Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA 2 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 3 Thursday, September 17, 2020 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 MS. ROUZI: The meeting for which this agenda 7 has been posted will be held pursuant to and in 8 compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, 9 Section 2.2-3708.2 and state and local legislation 10 adopted to allow for continued government operation 11 during the COVID-19 declared emergency. 12 Thank you. 13 14 1. CALL TO ORDER 15 MR. JONES: Thank you, Akida. 16 I would like to call to order now the 17 Thursday, September 17, 2020, Board of Zoning Appeals. 18 Could I have a roll call please. 19 MS. ROUZI: Sure. 20 21 2. ROLL CALL 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 23 MR. EPPLER: I'm here. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 25 MR. KIEN: Yes. 26 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 27 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 28 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 29 MR. MISLEH: Here. 30 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 31 MR. JONES: Here. 32 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 33 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 34 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 35 MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Akida. 36 37 3. PETITIONS 38 MR. JONES: I don't believe -- or maybe we do. 39 Do we have any Petitions for the Board tonight? 40 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 41 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Boyle. 42 43 4. OLD BUSINESS 44 a. Variance application V1616-20 by Jeff and 45 Katie Skalka, applicant and owner, for a variance to 46 Section 48-238, to allow 27.4% lot coverage instead of 47 25% maximum permitted by Code, and 37.2% impervious lot 48 coverage instead of 35% maximum permitted by Code, for 49 the purpose of constructing a covered screen porch at 50 the rear of the premises known as 205 Patterson Street, 51 RPC #52-113-008 of the Falls Church Real Property 52 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 53 54 MR. JONES: With that, I think we can go to 55 the Old Business which is a variance application 56 V1616-20. 57 If we could swear in those who are going to 58 speak before the Board tonight. I believe the 59 applicants are with us but I believe we also have 60 several members of the public who would like to speak on 61 this matter. 62 Mr. Boyle and Akida, I don't know the best way 63 to capture everybody who is going to be speaking, I 64 don't know if it's easiest to have the public either 65 speak their name and you record it or do you know the 66 best procedure to make sure everybody is accounted for? 67 MS. ROUZI: Yes, I think that would be a good 68 idea, Mr. Chair. 69 If everyone who is going to speak could say 70 their first and last name and their property address, I 71 can just start taking their names down. 72 MR. SKALKA: Sure. We could start. This is 73 Jeff and Katie Skalka at 205 Patterson. 74 MS. BRAIN: Hi there. You also have Shawn and 75 Mike Brain from 204 Patterson.  76 MR. JONES: I can't tell from my screen if 77 there's any other members of the public. 78 MS. ROUZI: I can see a few people but I'm not 79 sure if everyone is going to speak. 80 Anyone else want to speak? 81 (No response.) 82 MS. ROUZI: I guess not. 83 MR. JONES: Okay. For those speaking, if you 84 could virtually raise your hand and swear to tell the 85 whole truth before this Board tonight. 86 (Witnesses sworn.) 87 MR. JONES: Thank you. 88 With that, Mr. Boyle, I think we can get 89 started on Mr. and Mrs. Skalka's variance application. 90 If you wouldn't mind providing a report to the 91 Board, we'd sincerely appreciate it, sir. 92 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 93 And I just discovered there's a button top 94 left to see all the folks that are online, if that 95 helps. 96 Yes, this application is before the Board 97 tonight for a screen porch addition off the rear of the 98 house and the issue is that it would exceed both the 99 building coverage maximums and the impervious surface 100 maximums that the Code has. 101 And this matter came before the Board last 102 month as part of a Special Meeting and I think there was 103 extensive conversation back and forth between the 104 applicants and the Board as to the merits of the case 105 and because the Board was lacking full participation at 106 that time they exercised their option to continue to 107 this month. 