Board of Zoning Appeals

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Community Center 223 Little Falls Street Falls Church, Virginia 22046 September 13, 2018 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER CHAIR CALABRESE: I call to order the September 13th meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. If I could ask staff to do a roll call. 2. ROLL CALL RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. CHAIR CALABRESE: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you.  CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. We have our standing agenda items. I think only two of them have business to conduct. 3. PETITIONS CHAIR CALABRESE: So let me just confirm on Petitions, do we have any Petitions today? MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 4. OLD BUSINESS: CHAIR CALABRESE: And any Old Business? MR. BOYLE: No, sir. CHAIR CALABRESE: So we have the New Business and then the Approval of Minutes. I think we'll go to New Business and then at the end we'll do the Minute Approval. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Variance application V1604-18 by Julianne Hamilton, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-263(3)a to allow (1) a front yard setback of 6.9 feet instead of 25 feet, (2) a side yard setback of 4.7 feet instead of 8 feet, and a variance to Section 48-263(5)a to allow a 25.3% building lot coverage instead of 25% for the purpose of constructing a 2.5 story addition and a detached garage on premises known as 208 Grove Avenue, RPC #52-215-400 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1B, Medium Density Residential. CHAIR CALABRESE: So I'll be calling the variance application V1604-8 by Julianne Hamilton, applicant and owner, for a variance to allow for a front yard setback of 6.9 feet instead of 25, a side yard setback of 4.7 feet instead of 8, and a variance to the ordinance to allow a 25.3 percent building lot coverage instead of 25 percent. So I'd like to ask anyone who will be testifying today, to stand and be sworn in. (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIR CALABRESE: Mr. Boyle, do you want to go through the particulars of this case? MR. BOYLE: Sure. As you described, we have before the Board tonight a variance application for front setback and side setback and a minor lot coverage variance. And the Board should have in front of it a package from the applicants that includes their hardship letter, some renderings of a conceptual building plan, the existing house, and some supporting documents.  And we received late today a revision to their cover letter that you should have and it's stamped received today. And if you've reviewed this document before, I'm told the only change was to Attachment No. 2. So the document as it exists is what you had before except for -- CHAIR CALABRESE: I did review it prior to this. So Attachment 2 is -- will you identify that? Oh, I see. MR. BOYLE: All the way at the back. CHAIR CALABRESE: I see. An email. MR. BOYLE: A minor change there. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. MR. BOYLE: And I think this is a, within the variety of variances that this Board frequently sees, it's a classic feature of Falls Church, in that it's a corner lot with the two front yard setbacks and the other setback and interior sides are side setbacks and there's no rear. And if I have to say, it's probably the most common variance this Board sees. So the applicant's before you to ask for some relief using the existing structure setbacks but expanding forward and including a garage and not going closer to the side property lines.  With that, I think it would be better to defer to the applicant at this point and have them make their presentation. CHAIR CALABRESE: Any questions for staff? (No response.) MR. HAMILTON: Do you mind if I stand? CHAIR CALABRESE: Sure. MR. HAMILTON: So, first of all I think it's important to explain the conditions of this lot, how it came to be. I know as a result of a lot of builders buying properties, they've created a lot of infilling which have created these substandard lots. You just go all over Falls Church City, you can find them everywhere. This does not fall into that category. I want to be perfectly clear there. This home was built in 1930. This is a depression-era home. Think about the size. I mean, it's tiny, right, home that was built. What happened is, it's the only remaining home of its age. Well, there's one exception on the whole street. All the others have been bought, torn down, and infilling has been created to create these substandard lots. So while people call it a substandard lot, I challenge that it's normal, right? It was created as a direct result of infilling around it, created by the County and the City. The City didn't even exist when this house was built, right? The City, I think, my records, 1948 was independence. This was 1930-built. Then what happened is they created a pipestem, they built Chestnut after this home was built which created the one setback, and then they built the 1956 home on the side which is 206 Grove. As a direct result of the City and County approving those, the existing setbacks are 7 on the one side which is way not standard, and 4.9 on the Grove Street side. If you follow the standard based on it being a corner lot there, let's say you tore the whole house down. To stay within the variance, we'd be able to build, as you see in our writeup, a 7 foot house. That's, I would think, the definition of a hardship. Nobody has challenged us on the Chestnut side, to include the rebuttal letter that you have there, of our desire to build to maintain the current line. What we're asking to do is, let me give you an example. We remodeled our current home. We live in Arlington. And we're kind of excited to come over here to Falls Church. We like the small city environment. We think that's great for our kids. We have children of 11, 13, and 15. We're tired of the infilling and the overpopulation of our schools in Arlington. That's one of the main reasons we're leaving, is to get away from that. So when we looked at this property, we currently have a 3000 square foot home. We're looking to have that or better. It's pretty much standard, we're not talking about a home with a footprint of 2000 plus. The home that we're looking with remodel, is going to be a 1400 square foot footprint, right? That's modest by most standards met today. What we're doing is we're building straight out towards Grove Road. The current home is 65 feet back in the setback, so it's way back from all the other homes. There's two reasons why we want to build forward. First of all, we understand that the City prefer that you maintain a line, a common line across all the properties. So this would bring it up, make it adjacent with the property on 206 and all the other homes on Grove. Additionally, as been pointed out to you, there's a significant water issue coming from Lincoln, that it pools in the back of Chestnut. There's City property there that has water -- I learned this from all the neighbors -- there's City property back there that pools water. 