Board of Zoning Appeals

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS City Council Chambers 300 Park Avenue Falls Church, Virginia 22046 November 13, 2014 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would like to call to order the November 13, 2014, regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Roll call please. 2. ROLL CALL RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. MR. KRASNER: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Stoodley. (No response.) RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. MR. CALABRESE: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Howell. MR. HOWELL: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 3. PETITIONS CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Before we get to the New Business which are continuations from last meeting, are there any petitions from the audience? (No response.) 4. NEW BUSINESS: CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Seeing none, we can move onto New Business. And we do have one of our Board members who is not in attendance at our meeting last month and we have two items that were continued over as part of New Business. So, Mr. Calabrese, I would ask you if you have reviewed the transcripts and the notes, if you can comment on that I would appreciate it. MR. CALABRESE: Well, yes, I have reviewed, I've read the transcripts from the previous session and I'm familiar now with the material and the facts of the proceedings. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014  CHAIR WILIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. a. Variance application V1565-14 by Roberta Mahoney and David McCloud, to allow the rebuilding and alteration of an existing, non-conforming garage in a required front yard setback (double-frontage lot) on premises known as 824 Villa Ridge Road, RPC #53-210-036 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R1-A low-density residential, said property owned by Roberta Mahoney and David McCloud. Continued from October 16, 2014 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So we can move onto New Business which is a continuation from last month. It's Variance application V1565-14 by Roberta Mahoney and David McCloud to allow the rebuilding and alteration of an existing nonconforming garage in a required front yard setback on the premises known as 824 Villa Ridge Road, RPC 53-210-036 of the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned R1-A, low density residential, said property owned by Roberta Mahoney and David McCloud, continued from October 16, 2014. If you'd like to go ahead and step forward please. And I guess anybody who is going to be speaking on this or anything tonight, if you could stand and please raise your right hand, that would be great. (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So before you begin, you were here last month. Thank you for joining us. Is there any report from staff or should we just proceed with the applicant? MR. BOYLE: I'll just make a few points, if I could, Mr. Chairman. The reason for the applicants being here tonight is the unusual situation where they have a double frontage lot which is a lot that has a street frontage or a front yard presence on two separate streets which imposes a front yard off of both of those streets. And in our Zoning Code, accessory structures like sheds and garages and things like that are not permitted in front yards. And so whereas in a typical situation where there is a front yard, the house, and then a rear yard, in that rear yard garages and sheds and accessory uses could come as close as 3 feet from a rear or a side property line. In this case because they have that frontage in what probably functions as a rear yard but the Code considers to be a front, their garage has to be pushed back out of that full front yard setback. And in this case they have a situation where some work is needed on the garage and they'd like to improve it and reposition it slightly on the property. And staff does not have authority to approve that type of work where this existing nonconforming structure exists. So with that, I'll defer to the applicants' presentation. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed and that MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 will be great. MR. MC CLOUD: Thank you. And I apologize. I meant to get this around earlier but I am going to give a brief presentation based on some notes that I could pass to you. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. While you're passing that, I'll just note we have four members here tonight. You would still need to get three of those four to pass. MS. MAHONEY: And what this does is address some of the questions that you all had last time that we were not able to answer. We've done some pretty extensive research. MR. MC CLOUD: So based on some conversations we had with your staff here, I was referred to what's called the Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook. We understand that's the County that has done a tremendous amount of work in terms of dealing with these issues. In that handbook, what it does, there is one paragraph there that talks about when a variance would be granted. It says usually there are three elements to look at and then there are four findings that are required to grant a variance. So the three elements I have here, one is the property was acquired in good faith. When we bought the property, we had no idea that our back yard would be considered a front yard. I don't think we would have any reason to think that. I know it's called a front yard in the Code. Normally when you think of a front yard, you think of houses next to you, you think of houses across the street. We have no houses in our back yard next to us and we have a cemetery, a lot of neighbors but they're very quiet, across the street. It's just a cemetery. The road itself is really a service road. That part of North Roosevelt, it's a cut through between Route 7 and Sycamore Street. So it's hardly even a neighborhood road. In any case, the three elements, the property was acquired in good faith. We acquired it in good faith. We had no idea that we had this issue with the back yard. Second element that this handbook talks about is unreasonable restriction as a demonstrable hardship exists. I don't know, last month when we were here, hardship was used a lot. We really didn't have a sense of what that meant and now I have a better understanding. So as I point out here, if we're denied a variance and we do a by-right location, then we would have to pay an additional 8000 to 17,000 to have trees removed. There are three hundred foot tulip poplars between our current garage and where we would actually relocate a new garage, basically in the same area just set back a bit. MS. MAHONEY: Which is the by-right location. MR. MC CLOUD: And the house. So