code allows three tenant names plus the property owner or the 1053 name of the development. So that's kind of a given. 1054 MR. KRASNER: So it's really just the three extra tenant names. 1055 MR. WADE: Correct. 1056 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions? So this is it? 1057 MR. BHARMAL: This is all the text that's going to be on it. 1058 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: This is the sign. Okay. And that's the sign? 1059 MR. BHARMAL: Well, actually that's the text and then this is the 1060 sign. 1061 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. And this is the sign? 1062 MR. BHARMAL: Right. As you can see, there are two other slats in 1063 there. So we're taking into consideration the space for those two 1064 additional slats in case they subdivide one of their spaces, etcetera. 1065 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: It says it's not to scale. I'm just trying to 1066 picture what it's going to look like from the road. 1067 MR. BHARMAL: Right. The approximate, the sign is 56 inches wide 1068 from the end of one post to the other. And the posts are 100 inches tall. 1069 So by the time we sink it into the ground, etcetera, it will be probably 1070 just around 8 feet in height. 1071 So given that I really just didn't have any scale as such, but it's 1072 probably going to look a little smaller than that in real life. 1073 MR. KRASNER: The colors and fonts? 1074 MR. BHARMAL: The colors are what they are, yeah. 1075 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So could you repeat the -- you heard our other 1076 conversation about height and dimensions. 1077 MR. BHARMAL: Sure. The overall -- and they're actually on this 1078 page. They're noted on that page. So the overall size is 56 inches wide 1079 and the posts themselves are one hundred inches. But by the time we sink 1080 it into the ground, level it off and everything, it's probably only going MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1081 to be about 8 feet above grade. 1082 MR. KRASNER: That eight feet, that conforms to the height of a 1083 freestanding sign in that district within the limits, correct? 1084 MR. WADE: Yes, yes. 1085 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for the applicant? Is there 1086 anyone in the public that's going to speak on this tonight? 1087 (No response.) 1088 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Anything else? Any questions? 1089 MR. BOYLE: If I could, Mr. Chair, with sign variances, I always 1090 like to point out the very different threshold this Board has versus a 1091 variance for use of property, what have you. It's found in Section 48- 1092 1297, paragraph F, Conditional Variances. 1093 Very simply it says, Board of Zoning Appeals may grant conditional 1094 variances provided all variances granted shall be in harmony with the 1095 intent, spirit, and purpose specified in this article. And then it speaks 1096 to receiving a report from the Architectural Advisory Board. 1097 So a very different threshold. It's more of a conversation between 1098 this Board and the applicant and consideration of the comments from the 1099 Architectural Advisory Board. And it's more esoteric in how it's going to 1100 fit in this location, does it meet the needs of the site, are there any 1101 safety issues by the dimensions of the signs, and things like that. 1102 But again, we're getting a number of applications for sign variances 1103 which are telling us it's probably time to update the Code. 1104 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, close the 1105 presentation. 1106 Is there any discussion among the Board or does anybody have a 1107 motion to make? 1108 MR. KRASNER: I would just say my thoughts are, yeah, this building 1109 is clearly set back well from Washington Street and the presence of the 1110 number 306 Washington right in front of it does indeed block the building, 1111 especially if you're driving north or east bound on Washington Street. 1112 It's very difficult to see the building. 1113 So the idea of a freestanding sign seems logical and appropriate 1114 given the size and scale what they're proposing, three additional tenant 1115 names, is a very small increase, in my opinion, over what's permitted by 1116 right. So I feel pretty comfortable with this request. 1117 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: That makes sense. 1118 Does anybody care to make a motion? 1119 MR. KRASNER: I'll move that we approve Variance Application V1563- 1120 14 for the property at 300 North Washington Street to allow three 1121 additional tenant names as depicted on the detail provided by the applicant 1122 in their package by FastSigns. There is a date on there. 1123 MR. BHARMAL: June 24th. 1124 MR. KRASNER: June 24, 2014, that's included in the applicant's 1125 package. 1126 MR. HOWELL: I second. 1127 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call vote please. 1128 1129 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1130 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1131 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 1132 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 1133 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Williamson. 