Board of Zoning Appeals

1 2 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 3 City Council Chambers 4 300 Park Avenue 5 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 6 December 15, 2016 7 7:30 p.m. 8 9 1. CALL TO ORDER 10 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would like to call to order the 11 December 15, 2016, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 12 Roll call. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 16 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 18 MR. KRASNER: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 20 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 21 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 22 MR. JONES: Here. 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 24 25 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So we can get right into Old and New 26 Business, I'm going to adjust the order of the Agenda so that the 27 Approval of Minutes occurs as Item 7 C under Other Business. 28 29 4. OLD BUSINESS 30 A. Variance application V1584-16 by Jason A. Brown, for a 31 variance to Section 48-238(3)(a) to allow (1) a front yard setback of 32 17.83 feet instead of 30 feet along the Jackson Street frontage; and 33 (2) a side yard setback of eight (8) feet instead of 15 feet along 34 the western property line for the purpose of constructing a new 35 single-family house on premises known as 1268 South Washington 36 Street, RPC #52-501-001 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 37 zoned R-1A Low Density Residential. 38 39 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So with that, I'd like to begin with Old 40 Business, which is a continued matter, which is Variance Application 41 V1584-16 by Jason A. Brown, owner and applicant, for a Variance to 42 Section 48-238(3)(a) to allow (1) a front yard setback of 17.83 feet 43 instead of 30 feet along the Jackson Street frontage; and (2) a side 44 yard setback of eight (8) feet instead of 15 feet along the western 45 property line for the purpose of constructing a new single-family 46 house on the premises known as 1268 South Washington Street, RPC 47 #52-501-001 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, 48 Low Density Residential. 49 And really what I'd like to do at this time is ask the 50 applicants, as well as anyone else who wants to speak this evening on 51 this or any other matter, to rise and raise their right hand to be 52 sworn. 53 (Witnesses sworn.) 54 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: With that, if we can receive a brief 55 report from staff, we can then hear from the applicants. 56 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 57 As you said, this matter was before the Board in September 58 I believe and went through something of a discussion and I think the 59 applicant sensed the Board needed some additional materials and 60 they're back tonight with that. 61 Couple of things I just wanted to point out is what I think 62 is striking about this application or this particular lot is despite 63 being close to standard in width and square footage, it still ends up 64 being a shape where normal application of the setbacks produce an 65 unusually reduced building envelope. And this is another example of 66 our setbacks on a corner lot. 67 In addition, I mention that because corner lots have front 68 yard setbacks off the street sides and the two interior sides are 69 side yards. But this one has the added feature of being unusually 70 distant from the curb line. We measured it this afternoon and the 71 typical property will be about a sidewalk width or 5 or 6 feet from 72 the curb; this one is 10 to 12 feet off the curb. I think that may 73 be because there is a little bit of terrain off the street up to the 74 house. 75 Another feature that's unusual here is when the State 76 widened Washington Street, they took some of this property's square 77 footage and you get the unusual notch at the corner and it was 78 shortened on the Washington Street frontage.  79 Many of the properties along Washington there have this 80 feature. 81 You have in your information packet from the applicant and 82 what I found of interest is the plat or the engineering plan that was 83 included. The proposed house is situated to go no closer to the 84 neighbors, I believe that's correct, than the current house but 85 they're actually going to pull it back further off the street than 86 the existing house is and then run it further into the yard than the 87 existing house. 88 And the current house has a driveway off of Washington 89 Street which we know from speaking with the residents there, always 90 an exciting turn and a back out into traffic. The proposed house 91 will swing the driveway around the corner onto Jackson Street 92 frontage. 93 Both of these Variances are something that staff looked at 94 and did not have the authority to approve so they're before you 95 tonight for a Variance. 96 And with that, we'll defer to the applicant. 97 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 98 Sir, will you state your name and please proceed. 99 MR. BROWN: Jason Brown. 100 MS. BROWN: Brooke Brown. 101 MR. BROWN: Yeah, basically John touched on the main point 102 to this Variance is that basically we want to place the new property 103 in the existing footprint, flipping the current house but moving it 104 back from Washington Street for more safety reasons for our family, 105 and also we feel the new proposed footprint improves the aesthetics 106 of the current placement conditions along with increased visual 107 safety when entering Jackson Street from -- entering Washington 108 Street from Jackson Street. 109 And if that makes sense to you, if you could take a look at 110 the engineered plan. You can see how on the left you can see the 111 placement of the existing house and to the right is the new house and 112 it's in the same building restriction lines except for it's moving 113 back from Washington Street and there's more room towards Jackson 114 Street now too. 115 MS. BROWN: They're just safety concerns mostly along my 116 part, you know, having a young child and pets, it will be much 117 closer. 118 MR. BROWN: We tried to keep it within the same strengths 119 that are currently there and I feel we are improving them because 120 again, we are moving it back from Washington Street and from Jackson 121 Street. 122 One of the main concerns was from the neighbors about 123 the -- you can see the trees. Trees right here, and we talked to two 124 arborists, AMA engineer, he's an arborist and also I attached the 125 emails from him; and Kate with the City, and both of them agreed that 126 these trees would survive construction as long as we followed certain 127 restraints, safety around the trees. You can see from her email I 128 attached to the packet. That was in response, basically saying that 129 the trees would be saved. 130 MS. BROWN: That we were basically willing to take the 131 measures needed to do whatever we can to save the trees. And we also 132 offered to, when Jason spoke with the people that are in the 133 townhouse development next to us, that if something by chance did 134 happen, that we would replace it with the largest trees, hard trees, 135 the closest thing we could. But we would take all recommended 136 measures from the arborist to use whatever precautions we can to save 137 the tree. 138 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 139 MR. BROWN: And their consensus was the trees will be 140 saved, the arborist. In measuring from the side of the foundation to 141 the first tree that's really the one that's of concern is 11 feet, 142 and they said as long as it's 10 feet or more you should be fine, but 143 again, you have to follow certain restraints around excavating: You 144 have to cover the roots, try and hand dig in certain areas, don't 145 have any heavy machinery or vibration in the ground in that area. 146 And my personal experience, our house, in fact, we have a 147 huge tree from the current foundation and we want to keep that tree 148 because we built a deck around the tree, you know, making the 149 backyard look really nice. 150 MS. BROWN: It was probably six feet, seven feet from the 151 house probably, about that. We built the deck around it. 152 MR. BROWN: And this tree of concern is 7 years old and the 153 tree we're talking about is probably close to 40 that survived the 8 154 foot. 155 MS. BROWN: We can take pictures of it. 156 MR. BROWN: And the trunk of the tree that the neighbors 157 are concerned about is probably about this diameter. 