108 And I think we've distributed to the Board 109 some letters from the neighbors, some of which you 110 received last time, but there's been some different or 111 expanded information and I'll defer to the applicants 112 about how their application may have changed since last 113 month, if in any way. 114 But it's probably best to just rehear this 115 case from the beginning, both to cover the questions of 116 what may have changed in the application since last 117 month and for the benefit of those who were not here 118 last month. 119 I usually like to phrase variance applications 120 in terms of whether this is something staff can approve, 121 is there's any authority to grant these things at the 122 staff level and lot coverages; the answer is no. And 123 the only remedy here is for the applicants to seek a 124 variance before the Board. 125 So with that, I'll defer to the applicants for 126 their presentation. And you should have a copy of that 127 as well as the version that's online here. If any of 128 the Board members did not receive the PDF with this 129 application or did not receive the emails from the 130 neighbors, please let us know and during the 131 conversation we'll get that to you. 132 MR. SKALKA: Great. Thanks, John, and thanks 133 to all the Board members and, of course, all of our 134 neighbors that are here with us tonight. 135 I think probably a good way to just go through 136 what we're talking about is to perhaps just run through 137 the slides which I don't think is actually going to take 138 too long and then you can move into a conversation as 139 the Board pleases after that. 140 I'm thinking it's probably Akida who is 141 running the slides. Akida, if you would move to Slide 142 2. 143 So we have, the proposed porch is a 255 square 144 foot covered screened porch, and as you can see there's 145 the dimensions that are listed here. 146 One of the things that we talked about at the 147 initial meeting is we wanted to make sure the 148 development of this is not going to be, for lack of a 149 better word, an eye sore. And a good way to think about 150 it is if you look at that niche where there's two sides 151 of the house, that's exactly where it would fit. 152 So it would go out to the wall that's closest 153 to us from the person taking the picture and it would go 154 over to the other wall, and that's about 17 by 15 feet. 155 Also what you can see in the picture is there 156 is some construction boarding that was put up against 157 the back of sliding doors. Those sliding doors go into 158 our living room and it's about a 5 foot drop. That 159 little black, what looks like a tarp, that's about chest 160 level. 161 So hopefully that kind of gives you all some 162 idea of why we view having a structure on the back of 163 our house as important as we do. 164 Let's move on to Slide 3 please. 165 Slide 3 actually is just a summary of the 166 basis for a variance and all of these items we're going 167 to touch on in the remainder of the presentation, so we 168 can move to Slide 4. 169 So as we noted, the variance would, we believe 170 that an undersized lot does not allow us the opportunity 171 to develop the property. It's not that we don't believe 172 that. That's what the Code is and it restricts 173 ourselves the utilization of the property. 174 And the bottom left and right, you can see the 175 standard minimum size lot and what our lot actually is. 176 And probably an important thing to note, the design that 177 we've chosen, we've done so purposefully so that if we 178 were a standard lot, the proposed deck would be within 179 the parameters and allowable. 180 Let me ask, I don't know if you want for me to 181 just go through the presentation, but if there are 182 questions, I recognize there's several numbers on this 183 page, particularly if not everyone has had an 184 opportunity to look at this presentation in the past, so 185 feel free to ask a question if you have one, otherwise 186 we can move on to Slide 5. 187 Hearing none, thank you. 188 So, this slide is important, as we noted at 189 the top of the summary, the basis for the variation, the 190 property was certainly acquired in good faith and the 191 hardship was not created by us. 192 And the other thing noted in the first line in 193 blue, at the time that we purchased the lot we were not 194 familiar with the hardship of undersized lots and 195 restrictions due to building coverage and we've been in 196 the property for about two years. We greatly enjoy 197 living in Falls Church and enjoy our neighbors. 