if we had to put it in the by-right location, we would have to take down at least those three hundred foot poplars. There is no way around it. They occupy that space. We've had different people come out and do an estimate. I went to Washington Consumer Checkbook to check on prices. What was MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 striking is they gave an example, they went to different companies, same example, there was about 150 percent difference in the range of prices, substantial. And that's what showed up with us, 8 to 17,000 dollars to have the trees removed. Then we may face additional costs because there could be a drainage issue. There is a good slope there putting the garage much, much closer to the house, reduces the land and everything that could act as a buffer. We'd have to have a surveyor come in. We may have some additional drainage expenses. One thing that is important to us in terms of quality of life and to our neighbors on that side, is that a garage by right would be substantially tall and would interfere with the windows at the back of our house that let light into our social area, same for our neighbors. Our neighbors, by the way, have submitted a letter in support of our request. And then finally in terms of the hardship, the current situation is that when I have to get, do egress from the garage, if I have to back out, I'm backing out onto North Roosevelt Street with very limited visibility. There is a curb there. There is bamboo on one side. The City is not the best at keeping all the overgrowth cut back. And cars routinely, it's a 15 miles per hour speed limit there, they're routinely going 30 miles an hour. So I tend to back into the garage which means I have to pull and basically block North Roosevelt and then back in, because to leave the garage I want to be facing forward and not have to be to turning around and trying to see what cars are coming. So we would correct that, you know, with the project that we're proposing. The third element is, Variance is in harmony with the intended spirit and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. My sense of the Zoning Ordinance is that it's meant to kind of preserve the nature of the neighborhood, trying to do things in a thoughtful way. There is already a garage there. This is no change to that character. We would actually improve the looks of the garage and we'd make the whole situation more safe. And as I pointed out before, there are no houses that are directly next to it as you would have in a front yard and there are no houses across the street. So the project we're proposing I think is in the spirit of the Ordinance. Then they talk about findings required to grant a variance. Number one is, Strict application of variance would produce undue hardship relating to the property. Again, tree removal, our project would go up 10 to 25 percent based on the need to take down those three trees. There would be the drainage issue that we would have to deal with, and then in terms of quality of life for our house and our neighbors would diminish. Second finding would be, Undue hardship must be unique from conditions existing on other properties. It's not real easy for us to tell how many properties actually have a back yard that is on the MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 street. As far as we can tell there may be four and they're all on that street. But nonetheless, this is a relatively unique situation and I think it meets that finding. The third one is, Variance will not be a substantial detriment to an adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed. As I said, our neighbors are perfectly satisfied with what we're proposing. It would be an improvement and it does not change the nature of the district. There is a garage there already. There wouldn't be any change in that way. And fourth, Condition or situation of the property is not so general or of a recurring nature as to make a general regulation reasonably practicable. And as I said, this is a rare instance. And so any general move by the City Council, whoever who would do that, would be making that case for maybe four to five properties in the City and that's it. I'm not sure how they view that. So I think this to me, this is our answer to what I understand to be the justification for the application. And it seems to me it addresses at least what I understand to be the key elements of that. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? MR. CALABRESE: I wasn't here of course last time. What you've presented is very good. You did a very nice job. Again, I'm just going by what I read in the minutes. So maybe if you could just, you made some comments in the previous session where, "it would be inconvenient, not preferred, not ideal, and would impact the value of the property." All reasonable things to say but as you're now stating, these are more dire, I suppose, the reasons. Maybe if you could just orally just explain, what you said here is excellent. Just maybe so I can understand how you've changed. Before you were focusing more on the value, the preference, it wasn't ideal. MR. MC CLOUD: Right. MR. CALABRESE: Now you're stating here that this is something that is a hardship. If you could just explain. MR. MC CLOUD: To be honest, I didn't understand the whole hardship concept in this instance. It wasn't until I read the Albemarle business, that they have a whole chapter on variances. They also have other material that explains what is behind it in Virginia Code. So that's the reason for this based on information basically I was able to gather over the last month. When we first came in with the variance, we were talking more about the fact that we wanted to have -- we didn't want to put the garage really close to the house. It just didn't make any sense. Even when we were here doing our presentation, I think probably the hardship thing confused me. We didn't even think about the three trees but they're there. When we went back out, we said, yeah, they'd have to come down. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014  And then we talked to our neighbors. We felt that was important, that our neighbor actually endorsed the project. So we were looking at other factors that I think are important when you look at this, but the hardship one was the one that we just didn't really focus on because we just didn't really understand it. MR. CALABRESE: So you've basically reframed it? MR. MC CLOUD: Yeah, basically reframed it, yeah. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other questions for the applicant? MR. KRASNER: No questions. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I have one question. Looking at this, the site plan right here. Seeing your comment on safety -- MR. MC CLOUD: Right. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: -- of the situation. And if you could just share with me, because I'm looking at you're basically going to add on to the existing, right? Right, existing garage, correct? Well, effectively add onto it. You might demolish the current one and replace it with a bigger one; am I understanding it correctly? MS. MAHONEY: There's been a modest evolution of our thinking about that as well because we also had about three additional people out to talk about how we could situate the garage a little bit. It may be quite possible to angle the garage, not deviating from the distance from the property line but to angle the garage a little bit in a way that gives us safer egress. It was actually Mr. Howell who suggested this in the conversation last time, that we angle it a bit. It gives us better entry-egress and can be positioned around the trees, so that we don't remove the trees. So it seemed like it's going to be possible. So that was my naive expectation, that we would just be widening it, but there might be a little positioning that could also address the safety concern. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Within the same envelope as shown on this page? MS. MAHONEY: Yes. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And I understand how it would be when you're pulling out, right, even having this -- it seems like you would have more room, more visibility in this direction. You can note I'm pointing to the right of the page. MS. MAHONEY: Yes. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: How does that help? MS. MAHONEY: On the left? CHAIR WILLIAMSON: On the left. Thank you. MS. MAHONEY: So there is a, I think it's a black cherry. We've also had the City arborist out so I know this is a weed tree. The definition of a weed being something that grows quickly and dies young. So I'm working hard at pruning every bit of greenery that comes out from that tree that tries to emerge from the stumps. I'm also thinking that when the people come to do the work and we do some cleaning up of the area, there is a honeysuckle there that reduces visibility. So I think that we'll be able to get rid of some MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 of the vegetative mass on the left side. On the right side we continue to attack the bamboo which is even more difficult than the other side. So I think that we're going to be able to deal with the plantings in a way that enhances the visibility to the left. And we'll talk to the designer to see what we can do to -- to the architect to enhance the visibility beyond just my thinking about the vegetation. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So the fact that the garage is wider to the north means it will be easier to get in and out? I'm just trying to understand. MR. MC CLOUD: Yeah, I think it will be. Because what we're going to do is have enough space to actually turn the car around. Now the issue is we have no space to turn the car around. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see. MR. MC CLOUD: If I want to be able to pull out straight, I need to back into the garage. And to back into the garage, means that I have to, depending on what direction I'm going, I basically have to cross both lanes of traffic and then back up. And often it takes a couple of maneuvers to do that. If we had space to actually turn the car around, we could just pull in, and then when we leave we'd be able to turn the car around in the driveway space. And angling the garage would give us that space. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: But that turning radius is only enabled with the wider garage because of where you basically start out? MR. MC CLOUD: Right. We have no space now for it. We'd move the garage more into our back yard but not toward the house actually, toward the other side but not that much but angle it. MS. MAHONEY: And it would in the process widen the driveway a little bit at the entry point which gives that ease for turning. Because you couldn't even, definitely not a three point turn in the driveway that's there. You couldn't make a seven point turn in that driveway. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm sure you've tried. MR. HOWELL: Just one question about the question of access of the garage on the street and so on and the safety angle, have you got any sense of, you know, you mentioned that the angle might change a little bit. Have you got a sense of what the distance would be? I certainly understand the fact that you have this double setback, front and back, obviously is quite a restrictive hardship, in my view, in terms of what you can ostensibly do with vehicles. How far would you be from the setback line on Roosevelt Street? I see the existing garage, it says 11 foot 7 from the corner to the -- MS. MAHONEY: To the property line. MR. HOWELL: -- to the property line. MS. MAHONEY: And it's another eight to ten feet to the street. MR. HOWELL: Yes. What would bring you a little bit closer again? Is there any kind of special way to sort of angle it? MS. MAHONEY: When we talked to the architect-builder who had the kind of most interesting idea to us, we'd actually not come -- I'm MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 trying to think, there is a huge tree here, right. You know there is the triple leader we talked about before. And that we would not -- we would build around that triple leader. We would try to nudge it to the yard side. We wouldn't be 35 feet back or 30 feet back from the property line but we would not be any closer than the 11 foot 7 feet either. We have some discretion for movement in that space. So I had originally thought that if we widened the garage only, it might bring the corner of the garage to approximately eight feet only at the corner, within about eight feet, nine feet of the property line. With the new orientation of the garage, I think we'd actually move beyond the 11.7 feet, that we might be more like 12 or even 13 feet corner to property line. MR. HOWELL: Thank you. MS. MAHONEY: That's the actual design. MR. KRASNER: Just a follow-up to that, what the Chairman asked. You're saying you're not going to need to go any closer than 11.7. 