158 MS. BROWN: The arborist did mention too that specific type 159 of tree, the holly trees, the roots do grow down. It would be more 160 concern if the root space grew out but she measured the tallest one 161 of the hollies based on the circumference of the trunk itself, the 162 widest point, that the roots were going to be going down. So if we 163 took those measures to protect that base of the tree, it should be 164 fine since it doesn't spread out. 165 MR. BROWN: Yes, from Kate's email, she said, Yes, the 166 trunks are still very small. It's good to bet the root systems are 167 not very large either. 10 or 11 feet would be safe. However there 168 needs to be room outside the edge of the foundation to work and set 169 forms, blah, blah, blah, so she goes on to just saying protecting the 170 area like I just discussed for these trees. 171 I shouldn't say trees, it's only the one tree. And I know 172 the neighbors are still concerned. I tried to explain all this 173 through emails and copying them and I just found out they're still 174 concerned about the trees not making it through construction. But 175 from all my emails and the professional opinions, it will make it 176 through. 177 And again if you see on the plat, it's only the one we're 178 talking about. The rest should be fine, based on the 10 feet 179 distance. 180 Also I want to bring up too, the tree we're concerned about 181 is on our property. The way the trees fell, and I brought a larger 182 plat in, I can bring and show it to you, but the way the trees fell, 183 the one they're concerned about is on our property but then as you go 184 down the line, they're kind of like planted right on the line. So 185 whose tree is it, if that's the case. 186 But I'm trying to help out everybody. I want to make 187 everybody happy. And our plan too is to set up, if we get to 188 construction, put up a barrier of trees, privacy barrier. 189 MS. BROWN: We want privacy too. That's something we're 190 going to want also. So it's in our best interest too to save the 191 trees and keep that privacy barrier. So that's what we've being 192 trying to communicate. 193 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 194 MR. BROWN: But as you can see from the lot, there's some 195 very confined space we have to work with so we tried to fit it in the 196 best possible living space. 197 MS. BROWN: One other concern too, if you move it any -- I 198 know there's been suggestions out there to move it closer to Jackson. 199 There's no parking on Jackson. So if we lose any bit of driveway, we 200 have no guest parking at all. So it would be difficult because we 201 have family that comes in town and stuff like that. That would be 202 difficult. 203 MR. BROWN: And our plan too is like, through the City, 204 we're going to have to, if it goes to grading they're going to have 205 to put a plan for the trees and we want to do a privacy shrubbery 206 probably if you see, like here's the plan. Along this space right 207 here. So there would also be more privacy there. And again, these 208 are the trees we're talking about. This one in particular is the 209 one. 210 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Before we get to any questions, I 211 know when we last met there was an interest in precise measurements 212 and more of a plan and that's what you have, the more precise 213 measurements here. 214 MS. BROWN: It should be in there. 215 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I don't know if you wanted to touch on, 216 maybe you were planning to, touch on like the plan for the house 217 itself. I think that was something else that we asked about. 218 MR. BROWN: Yeah, you wanted exterior elevations. 219 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 220 MR. BROWN: That's in the packet also. 221 It's on Page 25. Front elevation, Craftsman design. And as you flip 222 through, you'll see the front elevation. The left side elevation, it 223 will face obviously the left of the property; then the right side 224 elevation which is going to be along Jackson Street, and the rear 225 elevation. 226 And again, like you said, we tried to do everything you 227 wanted us to do as far as the house elevations and a more detailed 228 plan. So I had hired an engineer to go out and get exactly where 229 everything is going to be. 230 Again too, from studying the neighborhood, from what we're 231 proposing it seems to fit in the constraints of the existing 232 neighborhood, if not better. And so that's another reason I feel 233 like we're trying to stay within. And we're also not building 234 something large enough that it will cover more area of the property, 235 the square footage. 236 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We can see if there's any questions from 237 members of the Board. 238 Go ahead. 239 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. As you stated, you did provide 240 much more of the detail that we requested, so thank you. 241 Two questions. On the, when you compare the two designs, 242 there are fewer trees. Now, you mentioned this copse of trees here 243 where there's potentially this dispute. But there are another five, 244 it looks like, that are coming down. Were those ever an issue in 245 front? The front bottom left and then kind of middle left. It may 246 not have been. 247 MR. BROWN: Which ones now? 248 MR. CALABRESE: The bottom left, those two big ones and 249 then right above them. 250 MR. BROWN: Yeah, these were never a concern. 251 MS. BROWN: There's a significant amount of weed trees 252 where they just -- we can put up something that's more aesthetically 253 pleasing and bigger. 254 MR. BROWN: And when I met with Martha in the neighborhood, 255 I showed her this plan. And like these four trees you're talking 256 about that are on our property would come down but then along with 257 that we're going to put a privacy shrubbery area along that. 258 MR. CALABRESE: And a question about the neighbors. The 259 question is do the neighbors support this and I think you've already 260 stated they may be, they may not. But you also have two letters of 261 support in here. I just want to clarify who these individuals are. 262 You have one at 201 and one at -- it's hard to tell, 105? 263 MR. BROWN: Yeah, 201 is directly behind us. 264 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. On Jackson there. 265 MR. BROWN: Yeah. And then a few doors down from us is the 266 other one. 267 MR. CALABRESE: And then in terms of the neighbors next 268 door which are the townhouses, there are still issues with them. Is 269 there someone here -- it looks like there is and we'll hear from 270 them. 271 And you said you're in discussion with them to resolve the 272 remaining issues. 273 MR. BROWN: Yeah, their concern was the tree, the one tree. 274 And through the emails I was trying to explain that the tree is going 275 to be okay, from arborists. 276 MS. BROWN: Margaret requested we set up a time with the 277 arborist, Kate, who was recommended that everybody could be there. 278 So Jason emailed her and she replied, Well, I've already been there 279 and done that. There's nothing new I can add. That was one of the 280 emails that was set up. 281 So we did try to, you know, make everybody happy by going 282 back and setting that up again, even though she had already been but 283 she didn't think there was a need to do that. 284 MR. CALABRESE: I don't have further questions but we 285 should probably hear from them to answer these questions. 286 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions from members of the 287 Board? 288 MR. KRASNER: Just a couple of questions and I may have 289 some more after I hear from the neighbors. 290 So, as I hear you say you are willing to do some additional 291 screening on your property line with Rosemary Court in addition to 292 what's there, the existing holly trees. Those are behind your house, 293 you're talking about you'd also be willing to do some plantings 294 directly behind your house -- beside your house as well. 295 MS. BROWN: Yeah, our plan was always to put up a rather 296 large -- I can't remember what they're called off the top of my head, 297 the ones that grow rather fast and kind of conjoin together, trees. 298 MR. KRASNER: There's no fence there today, right? Is 299 there a fence? The plan doesn't show one. 300 MS. BROWN: It's an old metal one. 301 MR. KRASNER: Like a cyclone fence. 