198 One of the things that we are wanting to do is 199 to make certain that we were very diligent in the 200 planning of this project. And so we looked at several 201 different avenues that we could potentially go down and 202 ultimately what became very apparent is to have a 203 covered structure over our heads on this outside deck, 204 that we would be required to be here with you all 205 tonight. 206 One thing that is not noted on this slide that 207 is also very important and I believe it was outlined in 208 a letter that you all received from one of our 209 neighbors, Melissa and Danny Polinsky, we touched on 210 this a little bit at the first meeting, but when we were 211 purchasing this property, we talked with the builder 212 about several things, one of which was the question 213 around why there's this construction boarding on the 214 back of the house. And until we spoke with the 215 Polinskys about what I'm about to mention, we thought we 216 may have been the only ones that were communicated this 217 information. 218 And that information is that we were told, 219 which now we learn to be wrongfully guided, that we 220 would be able to construct anything on the back of this 221 property, including a covered deck. 222 That's not to abdicate us from the 223 understanding of what a Code is but I think it would be 224 reasonable to recognize that people that are new to the 225 City do not understand the Code inside and out. And of 226 course, we're very disappointed that we were led astray 227 by the builder, whether the builder intended to or they 228 simply were the person we were talking with was not 229 aware of what the Code actually is. 230 But I think that, again, the Polinskys' letter 231 does a good job of explaining that, in fact, we were not 232 the only ones given that information. 233 We can move on to Slide 6. 234 This is obviously a very important point for 235 us to cover and recognize that I think that this is 236 where the majority of the energy around our neighbors 237 behind us lies. And so we do not believe that the 238 property as it is today, should we construct what we're 239 proposing, will cause any additional significant 240 detriment to our neighbors. 241 And the reason I say that is because of the 242 steps that we've taken to eliminate that possibility 243 which includes hiring a professional engineer to design 244 a water retention system that would keep any additional 245 runoff from what we're experiencing today. 246 And Slide 7 actually shows what we've been 247 provided by the professional engineer to date and as we 248 flip to Slide 7, probably the -- if we're just to 249 summarize, the big thing to note would be at the bottom 250 in the middle of that page that's outlined in red -- if 251 we can move to Slide 7. 252 So we're showing here, we can see that the 253 runoff, it is capable for us to design a retention 254 system that would keep the runoff at today's levels. 255 The other thing worth noting is the properties 256 behind us are surrounded by two, possibly three sides of 257 hills, and so we have water that is draining from 258 multiple lots, not just ours. So we do not take full 259 responsibility for the water that is running off of our 260 property and running into theirs. We do recognize that 261 our lot is part of that community and that is why what 262 we just discussed as far as us being -- trying to be as 263 considerate as possible in developing a system to 264 mitigate that is, again, important. 265 Let's move forward to Slide 8 please. 266 And again, the last points in blue are the 267 final three points on our basis for variance. I don't 268 necessarily feel it necessary to run through each of 269 those points. I think that the first three were the 270 ones that were very important to touch on, which we did. 271 We'd be happy to talk more about any of these 272 if you'd like. 273 And then finally the last slide, a reasonable 274 deviation per the Code, we certainly believe that this 275 is a reasonable deviation and we're looking forward to 276 working with professional engineers and others on making 277 certain that we will be able to protect our neighbors 278 and our own property. 279 So thank you very much. Happy to take any 280 questions. 281 MR. BOYLE: If I might, we're hearing that a 282 couple of members of the public are having difficulties 283 being heard, a microphone issue or some glitch with the 284 software, so if we could take about a five minute break 285 and see if we can work through that for them, Mr. Chair. 286 MR. JONES: Absolutely. That sounds good to 287 me. 288 We'll take a five minute recess and we'll come 289 back at 7:56. 290 MR. BOYLE: Sure. We'll see what we can do. 291 Thank you. 292 (Recess taken.) 