11.7 is the most you would need as far as the relief you're seeking? MS. MAHONEY: That's right. MR. KRASNER: One tree, it looks like you come back to the tree issue, the one tree that is right next to the garage, that's the tree you're referring, the one that's right in the photo it's the one almost touching. MS. MAHONEY: Almost touching. MR. KRASNER: Looks like five feet away. MS. MAHONEY: As I said, we had the City arborist out. That cherry is right on the driveway line. That tree is in fact a maple but it's sick. She pointed out that there is -- we think from the bark and the tree is not a healthy tree and it needs to be removed. So we hadn't factored into the pricing either the dying black cherry or the sick maple because we just have to -- MR. MC CLOUD: Those run down the middle. MR. KRASNER: You might have to avoid some of the others. MS. MAHONEY: Yes. MR. KRASNER: Do you plan to replant any trees after you take those down? Not the same tree, but do you plan to replant at all? MS. MAHONEY: Well, we're definitely not going to plant one hundred foot tall poplars. But, yeah, I've been looking at different trees that we would like to plant. Instead we'd like to have indigenous species and something lower because we have power lines going across the property line in the back of the property and so we don't want anything that would cause problems for the power lines. MR. KRASNER: Would you be willing to agree to the condition where you would consult with the City arborist on the tree species? MS. MAHONEY: Absolutely. We already have. Both with Kate and with Jeremy, we've talked to both of them. They've been out over the last two days. MR. KRASNER: I do compliment you on your work to research the legal definition of hardship. I think in the last meeting, and it's MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 something frankly that we encounter quite a bit because the word hardship has certain meanings in the vernacular but it's not legally in the Code of Virginia and Board of Zoning Appeals. I appreciate the work you did and your justification for what you did and the definition. MS. MAHONEY: Just coming in we thought of hardship as the use of our back yard which is not what the definition is and so that's why the whole discussion changed. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? Anything more? MS. MAHONEY: No. MR. MC CLOUD: No. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We've had one person join us. Do you wish to speak on this matter? SPEAKER: Not particularly. I'm from the environmental committee. So I came by to ensure that they follow through with their promises to the arborist. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We'll consider that as a possible condition. Okay. We'll close this to any further discussion with the applicant or with staff and just discuss it amongst the Board and then we'll take it from there. And I'll just quickly say in closing this off, I do share the feedback we received in terms of the additional research that was done. And I for one, it certainly does reframe this for me from what we were looking at last time and in terms of where we were, where I was when we last reviewed this and how I see this situation now. Thank you. MR. MC CLOUD: Thank you. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other discussion amongst the Board? Seeing no further discussion, is there anyone who would like to make a motion? MR. KRASNER: Well, actually before we do that, for the record I'll state some things on the record just as far as what I feel about the application. My comments to the applicant are just made, I appreciate the fact that they went to the trouble of making their case, of how they feel they meet a legal hardship. I think in my opinion, there is still a debatable question of whether or not they meet a true hardship. However I think there are mitigating circumstances here, in my view. One of the biggest mitigating circumstances is the issue of not causing any hardship on additional properties or affecting the value of an adjacent property. The fact that the location they prefer also is preferred by the neighbor, it seems to be advantageous to the neighbor is one positive in my mind. The other is the fact that this street we're debating here as far as the front yard setback, it's a front yard setback along a street that is across from a cemetery. There are no other residences that front, cross, or along that portion of Roosevelt Street, which is also I think a mitigating condition as far as mitigating any effect that the variance would have in this location. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014  And for those reasons I'm more inclined to support this tonight than I was a month ago. MR. CALABRESE: I think Mr. Krasner should make a motion. MR. KRASNER: No one has anything else to say? Okay. I guess I will make a motion then. And based on the reasons I just stated as far as why I feel this applicant meets the hardship, I move that we approve Variance application V1565-14 to allow a variance to the front yard setback for the detached garage to have a setback of 11.7 feet, generally consistent with the drawing that was indicated on the plat provided as part of their application. My motion also included the following condition: That they consult with the City arborist on the selection of the replacement of any mature trees that are removed as part of this project. MR. CALABRESE: Second that. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote please. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. MR. HOWELL: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. MR. KRASNER: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. MR. CALABRESE: Yes. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You have your variance. Good luck with your project. MR. MC CLOUD: Thank you. MS. MAHONEY: Thank you very much. b. Variance application V1567-14 by John Boeddeker to allow the construction of a carport/car cover in a required front yard setback on premises known as 800 Ridge Place, RPC 53-215-001 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R1-A low-density residential, said property owned by John and Brenda Boeddeker. Continued from October 16, 2014 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Moving on to the remaining item on New Business is the Variance application V1567-14 by John Boeddeker to allow the construction of a carport/car cover in a required front yard setback on premises known as 800 Ridge Place, RPC 53-215-001 of the Falls Church Real Property records zoned R-1A, low density residential, said property owned by John and Brenda Boeddeker. This is continued from October 16, 2014. We heard previously last month from staff on this. Is there anything that the staff would like to share before we turn this over to the applicant? MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014  MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. Just a brief point or two about the package that the Board received for tonight's meeting. Same materials as you saw last month with a couple of additions. You should have this picture in your pack taken by the applicant's contractor. It's trying to draw a little attention to the scope of the work that will be there. MR. CALABRESE: I'm sorry. What does that demonstrate? This one here? Oh, where it would go? MR. BOYLE: Yeah, kind of an idea of the size and scope of where it would go. We also were able to locate the plat for the property. In a real longshot, we went to the assessor's office who has no plats and he had this one. They don't deal with plats