302 MS. BROWN: Yeah, it's going to be taken down. 303 MR. KRASNER: Do you plan to put a fence up? 304 MR. BROWN: We were going to do the privacy shrubs. That's 305 it pretty much. 306 MR. KRASNER: I think shrubs are better. A fence, there's 307 no limit to how tall the shrubs are allowed to grow. 308 MR. BROWN: Right. And again, like Brooke was saying 309 earlier, we want to make sure we have privacy between properties, for 310 us too. 311 MS. BROWN: Yeah, that was sort of always our plan to do 312 that. 313 MR. KRASNER: Here's the other question, and I'm assuming 314 we heard what the townhouses had to say back in September. And I 315 guess the question is, I heard you mention one of the reasons you're 316 siting it further back from Jackson is to have a longer driveway. I 317 guess the question is, I see how you sited the house, and I put a lot 318 of faith in what the arborist has to say. 10 feet is close because 319 to those trees, because as the arborist points out, they'll need room 320 to work, they'll be room, folks will need to get through there, and 321 so there's some disturbance beyond that. So you're getting pretty 322 close to the root zone of those trees. It's not like we're talking 323 about a 50 inch oak or something where the roots go everywhere. 324 So I guess the bottom line question is have you considered 325 bringing it a little bit forward? 326 As Mr. Boyle pointed out, because your lot line is well in 327 a curve, I mean you're showing a two car garage, you're showing a 328 driveway that's 28 feet long. At 28 feet, you can fit maybe two 329 cars in that driveway. But there's still extra room behind that. 330 You couldn't fit two cars tandem but you have room for one plus. And 331 I wonder if there's a little bit of room just to provide a little 332 more distance between the property line with Rosemary Court. 333 The reason I didn't bring that up, is because the other 334 mitigating factors, you have the apartments on the other side, so 335 it's not like you come closer to the street. It's not really 336 changing the character. In some ways this lot, it's a little bit 337 removed from the rest of Jackson Street just by its nature. Only 338 because the house on Lot 2 is further up. You've got the townhouses, 339 you have the apartments. So coming closer on to Jackson Street, from 340 a character standpoint I don't see a huge detriment to that. 341 So the question is, have you considered that? Because last 342 time you were here you didn't have a drawing and you had kind of an 343 idea. What's the reason behind the 28 foot setback from the curb? 344 MR. BROWN: We're open to help out how we can. From the 345 arborist said that these trees wouldn't be affected. 346 MS. BROWN: Again, it's a safety concern. If you've ever 347 stood on the corner of that street, you're going to see, it's just a 348 comfort level of mine. I'm not comfortable with that. 349 MR. BROWN: The closer you get to Jackson, the closer you 350 get to Washington, there's a lot of -- 351 MS. BROWN: It's a very busy street. I'm already 352 apprehensive about it as it is. 353 MR. KRASNER: No, I can understand that. And I think it's 354 good you've kept it further back from Washington, I mean just from 355 your own standpoint, as opposed to being closer to there. 356 Did I hear you say also you'd be willing to have a 357 condition that if the holly trees don't make it, you'd be willing to 358 replace them? 359 MS. BROWN: Yes, we offered that to them. 360 MR. BROWN: But one of their concerns was, you couldn't get 361 a tree that tall. 362 MS. BROWN: They didn't sell them at 25 feet is what they 363 said. 364 MR. KRASNER: Not right away, that's true. 365 MS. BROWN: That's what we said, they would grow. We'd get 366 the biggest one we could is what we said. 367 MR. BROWN: And that's why when I went through further 368 investigation, from the engineer that did the plat for us, he's an 369 arborist, and he said since the holly trees have compact root zone, 370 does not spread out, the house they're building is well off, at least 371 10 feet away from those trees. If we paid proper construction 372 measures to save the trees, it will survive construction. 373 MR. KRASNER: Well, yeah, I think there are measures that 374 can be done, not bringing any heavy equipment along that property 375 line. It's the soil compaction that usually is what kills them. 376 Soil compaction on a big tree, obviously it's at the root, if you 377 start cutting and cutting into roots, it's not something as simple as 378 the soil compaction. If you can keep any heavy equipment from 379 running, and that's what I think the arborist, typically even if it's 380 a by-right situation, the arborist would be putting in some tree 381 protection fencing and recommending some measures. 382 And I think if we decide to support this, I think we would 383 want to condition some, implementing at a minimum the tree protection 384 measures that were identified in an email, but I wouldn't limit it to 385 that. I would defer to the arborist to recommend tree protection 386 measures that she sees fit to try to ensure that those survive. 387 But the fact that you're willing to replace them if they 388 don't, the other idea, we haven't talked about this yet, I'll wait to 389 hear from the townhouses, but off-site planting, if you'd be willing 390 to -- because there's a limited amount of room you have here. If 391 they die, if you'd be willing to plant some just over the line on 392 their side of the line, that's another idea to consider, if you're 393 willing to do that. 394 Let's see what they have to say and we'll go from there. 395 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Just a question. I'm looking through 396 the emails and are there -- were you given precise instructions from 397 the arborist about the construction measures to take or it appears to 398 be general in the emails. 399 MR. BROWN: Yeah, she didn't give us precise rules to 400 follow but there are things you can do. 401 MR. KRASNER: Again, I'm sure she can recommend more 402 precise measures. It depends on exactly where we approve the setback 403 so that she knows how much room she has to work with. At a minimum, 404 we would want to put that as a condition, at least I would recommend 405 that we put that as a condition that those measures be put in place 406 to try to ensure their survival. 407 It's hard. With some trees, you can never truly guarantee 408 survival when you get within like the root zone, when you get close 409 to it. There's always a chance something could happen. Something 410 could happen that could be out of your control. I mean, the trees 411 could get diseased or something down the road. 412 I guess the goal would be to minimize the chance of causing 413 any harm to them. And as you said, some are them are along the line. 414 They're right on the property line. 415 You asked whose trees they are if they're on the line. If 416 the main trunk is on the line, it's shared actually. You both own 417 them. It's right on the line. So it's tricky. 418 I guess the goal would be to minimize the chance of that. 419 The fact that they are hollies, the arborist is correct, they don't 420 spread out as much so there's some benefit to the fact they're 421 hollies as opposed to other species of trees. 422 Let's see what the neighbors have to say. There may be a 423 solution to try to ensure that they survive, at least guarantee that 424 something gets replaced if they don't make it. 425 Do you have any response to that or I'd like to hear from 426 the representative of Rosemary Court. If you can step forward, you 427 need to sign in up here. 428 I'll note you were sworn in earlier. 429 MS. DUBRO: Yes. 430 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You want to state your name. 431 MS. DUBRO: My name is Jean Dubro and I'm here to represent 432 the Rosemary Court Homeowners Association this evening. 433 There are seven units there and we really appreciate the 434 Browns' communication so far. They've been very open with us and we 435 appreciate all the information they've been willing to share with us. 436 We hope that we can come to an agreement because we'd love to have 437 them as our neighbors. 438 As a group, we do have some concerns about the 8 foot 439 Variance on the side. As Mr. Krasner indicated just now, although we 440 appreciate the greater detail that's been provided since the 441 September 15th meeting, we're still a little bit concerned about the 442 ultimate effect of the construction activities on that line of 443 hollies. It's really the entire line that we're concerned about. 444 It's really our only screening, our only vegetation along that side. 445 And we just had some concerns that the current application would be 446 insufficient to protect their health. 447 Mr. Brown was kind enough to share Kate Reich's email about 448 this matter with us. She says, 10 or 11 feet would be safe, that is 449 the location of the property line, 10 or 11 feet from the property 450 line to the foundation would be safe, however there needs to be room 451 outside the edge of the foundation to work and set concrete forms. 