293 MR. BOYLE: We need the Board to come back 294 into order and off we go. And where are we at in the 295 Agenda? I guess we need to determine if the 296 applicants have completed their presentation and the 297 next step in the point of order. 298 MR. SKALKA: Yes, we have. Thank you. 299 MR. JONES: Okay. John, I think we'll 300 reconvene then. I can't tell from my screen, but can 301 you tell if the rest of the Board has returned or is 302 online. 303 MS. ROUZI: Let me check the listing. 304 We've got everybody signed on. I'm sure 305 they're in front of their computer. 306 MR. JONES: Okay. I'm getting some pretty 307 substantial feedback so if I have to stop talking, that 308 is why. 309 MR. CALABRESE: If everyone can go on mute 310 while they speak, I don't know if that would help. 311 MR. JONES: I don't know when I think it's Mr. 312 Hobbie, Ms. Hawkins, and the Savitz family, I don't know 313 when they were able to sign on, but if they could just 314 state their full names and their address for the record 315 and then we will swear you in and then we can proceed, 316 now that the Skalkas have concluded their presentation. 317 So Mr. Hobbie, Ms. Hawkins, and the Savitz 318 family, if you wouldn't mind stating your full name and 319 address so we can get you on record. 320 MS. HAWKINS: Callie Hawkins, 210 South West 321 Street. 322 MR. HOBBIE: Jason Hobbie, 210 South West 323 Street. 324 MS. SAVITZ: Natalya Savitz, 212 South West 325 Street. 326 MR. SAVITZ: Scott Savitz, 212 South West 327 Street. 328 MR. JONES: So virtually raise your hands. If 329 you make a presentation or speak before the Board, do 330 you swear to tell the truth? 331 (Witnesses sworn.) 332 MR. JONES: Very good. Thank you. 333 The Skalkas have concluded their presentation. 334 Unless the Board has any immediate questions, I think it 335 may be prudent to hear from the members of the public 336 who would like to express their opinions on this. 337 In no particular order, Mr. Hobbie and Ms. 338 Hawkins, if you have something to say or like to speak 339 on this matter, would you mind going forward now. 340 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Jones, this is John Misleh. 341 Before we have folks speak, I'd like to ask John or 342 Akida if they can put up a map to show us the 343 surrounding properties so we can see where they are in 344 context to the subject property. 345 MS. ROUZI: Let me pull up, just Google map? 346 MR. BOYLE: That, or the public notice should 347 have a map. Whichever works best. 348 MR. BARTLETT: It's on page 5 of the Skalkas' 349 actual application for variance, June 7, 2020. 350 MS. ROUZI: I promise I'm working on it. I'm 351 losing my tabs but I'm working on it. 352 MR. JONES: To my colleagues on the Board, 353 just let me know when you're ready. 354 MR. CALABRESE: Ready. 355 MR. JONES: Without hearing any further 356 objections, Mr. Hobbie and Ms. Hawkins, if you wouldn't 357 mind speaking, whatever you have to say to the Board. 358 MR. HOBBIE: Hello. This is Jason Hobbie. 359 We submitted a written statement that I think 360 captures pretty much all that we came prepared to say. 361 We're here to answer any questions. 362 Just to clarify, we own, I guess the Skalkas' 363 property on that diagram is highlighted in yellow. 364 We're the property immediately below it. It has kind of 365 a red deck in the back yard. That's us. 366 The question was raised at the last public 367 hearing, you know, who is the owner of the Beck's 368 property as shown in one of the Skalkas' application 369 materials. We are the current owners of the Beck 370 property. 371 And again, at this point we don't have 372 anything beyond what we previously submitted to the BZA 373 and we're here to answer any questions you may have. 374 Thank you. 375 MR. JONES: Mr. Hobbie, if you wouldn't mind, 376 just for the benefit of the record, if you wouldn't mind 377 just basically summarizing your position, just very, 378 very shortly, I think it might be helpful, if you don't 379 mind, sir. 380 MR. HOBBIE: Sure. We did submit public 381 comment to the first BZA public hearing. I mean we had 382 mentioned that we had experienced drainage issues. We 383 mentioned, you know, we appreciated the Skalkas had 384 taken efforts to, I guess, mitigate those issues. I 385 mean, I had noticed that they had moved landscaping 386 around. 387 We were not aware, I know the Savitzes had 388 mentioned they were also experiencing drainage issues. 389 We were not aware of the extent of the drainage issues 390 the Savitzes were experiencing. I believe that a lot of 391 it did come from the construction of the Skalkas' house. 