308 Chestnut, you see in the picture there, that's not Grove, that's Chestnut. The water comes there, it pools there. It's a significant problem. We definitely think that should be solved but that has nothing to do with our property. It has nothing to do with this variance, right? So our objective is just to build forward. You're talking about a 46 by 38 square foot home. We want it built down. To build down, we had to go in front of the house because of the water risks. And we want to maintain the lines. So the importance and the hardship of not maintaining the lines, is if you think about from a resale perspective, if you're looking from your street level being Grove Road and the house is narrower than wide, it just isn't appealing, right? To make the 8 foot, the only way we could have done that is if we built backward, right? Otherwise, from a visual line of perspective, horrible risk. So we understand the concerns about the 4.7 to the side, but it's not unprecedented. You'll have a letter there from the neighbors directly across the street, Lisa and Alex, who are quite active here in Falls Church, and they pointed out the fact that while that is close, it's not unprecedented. As a matter of fact, they believe their property represents the same distance, which is right across the street. By the way, their home is the only one older than ours. It's 1923. Ours is 1930. The contention that -- so our current home with the current setback actually lines directly across from the -- the 206 property has the original brick and there's an addition. It's currently the same distance from that. So as we go forward, it will maintain that same separation. We're not looking to push out or be egregious in any direction. We're just doing what anybody would normally do with an addition: Is you either build straight forward or you build straight backward. I defy anybody to give me a different example. So that's pretty common and that's all we're doing here. So I could raise a million emotional things but we believe just the conditions of the facts of the situation warrants this variance and I appreciate your consideration. CHAIR CALABRESE: I'm going to start with a few questions to make sure we completely understand the situation. MR. HAMILTON: Please do.  CHAIR CALABRESE: We have, in looking at the map here, we haven't done this before. MS. ROUZI: You like the white board. MR. HAMILTON: I live for white boards. MR. BOYLE: Let the record reflect Mr. Calabrese is drawing. CHAIR CALABRESE: So that's Grove, right? MR. HAMILTON: Correct. CHAIR CALABRESE: That's Chestnut. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. CHAIR CALABRESE: Your existing house is like right here. MR. HAMILTON: It's like in the middle. CHAIR CALABRESE: The other house is like here, right? MR. HAMILTON: Correct. CHAIR CALABRESE: Are they the same, are they back, are they side, are they about even? MR. HAMILTON: No, the other one is forward. CHAIR CALABRESE: Further, down here? MR. HAMILTON: The other one would be, I'd say there's a drive over here. The other one is four feet from there, like this. And then there's an addition back here. And then this one, in all fairness, a representation, goes from here to here down. And it's 22 back and it's 28 this way. CHAIR CALABRESE: And the other property's here. MR. HAMILTON: Yes, that's 308 Chestnut. CHAIR CALABRESE: 308, okay. So the setback here is what? MR. HAMILTON: 4.9. MS. HAMILTON: No. In some places it's 5 feet. In some places it's 4.7 because the lot is slightly diagonal. The home sits on the lot slightly diagonal. MR. HAMILTON: So let's explain what happened here. To Julie's point -- CHAIR CALABRESE: The existing. MR. HAMILTON: Yes. To Julie's point, the house was built before that line was created. So when you created a line, it's inconsistent all the way through there as you might expect. So there's areas where it's 5 feet, as you notice in here, the closest point would be 4.9. MS. HAMILTON: 4.7. MR. HAMILTON: 4.7, sorry. CHAIR CALABRESE: So what you propose to do, you're keeping this the same.  MS. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. HAMILTON: The addition, absolutely. CHAIR CALABRESE: I'm just confirming. But you're saying this line doesn't change is what you're saying. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. CHAIR CALABRESE: And then you're -- draw for me what you're doing. MR. HAMILTON: Sure. We're building forward in a straight line which makes it roughly, it's actually less than this, it roughly makes it in line with the other homes. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. And this all stays, nothing happens to it. MR. HAMILTON: There's two parts to this. This is the house. We all are also, because of the variance here, we want to build a garage. And so we also have a garage back here and that's roughly -- MS. HAMILTON: 35 off the side property line. MR. HAMILTON: And the other thing is contended is there's a tree right here. The driveway goes like this. So like that. CHAIR CALABRESE: So the variance you're asking for, show me where the variance is.  MR. HAMILTON: So the variance is right now, it's 8 feet, so the variance would be here. And here. To maintain the existing setbacks. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. Any questions? MR. BARTLETT: I have a question. You're actually saying that you're proposing to utilize the existing left and right setbacks. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. MR. BARTLETT: And you do not plan to exceed or go past those -- MR. HAMILTON: Absolutely not. MR. BARTLETT: -- beyond doing a little cantilever on the Chestnut side. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. That's 100 percent right. Like you said, it's basically, if you think about most additions, instead of putting the box in the back, we're putting the box in the front. MR. MISLEH: And keeping within the side footprints. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. MR. MISLEH: And on the front, you're not exceeding the 25 foot -- MR. HAMILTON: No, no. You know, there was a lot of confusion. We went out and spoke to all the neighbors. I shouldn't say all, many of the neighbors, right? What was confusing is because this is called a front, everyone thought we were building this way up. MR. MISLEH: Got it. MR. HAMILTON: And we're not. So this will maintain, I think it's actually 28 feet from Grove Road. MR. MISLEH: And does the garage require a variance? MR. HAMILTON: I don't know if it does. MS. HAMILTON: I don't think it does. MR. BOYLE: No, no. MS. HAMILTON: We met all the standard setbacks for a garage. MR. HAMILTON: We may need to move it around based on what they tell us to do with the permits. But -- CHAIR CALABRESE: And you're moving out and you're moving up. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. That's another key point. So today it's a 1.5 story home and we're increasing it by one story to 2.5. MR. JONES: Is anybody that's going to speak tonight disagree with the representations --  CHAIR CALABRESE: We're going to get to that. This is just presenting the application. We're going to ask for comments from others. MR. JONES: Okay. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I should say the garage would take advantage of the setback variance off of Grove. I'm sorry, off of Chestnut. MR. HAMILTON: That's what I was asking. Yeah, I wasn't sure. MR. BOYLE: Yeah, it would project slightly into that front yard off of Chestnut. So if the setback variance is granted for the house, it would rise with that. MR. WILLIAMSON: It's a dotted line all the way down, right? MS. HAMILTON: Yes, exactly. MR. WILLIAMSON: That's a driveway there or something? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. CHAIR CALABRESE: Anything else back here or just a house? MR. HAMILTON: There's their house. MS. HAMILTON: There's a shed or something MR. HAMILTON: There's a fence. There's some sheds along here. Here. And here. There's a dying tree here. Which represents all the water that's back here, which is why we don't want to build backward. You can tell that it's dying from the roots which we believe is a direct result of the water. CHAIR CALABRESE: Any other questions from Board members for the applicant? MR. WILLIAMSON: It sounds to be very helpful. MR. HAMILTON: The way, when you explain it based on the variance, it's confusing, right? And I think you asked the question about, are you pushing forward or not. And to a person, everyone I spoke to thought we were trying to do something egregious and push it forward here, which is not the case. Don't want to do that. The big thing we want is we want a front porch. We're big into front porches. We think it's very neighborly and all that kind of stuff. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. Unless there's any other questions from Board members, or if you have any other comments you'd like to make. MR. BARTLETT: I'd like to propose one quick question. You've acknowledged the fact that you plan to request a variance to meet the side yard setbacks going left and right but you haven't discussed the fact that you're requesting a variance from allowable coverage of an increase of .3 percent and I'm really concerned about this need or this hardship to justify exceeding the allowable lot coverage up by .3 percent when you're building the house as proposed. MR. HAMILTON: Reasonable question. So, we started trimming things down quite a bit. So much of that .3 percent actually represents the front coverage, the porch. MR. BARTLETT: Or any other part, it's not just the porch. MR. HAMILTON: Agreed, but we would have to sacrifice with the porch, right? MR. BARTLETT: Correct. MR. HAMILTON: That's why we are asking for that .3. CHAIR CALABRESE: What is that .3 representing, square footage? MR. HAMILTON: 24 square feet I think. Don't hold me to that. John, does that sound right, 24? MR. BOYLE: We'll have to get out the official calculator. MR. HAMILTON: It's roughly 24. MR. WILLIAMSON: But that doesn't include the garage.  MS. HAMILTON: No. MR. HAMILTON: It does include the garage. MR. BOYLE: Yeah, it does. MR. WILLIAMSON: For the coverage? MR. BOYLE: Yeah, for the coverage it does. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. And so the -- MR. HAMILTON: Anything that has a roof. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, right. So the .3 is for the porch, as you said? CHAIR CALABRESE: 12 by 12 or something. MR. WILLIAMSON: Plus the garage plus the paving. MR. HAMILTON: Correct. Well, we intentionally shrunk -- no, it does include the paving. That's the 35 percent. MR. BARTLETT: Impervious. MR. HAMILTON: Yeah, impervious, we're at 35 percent. We made adjustments to correct that. We did make adjustments to the garage. It was going to be 22 by 25. We reduced it to 20. We have a mudroom in the back. So there's a 10 foot thing here and then we're proposing to build a mudroom here. So these are this, and this is existing by the way. This is new. So these would add to it. CHAIR CALABRESE: So then we're going to ask you, it's a little bit unusual we're standing here doing this, the standard that we have to judge these is harm, and the fact that if you could not build it in this manner, were there any other viable options? I'm going to ask you if there are other viable options that would keep you within the required setbacks? MR. HAMILTON: For the .3 you're talking about? Losing the 24 feet. CHAIR CALABRESE: For everything. MS. HAMILTON: No, I think he means overall. CHAIR CALABRESE: That's the standard we have to judge this, is whether you, absent the variance that you would not be able. MR. HAMILTON: Absent the variance -- MS. HAMILTON: -- we would build a hallway. MR. HAMILTON: We would have to build a hallway. MS. HAMILTON: 7 feet across. CHAIR CALABRESE: What do you mean, a hallway? MS. HAMILTON: Like show him the highlighted --  MR. HAMILTON: To build within the variance, that's what we would be able to do. CHAIR CALABRESE: Oh, there would be a gap. MR. HAMILTON: Literally a 7 foot -- MR. WILLIAMSON: -- 7 foot wide house. MS. HAMILTON: A 7 foot wide breezeway. MR. HAMILTON: This is existing. CHAIR CALABRESE: Right. MR. HAMILTON: So if we stayed to the variance, the blue would be all we would be allowed to build to. CHAIR CALABRESE: I see. MR. BARTLETT: As far as the addition is concerned. MR. HAMILTON: As far as the addition, yes. MR. BARTLETT: As far as the existing building envelope. You could utilize the Code to build up within the existing variance. MR. HAMILTON: Right. MR. BARTLETT: Without requesting a variance. MS. HAMILTON: But then we might have to ask for a variance in height, which wouldn't get very much space. MR. BARTLETT: Right.  MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, to that point, staff has sent that type of variance to the Board, going straight up, because the way the Code is worded it can be interpreted to mean any new living space in the setback. So the setback is vertical as well. There's air space in the setback. MR. HAMILTON: Right. MR. BOYLE: So our policy for years has been to go ahead and send those to the Board as well and at least have a public conversation for them. So I think if they had just proposed a second story addition, this would still be in front of the Board. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. Anything else you'd like to say? MR. HAMILTON: No, unless there's more questions, I'll answer them. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. I understand there are some comments from neighbors. Again, there's some people that just came in. I don't know if you wish to testify. If you do, you need to be sworn in. MR. BOYLE: If they could identify themselves and sign in. CHAIR CALABRESE: So, sir, if you could do that.  (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. So I know we have probably several people that want to comment. I know at least one comment which is going to provide some -- quite a bit of detail. So to proceed, perhaps, Mr. Murphy, if you want to start, you can do that and then we'll go to the other comments. MR. MURPHY: I'll sign in when I'm done. I didn't do that when I came in. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. MR. MURPHY: I guess to your first issue, I'm perfectly happy with the drawing that's up there. One thing I don't agree with, there's not an existing driveway in the back corner of the lot at 208 Grove Avenue. There's currently no driveway and no curb cut anywhere on the property. MS. HAMILTON: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MURPHY: Other than that, the driveway -- MS. HAMILTON: I thought he was asking are you planning to build a driveway, not is there a driveway when you asked that question. Sorry. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes, that's fine.  MR. MURPHY: It could be my misinterpretation of what was presented as well, but just for clarification. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. MR. MURPHY: I'm John Murphy. This is my wife, Bonnie. We own the two adjacent properties to 208 Grove Avenue. You've received our written comments. We will briefly summarize our concerns about the variance requested for a smaller than normal setback against our property at 206 Grove Avenue. Our first concern is the side yard setback request is not a reasonable deviation from the strict application of the Code along 206 Grove Avenue when there are other options available on the property. Our second concern is the variance requested is a special privilege or convenience related to the side yard setback against 206 Grove Avenue. The variance does not comply with the intent and purpose of the Code and the variance requested is of substantial detriment to our properties at both 206 Grove Avenue and 308 Chestnut Street. Our justifications for each of these concerns is before you in writing and in the record. I won't go through each and every one of those.  Our concerns and arguments are based on the Code and the physical condition of the properties. That is what is relevant for your consideration in this matter. We concede that a variance is most likely deserved, particularly for the two front yards. We do not agree with the extent of the variance that has been requested. I don't know if I want to go here or not but I will. We don't agree with many of the statements in the letter from the applicant that was dated September 12, 2018. We do not wish to review point by point a he said-she said situation because the variance cannot be granted for reasons other than those set forth in 15.2-23-092, we ask you consider their comments that address those specific requirements there enabled by State Code. Still, several specific clarifications are needed. The rear tree at the corner of the lot -- and I will take this opportunity to point -- this tree, and there's a picture of it in the materials that we sent you. That tree is a volunteer. That tree volunteered in the City's right-of-way well after our driveway was put in circa 1999, so our driveway has no impact at all on its root zone. The roots have grown on their own with the driveway in place. The tree wasn't there. As for encroachment that was mentioned, we need to compare some surveys. If there's an encroachment, I've told our new neighbors face-to-face, I'm perfectly happy to remove any encroachment that may be on that property. That offer still stands. Finally, the applicant's own language in the letter from the 12th kind of reinforces that the variance along Grove Avenue is a special privilege or convenience. It talks about the appearance, it talks about cutting in 3 to 4 feet and looking ridiculous. And just, while I understand it, the ability to build a suitable home that meets our taste and needs is not necessarily the criteria that you use for considering a variance. We deny any assertion that we ever agreed to additional construction less than 5 feet from our property line at 206 Grove Avenue. So now that our "bad stuff" is out of the way, our four points of objection with a requested variance are based on law and precedent and the criteria contained in 15-2.23-09 of the Code of Virginia. We fully stand by our written comments.  We request that you deny the portion of the variance that allows additional encroachment into a required side yard setback along 206 Grove Avenue. I have no problems or concerns with the vast majority of the requests in here. We have no problems or concerns on the Chestnut Street side. To be clear, I don't know how often you get somebody opposing a variance that says, There's a clear hardship with two front yards. Without a doubt, that goes on. We have no concerns with them going up on the existing footprint of the existing structure, as long as the footprint is not increased outside the 8 foot side yard setback along 206 Grove Avenue for the reasons that we've stated. We continue to assert the applicant has not met the burden of proof for that side yard setback in increasing it as much as they are, more than doubling what's there. There's been no reasonable -- unreasonable restriction or hardship presented for that to go forward along that same line. And I will note from our comments in that existing, roughly 5 foot, sometimes 5, sometimes 4.7, there is also a proposed set of egress steps that will be less than 10 inches from our property. That's demonstrably unreasonable. We're talking that far from my property line with permanent additions. They are allowed on the side yard setback. I'm sure Mr. Boyle will tell you. But the result of the request is really impacting our current property next door. We had a conforming property. It's the same length. It's just 20 feet wider. We conform to the 10 foot setbacks. So we don't oppose at all anything that change on Chestnut. If they want to go 6.9, if that's the will of the Board, that's fine. I'm a stickler for building coverage, but that's your call, not mine. Our real concern is the very, very narrow side yard setback along 206 Grove Avenue and the impact that will have on our property. We have detailed our concerns in the written comments. So thank you. MR. HAMILTON: I don't think we clarified, we're already planning on moving the stairs to the other side of the house. That was an easy fix. MR. MURPHY: Thank you. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. So let me just confirm what we're talking about here. You're challenging this here, correct? MR. MURPHY: The extension of that, yes. CHAIR CALABRESE: Well, this is the existing house.  MR. MURPHY: Right. That's an existing, non-conforming structure. CHAIR CALABRESE: Right. MR. MURPHY: It can stay, it can go up, we have no problems with that. CHAIR CALABRESE: I thought you weren't going beyond that. MS. HAMILTON: We're not. MR. MURPHY: It's the new one. MS. HAMILTON: He doesn't want us to come forward with that line. MR. MURPHY: Yes. MS. HAMILTON: He would like us to go in 4 feet and then come forward. CHAIR CALABRESE: I'm sorry, to do what? MR. HAMILTON: To jog over. CHAIR CALABRESE: Oh, that direction. MR. MURPHY: I will draw, if you will concede. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes. Go ahead. MR. MURPHY: What we're essentially asking, if this dotted line here is the 8 foot setback line that the Code allows because it's inside the existing property, with the addition coming out here, not there. Is that your understanding? MR. HAMILTON: That's my understanding, yes.  MR. MURPHY: And that's certainly my understanding. CHAIR CALABRESE: How many feet is that? MS. HAMILTON: About 4 feet. MR. MURPHY: 3 to 4 feet. MR. HAMILTON: 3 to 4 feet. MR. MURPHY: 3 feet. If it's 5 feet it's -- MS. HAMILTON: It's over 4 feet. MR. HAMILTON: 4.7 feet. CHAIR CALABRESE: And there's no problems back here you're saying? MR. MURPHY: No, they can put the garage in, they can put the driveway in. Yes, I'm concerned about the tree. But I'm sure that can be resolved. It's a street tree. It belongs to the City. I'm certainly interested in that. Overall we're concerned, as the written comments said, there's water issues here. There's runoff issues here. This is not going to require a storm water permit is my understanding. MS. HAMILTON: That has never -- that's not necessarily correct. It's not in a flood zone. MR. MURPHY: No, a storm water permit is land disturbance over 2500 square feet and then it requires additional mitigation, activities, things along those lines. CHAIR CALABRESE: Three feet by, what is the distance here? MR. BARTLETT: It's 24 feet. MR. HAMILTON: 24 feet, 3.3. CHAIR CALABRESE: By 24. MS. HAMILTON: Right. So I guess my comment in my response was that if we come in those 3 feet, then we can't build forward to make up the square footage now because then we'll encroach on the 25 foot setback that's off of Grove Avenue. So we can't make up that square footage. And before, you know, we went with our designer, I had the conversation with Mr. Murphy because we were originally thinking to build back because then you can come in the 3 feet and build further back because there's more space back there. But he said his priority was that he wanted us to build forward so that's why we had the house designed that way. CHAIR CALABRESE: So you're saying that this whole thing was shifted back, you were proposing shifting it back?  MR. HAMILTON: Well, building off the back instead of building off the front and then if you came in 3 feet, then you could make up the square footage by going back further. MR. HAMILTON: But there's significant, as demonstrated, there's significant water risks going backward. I'm confident of that. MS. HAMILTON: There's been no studies to prove anything about anything to do with water and development on our property since nothing's been done on our property and the water is coming from the south, not from where our house is located. CHAIR CALABRESE: Other questions from Board members to Mr. Murphy? Where would the front door be in this sketch? MR. HAMILTON: It would be roughly in the middle. On the Grove side. MS. HAMILTON: Kind of right where that arrow is. MR. HAMILTON: It doesn't reflect the porch or the stairs. It would be right there. Roughly 12 feet from the left. CHAIR CALABRESE: Any other questions? MR. JONES: Not right now.  CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. There are others here who would like to make comments? I thought there were others. MR. BARKLEY: Good evening. I'm Paul Barkley. I live at 309 Chestnut Street. And I've lived there since I built my house on that street. And when I built my house on that street, there was only one other house on that street and I tore it down and built three houses in its place, all that, the zoning laws at that time. And it was before any townhouses were built in that neighborhood too. I'm an architect and I've been in business in Falls Church since 1964 and so I've done a lot of projects that required variances and stuff like this. And when the Hamiltons came to see us, they showed me their house plans and everything, I said, well, that lot is one of the most severely impacted lots I know of in the City because it's a corner lot. I was here in the City of Falls Church when they didn't have corner lots in the zoning. And when the City decided they were going to have corner lots, I said, you're going to put a lot of properties in a very difficult situation. There's going to be a hardship, because they'll be not complying with the zoning. And they said, no, this is the way everybody's going these days, so they did that. So this is one of the most difficult sites ever to work with. So I said, I support your effort to go in there and get a variance on it. And you have one of the best cases I've seen to get a variance on the setbacks. And I agreed with that, they showed us plans and everything, we didn't see the site plan at the time and everything. And then you came by on Monday with a revised plan. That's the first time I saw the 25 percent variance. Of course a variance, you know, that's sort of an equalization-type thing. Nobody really gets a variance for coverage. I mean a coverage variance. It was only a small amount so it seemed like that was kind of pushing it, if you want some really severe setbacks and everything. I would support whatever you can do to accommodate having a reasonable house that would match the neighborhood, the values of the houses that are going up in the neighborhood. So from that standpoint I like having some kind of variance that is really going to culminate in putting a decent house on that property without exceeding the lot coverage.  CHAIR CALABRESE: Thank you, Mr. Barkley. Any other comments, statements? (No response.) CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. So I think we'll go into an open discussion. I'll go back to you, Mr. Murphy, and I'll start off and I'll ask others. So when we talk about this portion here, I asked the petitioners what the harm would be if they couldn't build this in the way that they've designed it here. I'm going to ask you also and to be very specific, you mentioned a tree here which apparently may not be an issue, the stairs, which apparently have been addressed; can you please describe in detail what the harm that you believe you would suffer for if this portion here was built upon. MR. MURPHY: What we have in for the -- in our written comments for the increase coming forward, the doubling of the footprint at 4.7 feet, has to do with the intent and purpose of the Code and our position is that it overcrowds the property against our side, it unfairly impacts air, light. Right now, the two structures are, their frame structure and our brick structure are almost completely offset with the exception of the screened porch on the back. So the risks and the problems that can occur from being so close to the property line are somewhat mitigated because of the location of the two structures. We're not happy with the idea of pulling a 31 foot high wall 4.7 feet from our property line. That does overcrowd our property. It's not what the purpose and the intent of the Code. It also is emblematic of the problems that are listed out in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan as far as putting large houses on smaller lots. Like I said, we're not opposed to whatever the Board feels is reasonable to eliminate the hardship on Chestnut Street. I fully acknowledge that two front yards is a hardship. A seven foot wide building envelope is an unreasonable restriction on this property. Again, it's the extent of the variance. And coming forward, the impacts it's going to have on the property on Grove. All of our concerns address only that side yard setback. The four points that I read out to you, I can kind of repeat them because they're all somewhat related. It's not reasonable. It's too close in the district. It's closer than several dozen similar interior or double frontage lots within two blocks of here.  