452 The location of the foundation is not the limit of the work area. 453 So we would be comfortable with a 10 foot Variance, but 454 given the fact that work needs to be performed right around that 455 foundation line, we feel comfortable with a 10 foot Variance would 456 not -- I don't know what other word to use, we're just worried about 457 using the 8 foot Variance. 458 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I could add something on this 459 question. 460 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Please. 461 MR. BOYLE: I wasn't aware the screening issue was going to 462 be such a topic. But I think it's important to point out that single 463 family residentials are not required to screen against more dense 464 uses, not required to screen at all. The townhouse development would 465 have been constructed under a site plan that would have included a 466 perimeter screening requirement and a screening between the change in 467 the zoning districts. It's going to be probably a residential 468 multi-family. 469 Having said that, this Board does have a mission to 470 consider does development have a negative impact on the neighbors. 471 What I think needs to be resolved is who owns the trees. Is this 472 construction going to damage trees on the townhouse side, the 473 adjacent parcel, or are these all on the residential property. 474 In a perfect situation, a residential development could 475 clear-cut their property with the exception of trees that are 476 protected by City Code, could clear-cut that, position the house, and 477 then relocate the trees on the property to satisfy the canopy 478 coverage, but there's no requirement to screen against the neighbors. 479 The one exception to that process though is there are trees 480 there, they may be damaged by this construction and would or would 481 not that have an impact on the neighbors. The lay of the land out 482 there is that there is screening now so one of the Board's missions 483 is to mitigate impact on the neighbors. 484 But again, I think it's important to consider that the 485 single family is not obligated to screen from the multi-family; the 486 multi-family should be screening from the single family. We just 487 don't know who owns the trees. So it may come down to ownership of 488 the trees, if they're damaged they need to be replaced. Hopefully, 489 that will put this in perspective. 490 MR. CALABRESE: That's very helpful information. So you're 491 saying the multi-family, the townhouses, have the obligation for 492 screening. Did they provide a screen initially when the townhouses 493 were built? 494 MR. BOYLE: They must have but I haven't seen the site 495 plan. As I said, I wasn't aware this was going to be discussed. 496 MR. CALABRESE: Could these trees have been that? 497 MR. BOYLE: It's possible. We'd have to have one of the 498 planners look at the original site plan for that development. 499 Do you know when your development was constructed? 500 MS. DUBRO: It was in the early '80s, '81, '82. 501 MR. BOYLE: We've been requiring the site plan since 1964. 502 The first couple were a little sketchy, they were still figuring out 503 the process. But '70s and '80s were very solidly processed in a way 504 that we see them today. 505 So I'd be confident if we have the site plan that there 506 would be a screening provision to screen against the single family 507 and protect its privacy. 508 Staff wouldn't revisit that site plan unless something 509 occurred on the townhouse development site and said, where are these 510 site plan elements that were shown in the '80s that are no longer 511 there. 512 So it brings us back now to they have a concern about these 513 trees that are present. I think it's important to determine who owns 514 the trees and so it's a property ownership of the trees issue, not a 515 replenishing the screen question. 516 MR. CALABRESE: That's right. In fact, we get even more 517 complicated if it's an issue of who owns the trees but also the land 518 of the trees. 519 MS. DUBRO: Right. We assumed that we had. We assumed 520 that those were the original screening trees. 521 MS. BROWN: Martha said I think that they were planted in 522 the '90s though. 523 MS. DUBRO: Okay. 524 MS. BROWN: That's what Martha said. She owns the 525 townhouse on the end. We have the other emails from her, we can pull 526 them out. 527 They were planted, how many years ago did she say? 528 MR. BROWN: I think 9. 529 MS. BROWN: She said 8 or 9 years ago. 530 MR. BROWN: Maybe 7 years ago. 531 MS. DUBRO: No, that's not -- 532 MS. BROWN: In the emails she said that. 533 MR. CALABRESE: So at least from the plan here, I don't 534 know how accurate this is but they put the trees directly in the 535 middle or directly on top of the line. I don't know if that's just 536 for convenience or if that's actually where they are. If you were to 537 go to the site, are the roots -- is that line actually a fence, or 538 it's non-distinguished. 539 MR. BROWN: That's the property line. 540 MR. CALABRESE: Right, but when you're on the property, is 541 there a fence right on that line? 542 MS. DUBRO: There is a fence. 543 MR. CALABRESE: And the trees are on which side of the 544 fence? 545 MS. DUBRO: On the homeowners' association side. 546 It's not much of a fence. 547 MR. KRASNER: The plat doesn't -- 548 MR. BROWN: The fence is kind of falling down. 549 MR. CALABRESE: It's feasible that those trees were put up 550 by the homeowners' association although we don't know. 551 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. 552 MR. KRASNER: If they were put on lot 1, then it doesn't -- 553 I mean it becomes their -- I mean if you plant trees on their 554 property, you've just given them trees. 555 MR. BOYLE: I wish we had the site plan but I think we can 556 have this conversation without referring to it. It's not an issue 557 again of how do we screen the single family against the townhouses, 558 but who owns the trees and this becomes really a matter between 559 property owners. 560 MR. KRASNER: With all due respect though, Mr. Boyle, I 561 would point out that when you're asking for a Variance in the setback 562 and a house is going to go closer than it should, that potentially 563 can cause a detriment and it's a detriment that might need some 564 measures to help ameliorate the negative effect caused by that 565 encroachment. 566 So it's not as clear cut as that. Because this house would 567 be closer to the property line than it should, understanding that the 568 lot is undersized and there may be some valid reasons why that home 569 makes sense, there's a good reason under the law to allow it to be 570 closer. If we can ameliorate some of the negative effects of 571 allowing an encroachment, then that's typically what we're ascribed 572 to do. 573 So, it's complicated, I agree. Looking at the survey, it 574 appears that some of the trees, looks like whoever planted then, 575 tried to plant them on the line, and they did a pretty good job 576 planting them right on the line. A few were maybe over the line. 577 Again, holly trees sometimes have a very small trunk and it gets down 578 to, we might be talking about a matter of inches here. 579 I think the way forward is to try to ensure that the trees 580 have the best chance for survival as possible but putting in some 581 safeguards to deal with the -- or contingency rather to deal with the 582 situation where if they don't survive, what is fair to require these 583 applicants do to make up for that. 584 And I think there's an equity issue here. I don't think it 585 would be equitable to require them to have to plant a long screen 586 across the whole property line but perhaps if they were willing to 587 replace some of what's there, I think there's a middle ground there 588 that's fair. 589 I think there's some good argument to allow encroachment 590 but also understanding that it could damage these trees that are 591 providing some screening. Again, it's the end unit of the townhouses 592 that is the most affected, the way the townhouse is oriented. 593 The other thing which is perhaps a mitigating factor is the 594 home, right now the property is not in great repair, the one that's 595 there today. Those folks seem to be looking to dramatically improve 596 the property which helps a little bit as far as what we're screening 597 from and who is looking at what, it's sort of the eye of the 598 beholder. There's some argument there too. 599 I would like to find a way to do everything possible to 600 ensure the survival of those trees but leaving open the possibility 601 that something could happen and that there's a contingency plan in 602 effect for that. 603 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is that, if you don't mind, is that a 604 description of I guess of having as a condition of the Variance, 605 getting specific requirements from the arborist of how to proceed 606 with construction so as to minimize the effect on the trees and then 607 if there is a detrimental effect to the trees, there would be a 608 requirement of the single family home to replace any affected trees? 