392 There was a question at the last BZA public 393 hearing, some comments were made about whether or not 394 the construction, the grading was done correctly. 395 I did supplement my previous statement with 396 documented evidence from the City of Falls Church that 397 the grading was not done correctly on that property. 398 That and as a result we have I guess -- we've revised 399 our previous statement just to mention that we do have I 400 guess increased concern about drainage, mainly if it 401 gets diverted -- well, the purpose of the variance is to 402 increase impervious coverage. You know, if it's 403 diverted it's got to go somewhere and we're the property 404 that's pretty much directly downhill. 405 Slide 7 or 8 that Mr. Skalka asked the BZA to 406 put up on the screen a few minutes ago shows the 407 drainage pattern and where the water's flowing. 408 So I guess hearing the sheer extent, that did 409 concern us. 410 And then also, I do practice law. I'm a 411 senior assistant county attorney for Loudoun County. I 412 represented -- or I provided counsel to the BZA as well 413 as staff for over ten years. I've handled numerous 414 variance cases and I just had also, I noted concerns 415 that I had. I think my wife and I were hoping to be 416 able to remain more neutral and that the BZA -- in 417 Loudoun County my opinion is the BZA would have quickly 418 recognized that there are big legal issues. 419 The conversation seems to be focused on 420 mitigating drainage but the problem is that there's a 421 very reasonable use of the property that already exists. 422 And in Loudoun County, based on my experience, the BZA 423 quickly would have recognized that and said, you know, 424 all this, the mitigation is appreciated but the 425 underlying issue is that we're not authorized to grant 426 this by the Code of Virginia. It doesn't meet the 427 criteria, you know, you probably have to, you know, it's 428 unfortunate but we're not able to provide the relief. 429 So that was the kind of the other part of our 430 supplemental testimony, public comment was just we're a 431 little concerned just because that seemed not to be 432 really being addressed by the conversation the BZA was 433 having. 434 And so we just wanted to bring that to the 435 BZA's attention, just that in my opinion I think that 436 there are some fundamental underlying legal issues with, 437 you know, the permissibility of the grant of the 438 variance and also this suggestion that the BZA can 439 basically punt on the issue of mitigation and leave it 440 up to a future body to determine whether it's correct or 441 not. 442 I don't think that's correct. I think that 443 the BZA has to, you know, if it's going to be mitigated, 444 the BZA has to adopt those conditions, otherwise the BZA 445 is adopting something that they recognize needs to be 446 mitigated without insuring the proper mitigation. 447 And also based on what I'm hearing, this 448 future discussion of mitigation is an administrative 449 review where if you basically meet a checklist you get 450 through but, you know, the variance is basically a 451 legislative process where you're allowed to put 452 conditions on that may even exceed what could be 453 required through administrative review. 454 And I think that, especially due to the nature 455 of the existing issues and the nature of this variance, 456 I think that it would be very appropriate for the BZA to 457 adopt -- or I think it's actually required for the BZA 458 to adopt the additional conditions on the variance if it 459 approves it prior to passing it on to another agency in 460 the City to review. 461 Sorry, that was a little long-winded but I 462 think that summarizes our supplemental comment. And 463 again, we're happy to answer any questions the BZA may 464 have. 465 Thank you. 466 MR. CALABRESE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just 467 make a comment. 468 MR. JONES: Yes, sir. 469 MR. CALABRESE: First of all, I don't think 470 you're characterizing correctly the conversation and our 471 thought process from last meeting. 472 We understand and take very seriously the 473 statutory requirements for granting a variance. In 474 fact, I think I and others mentioned some of those that 475 we thought were implicated in this application. And 476 while we have provided or required or used conditions in 477 the granting of variances, we've never -- I don't think 478 this was discussed at all -- that we were going to 479 so-called punt and allow some future action handle the 480 mitigation. 481 So I just want to set the record straight, 482 that was never, ever part of our thought process, 483 contemplation, or otherwise. 