A 40 foot wide lot unfortunately has become a standard in Grove Avenue as the old houses have been torn down and two new ones have been built. They've all have been built with 8 foot side yard setbacks, the reduction that's allowed from the standard of 10 feet in the Code currently. In order to not grant a special privilege or a convenience, we're just asking that any new additions follow that. MS. HAMILTON: Can I make a response please? CHAIR CALABRESE: Just one second. So I understand your comment. We're very familiar with the Code. Thank you for your summary of it. So currently, so this is a driveway here. MS. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. MURPHY: Yes. CHAIR CALABRESE: And I saw the property today. There's a fence of some sort right here. MR. MURPHY: Yes. MR. HAMILTON: We have a photo if you want to see. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes. I'm familiar with it. There's a chain link fence and driveway and here I think is like a side stairs going into the house, it looked to me like.  MR. HAMILTON: Correct. CHAIR CALABRESE: From what I could tell. MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir. Side. CHAIR CALABRESE: So the degradation of the air and light -- so this extra 3 feet, I would like to know more about the degradation of the air and light that you say would be there. And number two, if there is this concern, what about putting up the fence here? A six foot -- I don't know, what's the highest fence you could do? MR. HAMILTON: Eight. CHAIR CALABRESE: Eight foot fence. MS. HAMILTON: And we have offered to do this. CHAIR CALABRESE: An 8 foot fence that would take out-of-sight, out-of-mind any of this property here. MR. MURPHY: A fence is their call. I'm not going to request one. I'm not going to argue against one. This is going to extend up against our kitchen windows 31 feet, 4.7 feet from the property line. I don't know how to put that into reasonable perspective. If I'm this close to the dehumidifier versus if I'm this close to the dehumidifier. That's exaggerated but as you pull this house forward up against our existing kitchen windows, it's going to be 31 feet high. We want to have the maximum light and air between these structures as we can, realizing that they need to build a reasonable house on this property and they have every right to do so. CHAIR CALABRESE: I understand. Where you're standing there is the edge of the driveway, correct? MS. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. MURPHY: Roughly. CHAIR CALABRESE: But the driveway there -- MR. MURPHY: The driveway is right along the fence. CHAIR CALABRESE: Right. The driveway there and then you have another ten feet of the driveway. And then the house is back there by your chair. MS. HAMILTON: Right. MR. MURPHY: I don't know if that's 15 feet but it's roughly -- actually it's 10 feet. It's 10 feet from the fence. From the property line to the structure, you have a 10 foot side yard setback. CHAIR CALABRESE: Thank you. I'm sorry, you had something? MS. HAMILTON: No, I wanted to say that it's -- even though it's 4.7 from the current structure to the property line, then there's another 8 foot driveway between the two homes and then another 2 or 3 feet setback from where 206 is built from the end of their driveway. So there's really 15 feet between the two homes. It's not 4.7 feet between the homes. MR. MURPHY: No, it's not between the homes at all. It's from the property line. MS. HAMILTON: From the property line, right. MR. MURPHY: And frankly, my concern is that I have 10 feet of conforming space, that open space should not be a basis for getting closer to the property line than the Code allows. My open space on my lot can't be used for that purpose. CHAIR CALABRESE: I understand. MS. HAMILTON: No, I was just stating that what the real distance between the two homes were as opposed to the distance from the home to the property line. I was just clarifying that. MR. HAMILTON: As I originally stated at the beginning of my statement, this was a condition that was created when that home was built, after ours, four years. This is not a builder subdividing a lot up and then trying to avoid the setbacks. CHAIR CALABRESE: Explain to me why it's unreasonable, why you would be harmed if you were to do this line, instead of that line.  MS. HAMILTON: Well, if that is the decision, then we will redo our design and build back because that's what we would have originally designed the home. We designed it coming forward because he indicated he was concerned about water issues and did not want us to build back because that might impact the amount of water that gets pushed onto his property on Chestnut. So I'm not sure he would be happy with an addition coming straight off the back. MR. HAMILTON: And there's a risk factor. If you talk to the neighbors, the further back you go, the greater the digging a basement, your water risk becomes. The front of that property is higher. While it's level, it does go down, and that increases your chance -- I mean, water is always a risk, you don't know what's down below, right? You can run into streams. But it's a far less risk doing that. But as I mentioned before, from the visual lines perspective, right, in looking at a home from a resell perspective that is four feet in, and then goes out, that definitely will impact. MS. HAMILTON: It's just going to be a really strange situation. Plus it affects the bedrooms upstairs. We have three kids. We're trying to build a home to accommodate our family. We paid a lot of money for the property, you know, it's just -- CHAIR CALABRESE: Summarize for me why you don't want to do that. Why you don't want to design something that allows for that small part. MS. HAMILTON: Well, so just what we're saying, is like we won't be able to get -- then we have to just change the design of the house. MR. HAMILTON: That's not the reason. MS. HAMILTON: Well, in my opinion. CHAIR CALABRESE: I understand that but why is that design not what you want. MR. HAMILTON: In summary, we want to maintain the lines of the house, which is common, right? We want to have a straight line all the way back. If -- it's one thing to have an indent behind where the visual view doesn't affect it, right? So at the end of the day, we're trying to improve the properties of everybody on Grove Street and we believe that that visual doesn't only affect us but it affects our neighbors, right? Nobody wants in that home and we're trying to maintain the same lines that all the other homes exist on Grove Avenue. MR. WILLIAMSON: Was a portion of this built out, did you say part of that was a porch?  