609 MR. KRASNER: Yeah, I think the City arborist's email 610 actually and I think she concedes the fact there's room outside -- 611 the roots of disturbance are beyond where the foundation is. I think 612 she understands that. I think there are measures, I don't know if 613 they're specified in here. I'm comfortable with deferring to the 614 arborist to come up with the specific measures. 615 I know when it comes down to it, you can do everything from 616 requiring that they use hand tools to dig in that area whenever 617 they're near the affected trees. I've seen that done for specimen 618 trees where there's a concern requiring that whenever they're close 619 to it, you compact the soil, everything down to using hand tools. 620 There's all kinds of things that can be done to try to ensure the 621 survival. Although, sometimes even with the best attempts, if you're 622 close enough, now, I think again holly trees, I feel a little more 623 comfortable because we're not talking about a 50 inch oak, or a 624 specimen tree that would be impossible to replace and have the same 625 effect. Holly trees grow, they're medium speed. That means they've 626 probably been there I think about 20 years is probably about right, 627 in looking at them. 628 So they will come back if something were to happen and 629 these folks had to replant in a slightly different location or even 630 if they had to plant and were willing to plant a little bit over the 631 line. There are things they could do and they would come back. It 632 wouldn't take 60 years to get them back to where they are now if 633 something were to happen. 634 So I think we can find a solution out of this through the 635 conditions today but I'll see what the rest of the Board members have 636 to say. 637 MR. CALABRESE: The only thing that concerns me is the note 638 from the arborist, she's somewhat vague. She's leaving herself room 639 to state that, yes, she believes it's safe however there does need to 640 be room outside the edge that she doesn't define for work to be done. 641 So she's essentially saying that it's probably okay yet 642 she's not providing specifics. So we're basing a lot of this on this 643 semi-vague paragraph. 644 MR. KRASNER: Although in looking at it too, it's really 645 only that back corner of the house that is nearest to that nearest 646 holly tree. And then there's the areaway I guess coming out of the 647 basement, although that's set back a little further. 648 So at the end of the day, it appears to me it's that back 649 corner. 650 MR. BROWN: It's the one tree. 651 MR. KRASNER: Is the most at risk. And I feel through some 652 well-worded and thorough conditions I feel we can protect against the 653 various possibilities in that corner. That's how I see it. I think 654 given what we've been talking about here, it's really only that one 655 area. 656 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Anything further you'd like to 657 say? 658 MS. DUBRO: No. Well, actually I said no but then I'm 659 going to keep talking. 660 I guess it really comes down to a matter of interpretation 661 and how much room outside the edge of the foundation is necessary. 662 We are worried about compacted dirt around the holly's roots. So we 663 were hoping for an additional two feet to allow some additional work 664 room. Obviously we respect the distance from the property line to 665 the foundation. That makes perfect sense. And so our hope is for 666 another two feet. Just provide a little bit of wiggle room for the 667 actually work space. 668 MR. CALABRESE: How did you derive that two feet 669 measurement? 670 MS. DUBRO: Well, we were just trying to work with the 671 Browns and come up with a Variance. 672 MR. CALABRESE: I understand that but I'm talking about 673 vagueness in the letter from the arborist, you said two feet. Is 674 that from any type of evaluation you've done that two feet would in 675 fact be the measure that would save the trees? 676 MS. DUBRO: Well, in terms of a corner, actually what our 677 neighbors were hoping for is two feet towards Jackson Street and two 678 feet towards Washington Street. 679 I didn't bring that up because I don't really feel like 680 pushing it out towards Washington Street is our business necessarily 681 because we're just talking about the Variance along the side. But 682 that's where the two feet came up. It's really what they wanted, 683 it's four feet: Two feet towards Washington Street and two feet 684 towards Jackson Street. That was in an earlier discussion. 685 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I have a question for the applicant but 686 I'll defer that for a moment. 687 MS. DUBRO: So that's all. 688 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Anything else? 689 MR. BROWN: Can I make a quick comment? 690 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: One second. 691 Thank you very much. 692 MS. DUBRO: Thank you. 693 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Appreciate your remarks. 694 Before you make that comment I did want to refer, looking 695 at an email where, Mr. Brown, you state you measured the distance 696 from the future foundation, it's the email exchange with the City 697 arborist dated November 28th at 2:21 I think. And you measured the 698 distance from the future foundation to the first holly tree of 699 concern and the tree line is 11 feet. Am I reading that right? 700 MR. BROWN: That's correct. 701 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So we've been talking about a 10 feet 702 distance but it's 11 feet. 703 MR. BROWN: It's 11 feet, yes. 704 And then as you see from that email, I further went on to 705 say: I don't think we will have a problem with those trees and they 706 will survive construction, and she responds, Yes, which means yes, 707 they will respond, survive construction. 708 And also the previous email, on November 28 at 11:44 from 709 my engineer who is an arborist states: There shouldn't be a problem, 710 because we're building the house well off, at least ten feet away 711 from those trees. 712 So maybe from his professional experience, ten feet is the 713 requirement and we're 11. 714 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I was wondering, I was making sure I was 715 reading it, like establishing the -- 716 MR. BROWN: Now, we didn't get into real details of exact 717 construction you're supposed to follow. 718 MR. CALABRESE: I think this is significant. If I could 719 ask the homeowners, it appears that your request for the 10 feet is 720 satisfied with this measurement that's being described here. 721 MS. DUBRO: Well, our request is for a 10 feet Variance. 722 The 10 feet you guys are talking about is from the property line to 723 the foundation. Is that the same thing? 724 MR. BROWN: No, it's from the foundation to the trees is 11 725 feet. 726 MR. CALABRESE: It provides the same effect for what you're 727 desiring, I believe. 728 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Mr. Brown, you had a comment you 729 wanted to make. 730 MR. BROWN: Yeah, I was just going to comment on how the 731 engineer I hired basically said the trees will be safe. I don't know 732 how much more to explain this. I mean he said they'll be safe, as 733 long as you're at least 10 feet away from those trees. This is his 734 professional opinion. He said, If we paid proper construction 735 measures to save these trees, it will survive the construction. 736 It's at least 10 feet away, which is 11. Now, 10, 11, it's 737 pretty close but if you do proper construction around these areas, 738 less machinery, less vibration, hand digging in certain areas, pay 739 attention to the root system. One of his main points was that holly 740 trees have a compact root zone so they grow down instead of spread 741 out. 742 And again, I didn't want to get into, there were several 743 emails we went back and forth. I gave the last boiler point emails 744 because they're basically stating that this foundation we're putting 745 in, proposing, is 11 feet away from the first tree of concern. The 746 rest of them are probably like 14, 20, 30 feet as you go down the 747 property. So the only concern is the one tree and that one is 748 actually planted on our property. 