484 So, I just wanted to make that point clear. 485 Thank you. 486 MR. HOBBIE: If I can just briefly respond. I 487 apologize if I mischaracterized, misunderstood the BZA's 488 conversation. I did notice significant attention did 489 seem to be paid on the mitigation aspect. And it may 490 not have been the BZA but I believe that maybe the 491 zoning administrator suggested that it would be 492 appropriate for the BZA to adopt, you know, if the BZA 493 approved it, that the drainage would be addressed by a 494 future review agency. 495 Again, I apologize for mischaracterizing the 496 conversation. 497 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. You're right, it 498 may have been a comment by the administrator, but thank 499 you. 500 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Hobbie. 501 Any other questions from the Board for Mr. 502 Hobbie? I don't have any. 503 MR. EPPLER: Mr. Chairman, I've got a quick 504 question for him. 505 MR. JONES: Yes, sir. 506 MR. EPPLER: Mr. Hobbie, were you the one -- 507 and I'm sorry, I read several letters and I don't 508 remember if this was yours, but were you the one who 509 said that like two-thirds of the lots on the street are 510 of sub-standard size? 511 MR. HOBBIE: Yes, that's correct. I was going 512 off of the 11,250 square foot size and using the Falls 513 Church mapping system that allows you to pull up the lot 514 sizes for the properties. 515 MR. EPPLER: Okay. It seems to me that we've 516 had some different information on that before. Thank 517 you. We'll have to check on that. 518 Thanks very much. 519 MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you, sir. 520 If there aren't any further questions for Mr. 521 Hobbie, Ms. Savitz and the Savitz family, would you like 522 to make any statements? 523 MS. SAVITZ: Yes. Can you hear us? 524 MR. JONES: Yes, we can. 525 MS. SAVITZ: Thank you for giving us an 526 opportunity to speak here. 527 We submitted two letters, one letter before 528 the August meeting and another letter before this 529 meeting. And as we discussed in our initial letter, the 530 construction of the structures at 205 Patterson Street 531 in 2018 created a lot of sudden runoff that drained into 532 our property and caused a substantial amount of damage 533 to our finished basement. 534 We've already spent thousands of dollars 535 remediating that issue and are looking at 20,000 or more 536 in additional costs to finish remediating the issue. 537 We continue to be concerned for what the 538 Skalkas' suggestion or request to increase the amount of 539 impenetrable surface on their lot. The back yard is 540 already relative small. It has little space to absorb 541 the current runoff which is causing damage and they're 542 trying to increase that. 543 Their proposed remediation strategy of putting 544 in a small planter box and a small drywell the size of a 545 City of Falls Church trash can that's also filled with 546 stone is completely insufficient to address the current 547 issues. 548 And we're, I guess, sorry that the Skalkas do 549 not seem to recognize how much damage their property is 550 already causing and are not willing to address that 551 issue. 552 As we discussed in our letter, we're concerned 553 that the City of Falls Church staff appeared to be 554 favoring a large development at the expense of the 555 current home owners and their properties. 556 In the case of the 205 Patterson Street, they 557 already approved a house that's over 5000 square feet 558 with a two car garage that's 11,000 square feet, roughly 559 speaking, and also has a long driveway. The total 560 impenetrable surface is almost at the limit of 35 561 percent. 562 The fieldstone that was obtained from building 563 the large basement that the original house did not have 564 was piled up around the house creating a pretty steep 565 slope. Unfortunately the maps don't reflect this 566 because the maps are based on the plan, not the actual 567 grading that's been done. 568 If you look, if you actually visit the 569 properties, you can see how different the grading is at 570 205 Patterson Street as compared to the surrounding 571 property and before the slopes were very similar. 572 Finally, Jason Hobbie noted there's issues of 573 the grading as well as issues with drainage, where a 574 pipe, black corrugated pipe was buried, it's very close 575 to one of the downspouts in the back of the house so 576 most of our water probably goes inside the corrugated 577 pipe and then it drains very close to the back of the 578 property, essentially just sinking, sitting all of that 579 water right into our property and Jason Hobbie's 580 property. 