and we requested it and lo and behold they had it in a file and we're able to return that to Mr. Boeddeker and his contractor and they were able to transpose the footprint of the proposed work onto the plat. So you have that here. Of note, on the plat they're proposing to come forward from the house which we now know sits approximately at the setback of 30 feet, they're proposing to come forward 21 feet which is roughly also the top of the crest line that's there, that you can see in the other photographs. That would put it 16 feet from the street. So the Board has now the plat to consider. I wanted to add a point or two to the staff report and reiterate a couple of items. In terms of items that were stressed last month but I think are important to consider again are the unusual features that you find on this property. One is it's very heavily wooded. If one were to allow a use such as this car cover/carport, there are no other locations on the property that I think are practical. The other is the terrain on the property. It sits pretty high above the surrounding streets of Ridge and Roosevelt. In addition to the trees on the property, there is this massive hedge row that runs along Roosevelt that I think shields the property very well from the traffic that's on that street and would pose a challenge to cut through if one were to make use of the other side of the property and what's being proposed. After getting the plat, staff took a second look at this and it occurs to me that at the time this house was constructed, and the Board has seen this in some of these variance applications, the front yard setback for the Ridge Place frontage would probably have been 15 feet. And I say that because the Code at the time this house was constructed was with corner properties, was to make the narrow side the front yard and the broad side, a side yard. So the narrow side here off of North Roosevelt would have been 30 feet by Code. Then the other street frontage would have been arrived at by taking half of the neighbor's front yard setback. So in this neighborhood, by Code, the Ridge Place front yard setback would have been 15 feet. And so this Board continually sees applications for that circumstance of corner properties where houses were built to the 15 feet and then the setback pushes the house back MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 and so you grant a variance for an expansion or to go up with the second story. We're actually looking to restore the Code as we mentioned before, restore the Code to that change, previous to the change that was made in 1988, back to only requiring one front yard setback and then the other street frontage would be considered a side. It would bring many, many houses into compliance with the Code. So I mention that tonight because the footprint that the applicant's asking to be approved is actually in keeping with what we see on corner lots in many areas around the City. So hopefully that puts it in a little context for what's being requested. So with that, I'll defer to Mr. Boeddeker and questions of the Board. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Good evening, Mr. Boeddeker. Please go ahead. MR. BOEDDEKER: What I have here, thanks to Mr. Boyle for your comments on this. You have to bear with me because I've been sick because of the drugs I'm on. Arthritis, I'm very susceptible to flu, cold, and things. So just bear with me. I want to do this, in addition to what Mr. Boyle covered here, is mostly to protect my property. The driveway, my automobiles, and myself. I've had several skin cancer procedures and I'm due for another one next month from my dermatologist couple of weeks ago and this cover would keep me out of the sun, because I do a lot of work in that driveway. Also it would prevent, heavy snows, save me from having to do so much work there. My contractor was supposed to be here tonight but he couldn't make it to answer any specific questions on the building of the item, but he's been looking. He went and tried to cover your concerns from last time about distances and how high it's going to be, material, etcetera. It's going to be made out of three inch iron pipes and fiberglass boarding on the roof. It will be stabilized by either two poles or four poles, plus a couple of poles into the house. So it will be anchored substantially for that. There is no place else to put this. When I first moved there 13, 14 years ago, I looked at coming in from the side of Roosevelt and there is no way I think that this Board then, maybe even now, would approve me cutting a path off of Roosevelt into the back yard plus cutting down the trees that I would have to there. This is the only place I can put this. I can't, because of the hill I can't dig anything out, you know, to make another parking place, etcetera, there. It's, you know, I'm restricted. I believe Mr. Boyle covered that with this. This is just something I want to do for, as I said, protection of my property. I'm planning on living there, I don't know how much longer but certainly more than a couple of years. If I live to be 90, I have a dream of living to be 82. I was in the 82nd Airborn so and the 101st, MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 so I picked the 82nd to live to. So that would be another 15 years. So that's why I want to do this. I'm trying to meet all of the requirements. I've had multiple conversations with Mr. Boyle on this, with my contractor also, you know, trying to meet the requirements of this. And I believe what we've drawn up here is within the realm of you being able to approve it, but of course that's your choice. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? MR. CALABRESE: Just I've reviewed your comments from last time. Just to confirm, I think you may have addressed this but in terms of your neighbors, have you contacted them and what were their responses to you? MR. BOEDDEKER: There's a list in there some place. All but one of them signed it. They're okay with it. MR. CALABRESE: The one individual who did not sign it, did they have a concern? MR. BOEDDEKER: I want to see if he's here. He's not here tonight. He's not against it. He has some issues with City Hall and that's why he didn't want to do it. He told me he wasn't going to fight me on doing it. So he doesn't have anything. He has two balls that he's balancing and I guess he felt if he put his name on a okay on something it would affect, you know, other issues that he has with this building. MR. CALABRESE: Okay. And then in terms of the hardship as you're describing it to the Board, there is no other option you're saying? MR. BOEDDEKER: Right. MR. CALABRESE: Is that correct, there is no other way to do this? MR. BOEDDEKER: No. MR. CALABRESE: And this is in many ways, the hardship is your health, it's an issue? MR. BOEDDEKER: Well, that, and I want to protect my