749 MS. BROWN: Mark actually pointed out in one of the other 750 emails which we didn't include in this, we'll be happy to show you, 751 but the main concern was that one tree, the one that we've been 752 discussing the whole time that's been the biggest concern. She kept 753 reiterating that that was her concern because that was the tallest 754 tree and it gave her the most coverage. So we tried to assure her we 755 would take all proper means. Any recommendations from the arborist, 756 we were absolutely willing to do and if anything did happen, that we 757 were more than willing to replace it. 758 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And that's the one you're saying that 759 tree is on your property. 760 MS. BROWN: We understand. I mean, we want privacy too. 761 MR. BROWN: This happened before we talked to arborists. 762 And basically it came to the point where, yeah, these trees are going 763 to survive construction so there's no need for us to shift the house 764 two feet towards Jackson or two feet towards Washington because the 765 trees will survive. 766 We came up with the suggestion that if one tree doesn't 767 make it, we can plant another one. 768 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So one final question. You would be 769 open to getting specific requirements from the arborist about how to 770 proceed to protect the tree and also with replacing that tree with a 771 similar screening if they need it. 772 MS. BROWN: Absolutely. 773 MR. BROWN: Oh, yeah, definitely. 774 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And further, you intend to put shrubs 775 over on that side. 776 MS. BROWN: More than there is now. 777 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for the applicant? 778 I think we'll close it to the applicant. 779 Thank you very much. We'll see in which direction the 780 Board intends to move. 781 MR. CALABRESE: I would just say when we make these 782 decisions, we always have to balance a variety of interests and 783 interests of course, the neighbors and the City in terms of 784 Variances. 785 I think one of the factors weighing on me very heavily is 786 the fact that you're taking property that is in sorely need of repair 787 and upgrade and really doing that which I think is in the best 788 interest of the City and the neighborhood in general. So that weighs 789 very heavily with me. 790 And if we can resolve the issue of the trees or tree, 791 perhaps it is just the one tree, in a manner that it's not damaged 792 but if it was for some reason, if you were willing to compensate or 793 actually replace it, that would seem like a fair resolution. I think 794 would satisfy, I think your neighbors would benefit through keeping 795 the coverage, you'd benefit from the coverage, but also the 796 neighborhood in general benefits from this very significant 797 improvement. So I think I would be in that direction. 798 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other remarks or anyone care to make 799 a motion on this matter? 800 MR. KRASNER: I would just echo what Mr. Calabrese had to 801 say in general. I think there are a few mitigating factors here. 802 One is the fact that just speaking about the Variance, put the 803 screening aside for a second, I'll get to that, it's important to 804 note that again, the way this house is situated, again, on one side 805 it's next to really the parking area for the townhouses. The 806 actually townhouses themselves are going to be behind them. And then 807 it's across from apartments. Allowing a relaxation of the setback, I 808 think has a very minimal negative impact as far as character goes, 809 also stating it's an undersized lot. In general, they've sided the 810 house, even though the front of it is facing Washington, the effect 811 on Jackson Street, it will be an improvement because the next home is 812 a ways up and it's next to those apartments. So I think they've 813 sited it in a logical way. 814 The issue of the screening, we'll get to that in a minute 815 or two. 816 Crafting some conditions, I think we can craft reasonable 817 conditions. I think it's only that rear corner that is closest to 818 that front tree so that tree is the most at risk and I think we can 819 put some conditions in place that will try to preserve it to the 820 greatest extent feasible and then place some contingencies that will 821 attempt to ameliorate the effect if those measures are not 822 successful. 823 But I think on the balance, it benefits allowing some new 824 construction on this lot, given its constraints I think outweighs 825 some of that. 826 Also noted, just so the neighbors know, the shed that 827 needs to be removed is also something we want to address. It's 828 actually by hand to avoid compaction. That shed is close to those 829 trees and I think the shed is part of the demolition to make sure 830 whether they're in the process of using a bucket to take down or back 831 hoe to take down the house, that they just don't roll over with the 832 treads and take down the shed too as easy as that might be because 833 that will be very close to those trees. 834 The arborist will typically pick up on that and everything 835 will be staked out in advance in the demolition permit. Just so that 836 people know we're cognizant of that, that removal of that shed could 837 also have an impact and we want to try to minimize that too. 838 With all that said, I'm ready to support it with the proper 839 conditions in place. I have a few ideas on how we can do that. 840 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other remarks? 841 (No response.) 842 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would anyone care to move this forward 843 with a motion? 844 MR. KRASNER: Sure. I'll move that we approve Variance 845 application V1584-16 by Jason A. Brown, for a Variance to allow a 846 front yard setback of 17.83 feet, which is pretty precise but I 847 assume your engineer has measured it, so 17.83 feet along Jackson 848 Street and 8 feet along the western property line for the purpose of 849 constructing a new home on premises known as 1268 South Washington 850 Street. 851 As I said, given the fact that the lot is undersized, that 852 this is going to alleviate a hardship that will allow them to build a 853 house that's more regularly shaped. Building a conforming house, 854 while technically feasible, would produce a house that would actually 855 probably be more obtrusive and stand out more in the neighborhood 856 because of how narrow it would need to be than allowing a more 857 regular sized house to go on the lot, and so I think in that sense I 858 think it actually would be better for the neighborhood to relax the 859 requirement here. 860 And again, I think that it meets all the criteria, in-state 861 Code, and hopefully our City Ordinance once it's updated, that again, 862 the Variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties and 863 we're going to enact some conditions to make sure it doesn't do that. 864 The situation is the lot is somewhat unique in the neighborhood and 865 so the Variance is the only way to go. 866 So as far as conditions go, I'm going to propose that we 867 condition this approval on again, building in conformance with the 868 Variance plat that was submitted with the application; I propose that 869 they build generally consistent with the elevations that were 870 included as part of this application as far as the materials and size 871 and scale of the house as shown in the elevations. 872 I would propose that in order to protect the hollies that 873 the applicants implement measures as recommended by the City arborist 874 to protect the row of hollies that are located along the western 875 property line. If within the first -- I don't want to condition this 876 as something in perpetuity, but if the hollies do not survive during 877 the first, say, three years after construction, that the applicant 878 would be required at that point to replace them with a comparable 879 species at such time when he has to determine with the City arborist 880 as far as the precise species and size and the precise location. 881 I also propose the condition that requires them to plant 882 additional screening, additional evergreen screening along the 883 property line between the proposed house and the western property. 884 That's the motion. 885 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 886 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 887 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote please. 888 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 889 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 890 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 891 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 892 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 893 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 894 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 895 MR. JONES: Yes. 896 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 897 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. You have your 898 Variance. 