MS. HAMILTON: Yes, front porch. MR. HAMILTON: Yes, so we have a front porch now. We spend a significant amount of time on our front porch and this is just what we believe. At this point on the coverage side, it's disappointing to us that in Arlington, a front porch, the coverage is not included in the 25 -- whatever the number is, I forgot. MS. HAMILTON: 25 percent. MR. HAMILTON: 25 percent. And we firmly believe that, it may sound kind of dorky but if more people spent time on their front porches, less crime, more neighborhoods, etc. And so it's inherent to how we think and feel and that's why we wanted to make sure that we had that porch coming out. To have the ability to be there, cantilevered, we're out there, inclement weather, etc, and we feel it's the best way to meet your neighbors. Not only on Grove but extended, right? Grove has a lot of traffic and it's going to have a lot more soon. MR. MURPHY: Yes, it does. MR. JONES: Can I ask a question? So this structure right here, this is going to be 28.5 feet tall, correct? MR. HAMILTON: The height? MR. JONES: Yes, what's the height here?  MS. HAMILTON: Two and a half stories. 31 feet. I really don't know. MR. HAMILTON: I think it's 30 and change. MR. JONES: 28.5 and I think this structure is going to be 31. Is that the way I interpret it? MS. HAMILTON: You mean going across the very front? Or going up, how high? MR. JONES: What is the height here? MS. HAMILTON: The height of the house? MR. HAMILTON: It's on the drawing. Give me a second. MR. MISLEH: It's 31. It starts back on the rear. Let's do the gable, I'll make it a little bit easier. MR. HAMILTON: So you'll notice there's a gable that goes up here so the peak is actually right here. And I think that's 30 and change, right, isn't that what it says? MR. MISLEH: It's 31 to the center point of the peak. MR. HAMILTON: 31. So it slopes down more this way. It's steeper here and goes more gradually that way.  MR. MISLEH: And the addition on the back steps down to 28 and a half. MR. JONES: Got it. CHAIR CALABRESE: We're going to close the interaction with the petitioners and others but before we do that I want to make sure everybody has asked the questions that they wanted to ask. (No response.) CHAIR CALABRESE: We're going to conclude that and have a discussion as the Board. I guess as I -- and I want to hear other opinions. The main argument of Mr. Murphy is that this impedes air-light overcrowding and I understand that concern. All these homes in this area we have issues like this. We're talking about 3 feet which is what, maybe about that much, I think. Is that right? MR. MURPHY: Approximately. MR. HAMILTON: Roughly. CHAIR CALABRESE: I'll just start off with a comment and I'll invite others to join in. I'm having a hard time seeing how that 3 feet going in is going to increase the air, the light, the overall openness. But I would welcome others to challenge or to disagree.  MR. BARTLETT: I would just provide a simple and contrary statement that I don't see how that 3 feet interferes with your ability to build a wonderful home in the City of Falls Church nor do I see how it is a true hardship for you to not build in that 3 feet of space, as an initial comment. I understand your interest in building a great home for your family and in the City of Falls Church and I hear the statements about consistency and your front porch and interacting with your neighbors. I would and I did the same thing. It just makes me feel a little uncomfortable that you can't do that conforming with that 3 feet. If there's no issue with the Chestnut side setback and variance request, and I'm still not convinced of -- I understand the hardship of the lot itself but the size has some convincing. MR. WILLIAMSON: I guess to that, we have a house with an existing footprint where the property line was dropped in after the house was built. And so I mean, it does seem if you're going to build a house, generally you would build straight walls all the way down and that property line getting dropped in afterward seems to me to create a hardship to then require that a -- like to move it 3 feet in from where the existing footprint is.  So to that point on the 3 feet, I think the property line getting dropped in after the house was already built moves me on the hardship perspective. MR. BARTLETT: I will say that is a good point. MR. MISLEH: I agree with Mr. Williamson and I think the same can be said about the road being put in after the house was built on the other side. And I do believe that not being able to build a house with a solid line is a hardship and diminishes the value of the future construction. CHAIR CALABRESE: Do you have any comments? MR. JONES: I'm sort of in agreement with Keith about the design. I think understanding that the property line was dropped in after the house was constructed and the road was built, it still could have been designed potentially to conform with the Code. So that's sort of my initial impression. Darcy brings up a very good point also. But I think just based on from my reading of it, is the house could have potentially been designed, beautiful home, City of Falls Church, within the confines of the current Code. MR. MISLEH: The Code doesn't allow them to even go up into that existing setback. And so the variance request that they're requesting, considering they draw a solid line all the way down would encompass the front addition which is conforming on the front side. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIR CALABRESE: With that then, I think we're ready for a motion on this request. So I'll entertain a motion. MR. BARTLETT: Can we pause for a second and talk about the three separately because they have three variance requests. I'd like to consider the idea of amending their variance request because I'm uncomfortable with making a motion for all three at once and seek some guidance. CHAIR CALABRESE: So of the three, the only one -- and you can clarify if this is correct or not, the first one -- as I understand it, the first and the -- there's only two requests here. MS. HAMILTON: Three. CHAIR CALABRESE: Where's the third? MR. HAMILTON: The lot coverage. CHAIR CALABRESE: The lot coverage, okay. So you have the front yard -- so the side yard setback, that's being challenged. The first and the third as I understand it aren't really being challenged. So we are voting -- MR. BARTLETT: I think the third is being challenged by comments from the public. CHAIR CALABRESE: Sir, you were challenging the lot coverage? MR. BARKLEY: Well, I thought it's only a small amount and it just seems to me that lot coverage isn't generally given for hardship but that's my opinion. CHAIR CALABRESE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood your comments. So you are challenging the lot coverage on the current plans. You were commenting on them, I should say. MR. BOYLE: It would help for record keeping purposes if three motions were made and perhaps they could add a number three for the coverage issue. Same variance number but item one, item two, and item three. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yeah, it wasn't a three before the "and". MR. BOYLE: Correct. CHAIR CALABRESE: So, it's a fair comment. We'll go through them one at a time. So I guess then if we do it in that manner, we'll entertain a motion on the first element of the variance request, which is a front yard setback of 6.9 feet instead of 25 feet. So entertain a motion on that variance request. MR. JONES: I'll make a motion on Item 1 for variance application V1604-18 by Julianne Hamilton, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-263(3)a to allow a front yard setback of 6.9 feet instead of 25 feet. MR. WILLIAMSON: I would second that. CHAIR CALABRESE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIR CALABRESE: Mr. Boyle, could you call the roll. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. We'll just go in order. The second one is the side yard setback of 4.7 feet instead of 8 feet. I'll entertain a motion on that. MR. WILLIAMSON: I would move to approve a side yard setback of 4.7 feet instead of 8 feet on variance application V1604-18 in recognition of the property line being added after the house was built, along with the existing house being built in 1930 and a street was subsequently added after the existing house was built. CHAIR CALABRESE: Is there a second? MR. MISLEH: I second. CHAIR CALABRESE: Any comments, discussion? (No response.) CHAIR CALABRESE: If you could call the roll. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: No. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: I'm going to vote no. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you.  CHAIR CALABRESE: So the motion carries. Now we're going to go to number 3 which is not identified separately. It's a variance to Section 48-2635(a) to allow 25.3 percent building lot coverage instead of 25 percent for the purpose of constructing a 2.5 story addition and attached garage. Entertain a motion on that variance request. MR. BARTLETT: I make a motion to deny variance application V1604-18 by Julianne Hamilton, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-263(5)a to allow a 25.3 percent building lot coverage instead of 25 percent. MR. JONES: I'll second. CHAIR CALABRESE: So I guess we didn't discuss this as much so this is an opportunity now to discuss this. So to address this 3 percent, it would have to be a reduction -- MS. HAMILTON: Point 3 percent. CHAIR CALABRESE: Correct. Point 3 percent. It would have to be a reduction of 24 square feet in the building somewhere. MS. HAMILTON: We'll work with our designer to do that. CHAIR CALABRESE: So that's acceptable to you?  MS. HAMILTON: I mean, do I wish you'd had said yes? Will I accept what you have told me? Two different questions. MR. MISLEH: Before we vote on this, John, is there a margin of error that the City normally entertains on lot coverage? CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes, de minimus. MR. BOYLE: Not for lot coverage. For setbacks there is a practice, but not for lot coverage. MS. HAMILTON: But isn't it generally round down if it's under .5 and round up if it's -- MR. BOYLE: Yes, I think a room full of people could come up with a different number. But the Code is what the -- it's actually basic math and we don't have any discretion to deviate from that, what is 25 percent of the lot area. CHAIR CALABRESE: So the motion is to deny that variance request. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIR CALABRESE: Call the vote. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: I agree to deny it. CHAIR CALABRESE: So a "Yes" vote is supporting the denial.  MR. BOYLE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. CHAIR CALABRESE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: No. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. CHAIR CALABRESE: The motion carries. Okay. Is there any other item that we need to discuss on this application? MR. BOYLE: No, sir. So to clarify, we have both the setback variances approved and the lot coverage denied. So at permit, we'd need to see an adjustment on the building coverage. MR. HAMILTON: Also see the stairs moved to the other side. MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. MS. HAMILTON: Yes, we'll make those changes. CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. If there are no other matters, I think we're concluded on this with New Business. MS. HAMILTON: Thank you for your time. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIR CALABRESE: So we're going to move to the Approval of the Minutes from the June 14th and July 12th meetings. So we'll start with the June 14th. (Minutes reviewed.) CHAIR CALABRESE: Okay. We need a motion to approve the minutes. MR. BARTLETT: I make a motion to approve the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals from June 14, 2018. CHAIR CALABRESE: Second? MR. MISLEH: Second. CHAIR CALABRESE: Call the roll. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Wasn't there. I'm going to abstain. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. CHAIR CALABRESE: Abstain. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Abstain. CHAIR CALABRESE: Oops. We don't have enough to approve it.  RECORDING SECRETARY: Because Mr. Sprouse isn't here. MR. BARTLETT: He's no longer with us. MR. MISLEH: He resigned. MR. BOYLE: That's correct. This, I think -- MR. WILLIAMSON: We had a situation like this before, didn't we? MR. BOYLE: Yeah, where just a simple majority carries. MR. BARTLETT: So 2-0 would approve? MR. BOYLE: Yes, a simple majority. Yes, so 2 to 1 -- or we're only going to have 2 voting. MR. WILLIAMSON: We're only going to have two voting. MR. BOYLE: Well, hopefully it won't be a 1 to 1 tie. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. CHAIR CALABRESE: All right. Then the next one is the July 12th meeting. (Minutes reviewed.)  MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll move to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals from July 12, 2018. MR. JONES: I'll second. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Jones seconded. CHAIR CALABRESE: Call the vote. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. CHAIR CALABRESE: Abstain. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: CHAIR CALABRESE: Any other matters to discuss? MR. BOYLE: It looks like we'll have one variance for October. It's a sign variance. It's a little different.  And do we know if we're going to be in this room? MS. ROUZI: We are going to be in the community center. I'm not sure if we're going to be in this room but we're confirmed to be in this building through November. We don't have a meeting space yet for December. MR. BOYLE: Okay. So one agenda item for next month and that is October 11th. 8. ADJOURNMENT: CHAIR CALABRESE: Let's conclude the meeting.