automobiles and other property that I would put out there in that driveway. Because the sun is right from noon time on, right over the top of that area and I've had -- I've had to replant a tree in that front yard because of the heat. One that was there originally died and I wasn't going to change, I wasn't going to replant it but the one year makes the house all that much hotter. So you can imagine how hot it is on that concrete, You know, underneath there during the day. In the summertime, it's from around 11 o'clock until 6, 7 o'clock at night that it's right fully in the sun, on the yard, the hill. The hill, you know, a total aside, the crab grass, and I've been having a battle of 13 years on that hillside. I'm winning now but it's taken me 13 years to win. MR. CALABRESE: One quick question for staff. I think you addressed this last time. A carport, you were saying under the Code has a similar status to just even putting a building up here, another MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 room, would be the rules would apply the same for a carport or for a cover as they do for extending the house, is that correct? MR. BOYLE: That's correct. And that's the main reason we're here. It's defined as a building by our Code and perhaps when the Code was drafted they didn't envision it including carports because we've got carports all over town sitting right on property lines and in front yards, and what have you. But staff doesn't have a mechanism to approve what's defined as a building in the yard. And so that's correct. MR. CALABRESE: Okay. No other questions. MR. KRASNER: Just two questions for Mr. Boyle. I mentioned this last time. I appreciate the fact that you provided details and measurements because that is helpful for us. Based on what you submitted, it looks like the structure is actually attached to the house. And I'm wondering, I know our Code doesn't mention awnings per se, it talks about covered porches and other things that are allowed to project into the yard. Clearly nothing would normally be allowed to project this far under the Code. I'm trying to get a sense of what does the Code allow to project off a house into a yard and usually by how much, porches. MR. BOYLE: Yeah, the most common is a covered porch which would be eight feet into the front yard setback. There's cantilevers which would not have a structure down to the ground, are three feet. But the primary projection into the yard that's provided for in the Code is the covered porch. MR. KRASNER: Covered porch. So a covered porch you said could project up to eight feet by right? MR. BOYLE: Yes, yes. MR. KRASNER: Into the yard. This thing is projecting, looks like about 16 feet. Oh, into the required yard, is it 21 feet? MR. HOWELL: 16 feet to the curb. MR. KRASNER: To the curb, I'm sorry. 21 feet in. The setback is R1-B. The setback is normally 35 feet? MR. BOYLE: It's R1-A. So it would be -- yes, sir. The house is sitting approximately at the front yard setback. It looks like the note in the driveway is 30.1 feet. So it's at setback and the setback's 30 feet in that neighborhood. MR. KRASNER: One question for the applicant also. Your neighbor at 801, right across, did they sign that letter? MR. BOEDDEKER: Yeah, Marjorie and -- Margorie's lived there and she's the original owner. Actually she doesn't live there now. She's in a home. But, you know, she still owns the property. And her cousin, you know, takes care of it and they both signed it. It should be in your -- MR. KRASNER: I only ask because that property of all your neighbors probably would be the most affected as far as having the best view of it so that is important. MR. BOEDDEKER: Yeah. No, as I said, everybody else was okay MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 with it. There is a couple of them that they even thought, told me they want to do it on their property and they're looking at what happens here, you know, to see if they can. Because one of them did try, the previous owner from him tried to put one on the side of his house and the Board then turned him down. And I can't imagine why because he's got a driveway, you know, a paved area right up to the side of the house and all it would be, it would be like a lean-to coming out. I don't have any idea why that wouldn't have been approved and he didn't either but it wasn't. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. HOWELL: Yes. Just to clarify these distances. You have the map. You're saying that the directional thing now on this kind of a setback is that you would be looking at a 15 foot setback if the -- you mentioned the former practice that you have, you were reverting to before '88. MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. Under the Code prior to 1988, the property owner would choose a yard to be the front at 30 feet and then the other street side yard was one half of the neighbor's setback. Kind of an interesting way to go about it. MR. HOWELL: You said that was around 15 feet though. MR. BOYLE: Yes. So with 30 on the one side it would be 15 feet. MR. HOWELL: So these according to his contractor will have 16 feet. MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Yeah, so that's one way to capture the impact versus what we see in many areas around town and the direction we'd like the Code to go. MR. HOWELL: Thank you. MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other questions? We're going to discuss among ourselves and we'll proceed from there. So we'll close it off to the audience and to the applicant. Any discussion amongst the Board? MR. CALABRESE: I didn't have the benefit of discussion last week. I'm just going from what I read here and what I see here, it seems acceptable to me. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And I will say that what we have here provides more specificity in terms of where it would be built, the distance from the road, the height. And I think for me that was the primary thing last month, that we just didn't understand and now we do. And I think this also puts it, this drawing that's been shared, puts it in context with one of the items cited by Mr. Boyle which was the similar topographic features of the property including the massive hedge, the depth of the driveway relative to the rest of the yard, and the severe slope, as Mr. Boyle pointed out. So, this was the specificity I was seeking a month ago. MR. KRASNER: And I'll say that I was struggling with this one, MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 you know, as far as whether or not it meets a true hardship. The issue I'm running up against is again, the issue of -- I mean the ordinance generally doesn't allow carports in a front yard. And this variance is basically asking to do something the ordinance clearly states is just not allowed at all. So what I'm struggling with is the proper role of the BZA and whether