899 MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. 900 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Good luck with your property. 901 902 5. PETITIONS 903 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The next order of Business is Petitions. 904 Are there any Petitions? 905 (No response.) 906 907 6. NEW BUSINESS 908 A. Variance application V1587-16 by Erica Kraus, applicant, 909 for a variance to Section 48-238(3)(a) to allow (1) a front yard 910 setback of 25 feet instead of 30 feet along the South Spring 911 frontage, (2) a side yard setback of 9.5 feet instead of 13.5 feet 912 along the western property line for the purpose of constructing a 913 second story addition on premises known as 525 South Spring Street, 914 RPC #52-602-017 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 915 R-1A, Low Density Residential. 916 917 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Seeing none, we move to the one item of 918 New Business that we have which is Variance application V1587-16 by 919 Erica Kraus, applicant, for a variance to Section 48-238(3)(a) to 920 allow (1) a front yard setback of 25 feet instead of 30 feet along 921 the South Spring frontage, (2) a side yard setback of 9.5 feet 922 instead of 13.5 feet along the western property line for the purpose 923 of constructing a second story addition on the premises known as 525 924 South Spring Street. This is RPC #52-602-017 of the Falls Church 925 Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 926 If we can get just a brief report from staff before we hear 927 from the applicant, and you can proceed. 928 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 929 I think this is another example of a house that was built 930 under previous Code. The 25 foot placement of the house when we see 931 on the plat that you have in your materials, 25.47 feet from the 932 front property line, we take that to mean that they intended to place 933 it at about 25 feet. That's the previous front setback for this 934 neighborhood dating back to the '40s and '50s. And it probably also 935 came with the 10 foot side yard setback. 936 Subsequent to the construction of this house, the front 937 setback shifted to 30 feet and the interior side there became 15 938 feet. 939 Staff examined a number of options to work with them to 940 attempt to fit what they wanted within the setbacks but it -- 941 overlaying the setbacks in our current Code, it just nips pieces from 942 those two corners as indicated in the information provided to you 943 and the only remedy is to come before the Board and request a 944 Variance. 945 What is interesting about this application is that it does 946 not involve the demolition of the house. We're retaining the 947 structure and improving it and trying to work with the existing 948 footprint. 949 And with that, we'll defer to the applicant. 950 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. If you would state your name in 951 relation to the applicant and please proceed. 952 MR. HEMPHILL: My name is Tom Hemphill. Thanks for braving 953 the elements tonight for this hearing. 954 My firm, Hemphill and Associates, is located at 282 North 955 Washington Street in Falls Church. 956 We've designed this project, I'm representing Erica Kraus, 957 contract purchaser of the house. And full disclosure, she's also my 958 daughter. 959 She's sorry she wasn't able to come here today. With two 960 young children, it made it difficult. 961 She currently resides at 405 South Spring Street so she's 962 just moving a block up. 963 As the application indicates, we're requesting a reduction 964 of 5 feet from the front setback from the requirement of 30 feet to 965 align with the current setback of the left corner of the house. And 966 this is in order to build a three bedroom addition directly over the 967 existing footprint. 968 And also relief from the side yard setback. The 969 requirement is about 13 feet and we're requesting 9 and a half feet 970 so we can extend the existing wall of the house back 15 feet for the 971 purpose of a one story family room. 972 With regard to the front setback, you can see in your 973 packet, we submitted photos and Google maps showing that the houses 974 on that block are more or less in line with the 25 foot setback. 975 So in order to have a well-composed elevation on the front 976 and use the bearing walls of the house, we've designed the second 977 floor in alignment with the existing 25 foot setback. 978 On the back, the extreme angled side yard prevents a right 979 angle extension for that right side wall without some relief. 980 John, you can correct me, but I think the Code permits 981 extensions of 15 feet when the house is itself non-conforming. So 982 such relief is allowed for but not exacting in this set of 983 circumstances. 984 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 985 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Excuse me, would you repeat that again. 986 MR. HEMPHILL: I think in the Code there's a specific 987 relief for extending a side yard in addition 15 feet back from the 988 current wall of the side yard but only in conditions where you're not  989 further reducing the side yard. 990 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. Staff has the authority to 991 approve where a house is already non-conforming for a setback, staff 992 can approve a 15 foot extension provided it doesn't go closer and 993 make the setback intrusion worse. 994 So again, that draws attention to how minor this request 995 for a Variance is. It was close. 996 We also went as far as to make lot width measurements at 997 this exact point and give them the reduction the Code allows to try 998 to fit this in but it just couldn't work administratively for staff. 999 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. 1000 MR. HEMPHILL: That's okay. 1001 So, yes, the 15 foot extension is predicated on this severe 1002 angle of the lot reducing that side yard setback to 9 and a half 1003 feet. 1004 So that's what we're requesting tonight for your 1005 consideration. 1006 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Just one question. It looks like you're 1007 going straight up. 1008 MR. HEMPHILL: Straight up. There's a two foot cantilever 1009 on the back. This is by right. The footprint is extended -- well, 1010 actually it's a one foot cantilever on the back side but that's all 1011 within the -- 1012 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Straight up where you need the Variance 1013 but that is by right. 1014 MR. HEMPHILL: Exactly. But we're going straight up in the 1015 front, correct. 1016 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are there any other questions for the 1017 applicant? 1018 MR. CALABRESE: What's the square footage of that triangle 1019 the Variance would essentially be granted for, do you know, roughly? 1020 MR. HEMPHILL: I didn't actually calculate the square 1021 footage. It's about -- well, it's 5 feet to nothing over the 38 1022 feet. So say it's 2 and a half times 38 so it's 8 feet maybe. 1023 MR. CALABRESE: And so you said you're just adding on to an 1024 existing house or you're gutting it and just keeping the walls and 1025 redoing the entire house, is that the plan? 1026 MR. HEMPHILL: No, we're keeping the entire house. It has 1027 a very nice basement. The rooms on the first floor are what's going 1028 to become a guest bedroom, a den. The living room is going to become 1029 a dining room. The kitchen is taking over what was a very small 1030 dining room so it's being enlarged slightly and then the family room 1031 is going on the back. 1032 So the house is in really good shape. As a firm, we really 1033 don't tear down houses. We remodel them. 1034 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other questions? 1035 MR. KRASNER: What's the floor square footage, what's going 1036 to be the new? 1037 MR. HEMPHILL: I think it's going from basically 1000 1038 square feet now, not including the basement, to I guess this would be 1039 2250, something like that. 1040 MR. KRASNER: Another question, and you're not proposing 1041 this but right now this house has no covered parking. The cars park 1042 tandem on the driveway. 1043 MR. HEMPHILL: That's correct, yeah. 1044 MR. KRASNER: Is there any plans down the road for a 1045 carport, you would need another Variance for a garage but is that 1046 something that is thought about? 