1134 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1135 1136 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir. Good luck with your property. 1137 MR. BHARMAL: Appreciate it. 1138 1139 1140 d. Variance application V1566-14 by Good Fortune Supermarket of VA 1141 1 Inc., to allow installation of three wall signs instead of two and a 1142 total sign area of approximately 370 square feet instead of 120 square feet 1143 on premises known as 6751 Wilson Blvd, RPC #53-218-006 of the Falls Church 1144 Real Property Records, zoned M-1 Light Industry, said property owned by 1145 Eden Center, Inc. 1146 1147 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So the final order of New Business this evening 1148 is Variance Application V1566-14 by Good Fortune Supermarket of VA I, Inc. 1149 to allow installation of three wall signs instead of two and a total sign 1150 area of approximately 370 square feet instead of 120 square feet on 1151 premises known as 6751 Wilson Boulevard, RPC Number 53-218-006 of the Falls 1152 Church Real Property Records zoned M-1 Light Industry, said property owned 1153 by Eden Center, Incorporated. 1154 So if we could get a report from staff and then hear from the 1155 applicant. 1156 MR. WADE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 1157 The applicant's here requesting a sign variance for a brand new 1158 grocery store that's going into the Eden Center, very large portion of the 1159 Eden Center that has been tough to fill for quite some time. They found a 1160 good tenant and actually adjusted part of the building, increased the 1161 parking lot which actually pushed back the face of the building even 1162 farther from Wilson Boulevard. 1163 It's going to be a large Asian grocery supermarket and what the Sign 1164 Code even for a shopping center, it was only allowed for 120 square feet 1165 total in sign area. 1166 And I think as you can see, if you compare that number to what was 1167 proposed originally, that's significantly smaller. 1168 This did go to the AAB and was finalized up today, as you know with 1169 our various e-mails back and forth, and thank you for the applicants for 1170 being so cooperative and timely with their revisions. 1171 The number, the final number after the negotiations with the AAB and 1172 what they were satisfied with is actually 278 square feet. So that could 1173 be, if approved, I think that would be good to specify in the motion. So 1174 it's actually significantly less than what was originally advertised. 1175 We also have, I think I included it in your packet and if not I 1176 included one tonight, an e-mail, copy of the e-mail from the Planning 1177 Director who's been out to this site several times, who's been on this 1178 project from the beginning, and agrees that he's very familiar with Eden 1179 Center, and is in support of this variance as well. 1180 So with that, I'll defer to Mr. Frank. 1181 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any questions for staff before we go to the 1182 applicant? 1183 MR. KRASNER: What's in the package is the 278? 1184 MR. WADE: Yeah, the final that you've gotten that I sent out today 1185 and what I left on the dais for you, that's the 278 total. 1186 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Please can you state your name. 1187 MR. FRANK: Thank you. Alan Frank, I'm general counsel, senior vice 1188 president for Eden Center Inc. I'm here for Eden Center. And also we have MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1189 Jason Wren from Good Fortune Supermarket who's available to speak, if 1190 necessary to answer questions. And the sign person is here as well from 1191 Sunny Signs, just in case you have questions. 1192 I'd direct your attention to the correct drawing or rendering, it's 1193 easy to find. Just flip the package over. That's the one. Also in the 1194 package is the sign that we originally asked for, which I'll just go ahead 1195 now and tell you the difference. 1196 The AAB thought that the Vietnamese lettering on the left and the 1197 Chinese lettering on the right were too tall, too large. They were 53 and 1198 89 inches high respectively and we've reduced all of that lettering to 36 1199 inches. Thus the sign is now 278 square feet. 1200 I have some additional pictures I think that might help. Just to 1201 give you a little lay of the land, if you open up the folded page, the 1202 first thing you see, I just want to show it off actually, that's the inside 1203 of the supermarket. It is ready to open. And it's a beautiful market. I 1204 believe it would be today, it's one hundred percent LED lighting, you know, 1205 energy saving roof. Everything is brand new in that building, air 1206 conditioning, heating, flooring. And it's just a knock out. They're 1207 finishing the front of the building now and we hope to have an opening by 1208 November 20, 21st or so. 1209 The next picture is a photo from Wilson Boulevard showing the 1210 incomplete entry feature but that's where the sign would go. That's 500 1211 feet from Wilson Boulevard. 