or not it's our role to, again, there is an ordinance we don't like or a citizen doesn't like, the proper way to handle that is to get City Council to change the ordinance to allow it. I'm still struggling with whether or not granting the relief to allow a structure that is not allowed in the front yard at all is proper. And so I'm still having a tough time supporting this. Not that I don't think that Mr. Boeddeker seems like a good citizen and I understand what you're trying to do and, you know, I think it's unfortunate that the ordinance is the way it is. But I still have trouble finding that again, that legal definition of hardship that the need -- and again, the need to work on a car is certainly a good pastime but it's not a legal hardship for why you should get a pass around what the ordinance says. Now we can debate whether or not we like the ordinance but the proper forum to do that is with the City Council who adopts these ordinances and has the power to change them. We don't have the power to change an ordinance, we have power to grant relief from an ordinance when we applied it by the book it creates a hardship. So the lack of having a covered driveway, in my opinion, doesn't make it a hardship legally. So I'm struggling with trying to find a way to give you some type of relief to do what you want to do. But given the situation, your house is at the property line. It doesn't seem to -- I don't -- there doesn't seem to be a way where we can find a compromise where I would feel comfortable granting a variance. My colleagues may disagree with me and I respect everybody but I'm just having trouble feeling good about supporting this type of a variance. MR. BOEDDEKER: Can I say something to that? MR. KRASNER: Sure. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Go ahead. MR. BOEDDEKER: This is also I think, you know, the hardship is, you know, protecting my property. And I tried to explain that the best I can. If I could put initially what I wanted to do was put an awning all the way from the front porch all the way down into, you know, this awning, you know, to protect myself, neighbors, etcetera, coming up and down those steps because of that sun that, you know, glares on there during that period of time. Now I'm sure the previous owner, the reason that they put the shutters that are on the windows on that side of the house, you know, was for that reason also, to protect the inside of that house. And it's also, you know, to protect me when I'm working on those. Whatever I happen to be working on, whether it's the cars or the lawnmower or MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 whatever else I work out there. Because I think the neighbors would support, I'm in that driveway a lot and during -- you know, except in the wintertime, you know, I'm not out there all that much. That's, you know, my point with this. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Any other comments amongst the Board? MR. HOWELL: Yes, if I may please. I was exercised by this last time because of lack of clarity about the precise positions of the setbacks and I think what staff has told us this evening makes me a bit more comfortable, the fact that we've now got from the curb to the outermost point of this awning or canopy or carport, we have 16 feet, which in the spirit of the way that things may be moving seems to be regarded as a reasonable setback in this particular location. The other thing that I think we need to commend Mr. Boeddeker for is the drawings that he's got from the contractors who would be working with this, to give a clearer idea of what exactly is envisaged. One of the things we discussed last time was whether it is connected to the house and it is. It now comes out to a distance which does not infringe on the side setback as apparently now it's recently understood in this area in terms of the distances it comes up. So I'm inclined to feel that we should grant this variance. MR. CALABRESE: If I can make one comment. In all of the years I've been on this Board, I think almost every case we've had to decide variances that are the result of setbacks that were written 50, I don't know, 80 years ago. And then when the house was built it was in conformance with that and of course now it's not and now you have to deal with this situation. So I agree with Mr. Krasner, that I think if you apply the legal standard, it's a very strict standard and we have difficulty sometimes approving these. However I think that there is a fundamental problem with the neighborhoods where you have these old setbacks and people are trying to adjust or they're trying to adapt to them and it becomes almost impossible, I think, to apply the legal standard strictly in light of the fact that you have these changing setback lines. So I sympathize with the legal argument. Certainly I feel I'm frequently focusing on that. But in this case I think that we frequently in our role have to weigh the issues here and look at these factors such as where the lines were when the house was built and now what the use is. So I think that's where my vote would be focused. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think if any motion is made like that it would need to very clearly identify some of the things that have been discussed as staff pointed out. Because Mr. Krasner is right, you know, it needs to be included in the facts in the situation and not our sense of the situation but rather what the facts are and what we see based on the information presented. MR. KRASNER: I'm also concerned again about setting a precedent, generally to have a blanket approval to have carport that MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 covers your driveway in the setback, you know, it just sets a precedent that again is probably better served by changing the Code if there's enough support to do that, and if the City agrees that they want to allow people to have this. This house is built at the setback line. This house is conforming. And then, you know, this is now making it, essentially allowing it to be nonconforming where it's conforming today, to allow for that. So we could debate whether or not how necessary it is or not but for that purpose that's actually beside the point. So if this does get supported I would make it very strict as far as what's being approved. It can't be enclosed, turned into a garage. Because all it would take, would be again Mr. Boeddeker sells the house and now someone else 20 years from now has this covered driveway and decides, well, I'll just put a door on here and I've got a totally enclosed parking. And then he finishes it and heats it and it becomes now part of the house. So if this is supported, my recommendation would be that the Board puts conditions on it that strictly limits it to exactly what is being proposed. MR. BOEDDEKER: Mr. Calabrese, you weren't here the last time but what you were saying is one of the points I had. We don't live the same way we did 70 years ago. I don't want to live like my great grandfather did. I told the three of you there, I grew up with an outhouse. I don't want to go back to that, especially when it's 20 degrees. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Not this weekend especially. I'll think we'll go ahead and cut off the comments. MR. BOEDDEKER: I'm just saying, you know, there's changes. And I agree with you in one fact about the Codes that I've looked at, that I've read. They were written that long ago and they need to be updated because we all live differently than we did, you know, then. People were lucky to have one car 70 years ago, let alone, you know, I have two cars so. And I used to have three when my wife was alive. So those are, you know, side reasons that I covered more thoroughly last time. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you, sir. We'll cut it off now. Any further discussion amongst the Board? MR. CALABRESE: One question. If we were to make this motion, looking at the description and it describes this as a construction of a carport, car cover, I think just questioning Mr. Krasner as far as what further condition or detail is he suggesting. MR. KRASNER: Well, that might be enough. That might be enough to specify it's a carport, it will remain unenclosed. I'm just concerned, again, I think Mr. Boeddeker aside when this gets approved it becomes, it can stay there in perpetuity basically and it has a right to remain there for any future owner. Somebody like I said 20, 30 years from now buys that house, buys it, has this structure and figures, oh, well, I'm going to enclose it and turn it into something else. Next thing you know, you're in a violation status. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014  That still could happen. That's how these things can happen sometimes. 50 years from now there could be a Board sitting here wondering how that happened, when somebody now made that a garage. It's attached to part of the house, wondering how that happened. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We'll be here. We'll remember. MR. KRASNER: I won't be here. I won't be sitting up here. But so to the extent we can be as explicit as possible as far as the limitations on this structure, what exactly can be erected here. That's just my advice, if, in fact, the Board supports this. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think that's why it is a carport, it's an unenclosed carport with no use other than the use that's been stated here. I think that's important. I think it's also important the topographic features of this particular property are related to this particular variance request. Is there a motion? MR. CALABRESE: I can take a stab at it. I hear what you're saying. This motion could be something as follows: Due to the topographic peculiarities of the property, and list the property, I make a motion to approve variance application V1567-14 by John Boeddeker to allow the construction of an unenclosed carport/car cover, on the premises which we already had elicited for the uses stated, I don't have what those uses are, but for the uses stated -- one of the uses would be for parking a car. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would you accept an amendment, that it would be extending no further than presented tonight which is 21 feet from the house? MR. CALABRESE: Yes, yes. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And therefore staying at 16 feet. MR. CALABRESE: Right. Got that? Okay. MR. HOWELL: I second. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call vote. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. MR. KRASNER: No. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. MR. CALABRESE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. MR. HOWELL: Yes. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations, sir. You have your unenclosed carport. MR. BOEDDEKER: Thank you. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Or car cover. Good luck with your project. MR. BOEDDEKER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Krasner. I appreciate it. MR. KRASNER: Good luck. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014  Discussion of minutes from the October 16, 2014, BZA meeting CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We have one set of minutes to go through. These are minutes from October 16, 2014. They were all distributed in advance so you could go through these. (Minutes reviewed.) CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Seeing no changes, is there a motion to approve the minutes? MR. KRASNER: So moved. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Second? Is there a second? MR. CALABRESE: Second. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote please. RECORDING SECRETAY: Mr. Williamson. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. MR. KRASNER: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. MR. CALABRESE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Howell. MR. HOWELL: Yes. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I want to inform the Board what Mr. Boyle shared with me earlier, that the City Clerk received a letter or e-mail from Mr. Stoodley that he's decided to resign from the Board at the end of the year. So next meeting will be Mr. Stoodley's last meeting on the Board of Zoning Appeals. So with that, is there any old business? MR. CALABRESE: Can we do anything for him? Is there anything, a plaque or something presented? MR. BOYLE: Yes, there is usually a commendation from Council and in the past we've prepared a certificate and group photo. He's probably tired of looking at us all at this point but we'll make him take it any way. And he's been 20 some years, 21 years. MR. HOWELL: Is that something we do or is that something that the Council does? MR. BOYLE: Staff will facilitate something on this Board's behalf and then Council does something independently. So certainly we'll have that ready. Hopefully he'll be able to make the next meeting. Do we have an agenda? MR. WADE: Not yet. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We should meet. MR. WADE: We could do that just for him. MR. CALABRESE: Yes. That would be nice. MR. BOYLE: Okay. Yes. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 7. OLD BUSINESS CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there any other Old Business? MR. BOYLE: No. 8. ADJOURNMENT CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? MR. CALABRESE: Motion. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Second? MR. KRASNER: Second. CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All in favor? (A chorus of "ayes.") CHAIR WILLIAMSON: This meeting is adjourned. (7:55 p.m.) MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2014