1047 MR. HEMPHILL: Well, my daughter would love to have a 1048 carport but all we're really talking about is expanding the driveway 1049 by virtue of like an "L" or a little right turn so they can put two 1050 cars side by side. 1051 MR. KRASNER: So you already have in mind a driveway then. 1052 MR. HEMPHILL: Yeah. Right now there's gravel along that 1053 entire right side. I guess landscaping gravel or something, so it's 1054 still going to be like a parking area anyway. 1055 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Did you hear any response from any of 1056 the neighbors? 1057 MR. HEMPHILL: Well, we've been in touch with the current 1058 homeowner who's been in touch with the neighbors and we've gotten 1059 email contacts back and forth and we just haven't had the scheduling 1060 flexibility to meet with them. They're busy and we're busy. 1061 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, we didn't receive any formal 1062 correspondence after the notice went out on this? 1063 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 1064 MR. HEMPHILL: They appear to be supportive of it but we 1065 don't have anything written down on that. 1066 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions for the applicant? 1067 You said it was going from approximately 1000 square feet 1068 to approximately 2250. 1069 MR. HEMPHILL: Yes, 1000 by virtue of going up and then 1070 another 225 or so in the back. 1071 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other remarks or would anyone care 1072 to make a motion on this matter? 1073 MR. CALABRESE: I'll make a motion to approve 1074 Variance application V1587-16 by Erica Kraus, applicant, to allow for 1075 a front yard setback of 25 feet along the South Spring Street 1076 frontage; a side yard setback of 9.5 feet on the western property 1077 line for the purpose of constructing a second story addition on the 1078 premises 525 South Spring Street. 1079 MR. KRASNER: I'll second and I'll just add that I think 1080 the issue here is that we're looking at an oddly shaped lot that's 1081 irregularly shaped. In one sense, the house is already 1082 non-conforming and they're just going up, not increasing, encroaching 1083 any further in the front. And the issue in the back, again, it's a 1084 function of the strange-shaped lot to build a conforming house to 1085 have an odd-shaped room back there and it's a very minor encroachment 1086 and I don't think it's going to cause any harm to anybody, almost a 1087 de minimis type of encroachment into the setback. 1088 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Do we have a motion and a second? 1089 Is there a roll call vote please. 1090 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1091 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1092 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1093 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1094 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1095 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1096 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1097 MR. JONES: Yes. 1098 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1099 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. You have your 1100 Variance. Good luck with your project. 1101 MR. HEMPHILL: Thank you. 1102 1103 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1104 A. Review and approval of 2017 BZA meeting calendar 1105 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. The next item of business is 1106 the review and approval of the 2017 BZA meeting calendar. 1107 My question for staff is are all these the second Thursday? 1108 MR. BOYLE: After the first Monday. 1109 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So these all meet that, our normal 1110 scheduling date. 1111 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. And we also checked conflicts with 1112 holidays. 1113 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We need to approve this. Is 1114 there a motion to approve this meeting schedule for 2017? 1115 MR. CALABRESE: Motion to approve. 1116 MR. KRASNER: Second. 1117 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 1118 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1119 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1120 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1121 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1122 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1123 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1124 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1125 MR. JONES: Yes. 1126 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1127 1128 B. Resolution of appreciation to Mr. Brent Krasner 1129 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The next item of business is a 1130 bittersweet one with Mr. Krasner's news that he will be heading over 1131 to the Planning Commission. As we had said previously, they're 1132 getting a very wonderful new member to their Commission. 1133 And I have before me a Resolution of Appreciation for Mr. 1134 Brent Krasner for his service on the Falls Church Board of Zoning 1135 Appeals and I would like to read it here: Whereas, Mr. Krasner 1136 served with distinction on the City of Falls Church Board of Zoning 1137 Appeals as a full Board member for over three years, and whereas, Mr. 1138 Krasner's knowledge and experience in land use planning and zoning 1139 made him a valuable member of the Board; and whereas Mr. Krasner 1140 distinguished himself by his strong commitment to public service and 1141 dedication to the City that he served; and whereas Mr. Krasner always 1142 strived to bring his personal commitment and professionalism in all 1143 that he ever took as a Board member to make the City of Falls Church 1144 a vibrant and aesthetically pleasing community; and whereas Mr. 1145 Krasner benefited all with his sense of commitment to the Board of 1146 Zoning Appeals and therefore to the City of Falls Church with his 1147 preparation for each meeting and with his understanding of all 1148 issues; and whereas it has been a distinct honor and pleasure to work 1149 with Mr. Krasner; now therefore be it resolved that the City of Falls 1150 Church Board of Zoning Appeals hereby expresses its deeply felt 1151 appreciation to Mr. Krasner for his devoted service to the City and 1152 extends to him its sincere best wishes in his future endeavors. 1153 Adopted unanimously today, the 15th day of December, 2016. 1154 MR. KRASNER: Thank you. That's a very impressive-looking 1155 certificate. 1156 I've enjoyed my time and I will miss these meetings, I will 1157 miss working with all of you, all my colleagues on the Board and 1158 staff. I'm not going too far away so hopefully I will still work 1159 with staff in a slightly different capacity and I hope to continue to 1160 at least run into my colleagues in town somewhere. And it's not 1161 goodbye, it's just moving to a slightly different mode. 1162 But again, thank you. I've enjoyed it and I've enjoyed 1163 everyone's professionalism and what everyone brings to the Board and 1164 it's been good. 1165 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And there is hardware to accompany this 1166 Resolution, a Certificate of Appreciation from all of us on the Board 1167 of Zoning Appeals. 1168 MR. KRASNER: It's impressive, yes. Wow. 1169 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your services. It's been 1170 a pleasure working with you. 1171 (Applause.) 1172 1173 c. Approval of the November 30, 2016 Minutes 1174 1175 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Now, we have not closed this meeting yet 1176 so you have one more item of Business as do all of us which is the 1177 Approval of Minutes from November 30, 2016. This was a meeting that 1178 we rescheduled to accommodate schedules and ensure that we had a 1179 quorum. 1180 If the Board will take a moment to look at the minutes. 1181 This was a quick meeting. 1182 (Minutes reviewed.) 1183 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a motion to approve the 1184 minutes? 1185 MR. KRASNER: Move that we approve the minutes of November 1186 30, 2016. 1187 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 1188 MR. JONES: Second. 1189 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 1190 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1191 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1192 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 1193 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 1194 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1195 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1196 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1197 MR. JONES: Yes. 1198 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1199 1200 8. ADJOURNMENT 1201 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. With that, I will hereby adjourn 1202 this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for December 15, 2016.