1212 And the last picture is from the corner of Roosevelt and Wilson, 1213 just showing where that gas station, which we do not own, gets in the way 1214 of visibility of the supermarket and the large -- this is, the large paper, 1215 is from the approved site plan which indicates at all times we've intended 1216 to have these three signs. It's just the size of them that has been 1217 subject to discussion. 1218 We believe that a strict application of the ordinance would 1219 unreasonably restrict the utilization here. We're way off the road, 500 1220 feet. The ordinance would allow for a total of 120 square feet. It's like 1221 a postage stamp from that distance and traffic couldn't see it. People 1222 wouldn't even know it's a grocery store I don't think from that distance. 1223 It would be very, very difficult. 1224 The obstructions, there is a gas station, obviously trees, which we 1225 like. On Roosevelt side, there is about a 12 foot grade difference when 1226 you're going down Roosevelt next to the building. Might be a little 1227 greater than that actually. You can hardly see the building. And 1228 therefore we haven't even applied for a sign on that side of the building, 1229 which is 120 feet deep I believe. I think we could also get a sign there 1230 but we don't really want that because it wouldn't be visible. 1231 So we're trying to get the nicest sign out front that's possible, 1232 staying in harmony with the ordinance however. Because the ordinance is 1233 based on linear square footage, 2 square feet per linear square foot of the 1234 building, but there is a cap is the problem at 120 square feet. If we were 1235 to ignore that cap, then we would be allowed about a 500 square foot sign 1236 because the building is 250 square feet long. 1237 So we're asking for something in harmony with, I think, the spirit 1238 of the ordinance but we're not going that big but we're going 278. 1239 We've owned this center since 1962. And we believe that the shape - 1240 - not necessarily the shape of the property but the topography, the 1241 distance, the physical nature of the property, the topography meaning the 1242 difference in grade, the shape, size, if you consider the distance of MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1243 these, are the 1244 hardships that we have. 1245 We have, other than physical hardships, we have an economic vitality 1246 argument really that we need to make sure people see this building when 1247 they go by and they know what it is. Because it is approximately a 4 to 5 1248 million dollar investment on our end. 1249 And there is no detriment I don't believe to any property around us 1250 from this. And, you know, the strict application would be a terrible 1251 hardship to us because we couldn't do business I believe the way we need to 1252 do it. 1253 I don't think there is any worry about a recurring nature of this 1254 sort of sign variance either. 1255 So, any questions? 1256 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: If I could just ask a quick question. So it's 1257 278 square feet, the sign? 1258 MR. FRANK: Yes. 1259 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: As shown on the -- 1260 MR. WADE: On the finals. 1261 MR. FRANK: The one on the flip side. 1262 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The report that we received today. 1263 MR. WADE: Right. 1264 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And both the planning director and the 1265 Architectural Review Board has determined that it's in harmony with the 1266 building. 1267 MR. WADE: Yes. 1268 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And the Architectural Review Board has 1269 recommended that we approve it. 1270 MR. WADE: Correct. 1271 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 1272 Any other questions for the applicant? 1273 MR. KRASNER: Just a few. 1274 These signs are all going to be lit, right? 1275 MR. FRANK: Yes. 1276 MR. KRASNER: They're like all internally lit? 1277 MR. FRANK: Internally lit with LED bulb. Not bulbs, whatever they 1278 call them, LEDs. 1279 MR. KRASNER: And the other lights in Eden Center, the other signage 1280 in Eden Center, they're also -- 1281 MR. FRANK: This is consistent. 1282 MR. KRASNER: It's that same red? 1283 MR. FRANK: Same red with the metal frame around it. It's the same 1284 kind of sign. 1285 MR. KRASNER: Are you going to add Good Fortune to the freestanding 1286 sign? Isn't there already a freestanding sign there? 1287 MR. FRANK: We don't have a freestanding sign. That's another thing 1288 here, reason why we need a sign that can be seen. 1289 MR. KRASNER: Okay. That's an issue too. Okay. 1290 I'll trust you, I've read in the report that what the Vietnamese and 1291 the Chinese words mean so I'll have to take you at your word that it means 1292 what you say it means. 1293 MR. FRANK: I'll pass that onto our tenant. I take them at their 1294 word. 1295 MR. KRASNER: I'm joking. 1296 MR. FRANK: I know. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1297 MR. KRASNER: But I read the argument about the fact that it serves 1298 a multicultural community that speaks many languages, The idea of having 1299 multiple languages on the sign, it makes a lot of sense. There are already 1300 obviously a lot of Vietnamese signs for the other businesses in Eden Center 1301 but having it in different languages, it serves the whole community. There 1302 is value in that as well. 1303 MR. FRANK: Thank you. 1304 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for the applicant? 1305 Anyone want to speak on it from the audience here tonight? 1306 (No response.) 1307 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So we'll close this to discussion and 1308 discuss amongst the Board and see if there is any motion with regard to 1309 this application. 1310 MR. KRASNER: I'll reiterate what I just said. This is set well 1311 back from the road. It would be very difficult to see. 1312 And the other issue, as I just mentioned, the fact that if they had 1313 that sign only in English or only in one language, they might be able to 1314 meet the Code, but they're trying to serve this multicultural population. 1315 The Eden Center is known as a destination for the Vietnamese community. 1316 There is value in conveying the same message in multiple languages. 1317 So I think there is probably policy in the Comp Plan that talks 1318 about enhancing the community that way and it embraces the multicultural 1319 aspects of the community. So there is benefit there as well. 1320 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I agree with all that. 1321 MR. HOWELL: Yeah. 1322 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a motion? 1323 MR. HOWELL: I'll move. So I move that we grant the variance 1324 application V1566-14 by Good Fortune Supermarket of VA I Inc. to allow 1325 installation of three wall signs instead of two and a total sign area of 1326 approximately 278 square feet. 1327 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 1328 MR. HOWELL: Instead of 120 square feet on premises known as 6751 1329 Wilson Boulevard, RPC Number 53-218-006 of the Falls Church Real Property 1330 Records zoned M-1 Light Industry, said property owned by Eden Center Inc. 1331 MR. KRASNER: I'll second that and I make a friendly amendment that 1332 the approval, we're approving the signage that is consistent with the deed 1333 sign and details prepared by Sunny Signs that were submitted to us today 1334 with the revised date of 10-16-2014. 1335 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is that an acceptable amendment to you? 1336 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 1337 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We have a motion and we have a second. 1338 Can we have a roll call please. 1339 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1340 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1341 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1342 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1343 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 1344 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 1345 1346 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. Good luck with your project, 1347 good luck with your new store, and have a good evening. Thank you for your 1348 patience. 1349 MR. FRANK: Thank you. These evenings are long, I know, for you 1350 guys. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014 1351 1352 5. APPROVAL of MINUTES 1353 1354 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We've got one last item here which is we need to 1355 approve the minutes from September 11, 2014. 1356 (Review of minutes.) 1357 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Hearing no changes, is there a motion to approve 1358 the minutes as presented? 1359 MR. KRASNER: So moved. 1360 MR. HOWELL: Second. 1361 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote please. 1362 1363 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1364 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1365 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 1366 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 1367 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Williamson. 1368 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1369 1370 7. OLD BUSINESS: 1371 1372 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there any Old Business? 1373 (No response.) 1374 1375 8. ADJOURNMENT: 1376 1377 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Do I have a motion to adjourn then? 1378 MR. KRASNER: Move to adjourn. 1379 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 1380 MR. HOWELL: Second. 1381 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote please. 1382 1383 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1384 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1385 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1386 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1387 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Howell. 1388 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 1389 1390 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We are adjourned. Thank you. 1391 1392 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 16, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED NOVEMBER 13, 2014