581 As we documented in the emails that were 582 attached to our letter, the City of Falls Church 583 recognizes some of these errors but because the 584 occupancy permits were already released, they just say, 585 well, now, it's a neighbor against neighbor issue. That 586 doesn't seem to be appropriate to us, in terms of the 587 government protecting the citizens' rights and property. 588 And more recently the City staff was advising 589 Skalkas about how to circumvent the current requirements 590 for the impenetrable surface area and suggesting 591 arguments for what to do, including the argument about 592 sub-standard lot. 593 As Jason Hobbie mentioned, sub-standard lot 594 terminology was created with a very different intent and 595 there are a lot of sub-standard lots around Falls 596 Church. So no one is guaranteed, quote, unquote, a 597 standard lot size or larger. You buy what you buy and 598 then you have to deal with it. And you pay supposedly 599 the market price for that property that you bought. 600 So while we sympathize with their desire to 601 have a covered porch, the amount of damage that we're 602 already experiencing and are likely to experience with 603 the addition of this porch, just doesn't support us -- 604 basically we're very concerned about the proposal that 605 the Skalkas put forward. 606 So thank you, and if you have questions, 607 please feel free to ask. 608 MR. JONES: Thank you very much. 609 I don't have any specific questions for the 610 Savitzes. Do any of my colleagues on the Board have any 611 questions? 612 (No response.) 613 MR. JONES: Hearing none, are there any 614 questions for the Skalkas from members of the Board? 615 MR. CALABRESE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I could 616 ask. When we met last, we had agreed to a continuance 617 to reconsider this application with, in my mind, the 618 assumption that there would be some further activities 619 to address concerns. 620 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 621 there has been. I think it's the same application. 622 But at the same time, let me ask, have you had 623 any discussions with any of these neighbors to discuss 624 these concerns since the last meeting and have you 625 presented to them your remediation, mitigation plan? 626 MR. SKALKA: Yes. So subsequent to the last 627 meeting, we wrote a letter to the Savitzes explaining -- 628 I don't believe they were unfortunately on at the 629 beginning of the original meeting and they did not get 630 to hear the remediation plans that we're proposing. 631 So we wrote a letter explaining that and 632 reasons why the deck is important to us. And after that 633 letter, we were happy to see that the Savitzes took the 634 time to visit us at our property and we had further 635 conversation around what we were planning to do. We had 636 a chance to hear the Savitzes' thoughts. 637 Unfortunately, we were unaware of any issue 638 that the Savitzes were having prior to the original 639 meeting so we were happy to be able to share, they 640 requested both the plan, which is what we're looking at 641 now on the screen, several page document from LDC, the 642 professional engineer, and we also sent this exact 643 presentation to them ahead of this meeting. 644 Regarding Jason Hobbie and Callie Hawkins, we 645 have not had a lot of dialogue. I did receive a text 646 last night from Jason stating his intention to speak 647 tonight and it was just actually a kind gesture of him 648 to reach out to let us know that he was planning to 649 speak tonight. 650 MR. CALABRESE: If I could ask, I do actually 651 have a question actually for the prior speaker. 652 You had mentioned that you do not believe that 653 the remediation plan would handle, would solve -- would 654 work. 655 Can you elaborate why you believe that. 656 That's for the Savitzes, directed towards them. 657 MS. SAVITZ: Hi. Can you hear us? 658 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 659 MS. SAVITZ: Okay. Thank you. 660 So we're collecting rain water from the back 661 of our garage. And a typical rain that we get, we 662 collect about two barrels of water, each 60 gallons. So 663 roughly two trash cans, like Falls Church trash cans, of 664 water, just from the back of our garage. We're 665 collecting even more water from our house. 666 What Skalkas are proposing is putting in one 667 of these trash cans filled with rocks so that has little 668 space to collect water from a house that's much larger 669 than ours and supposedly the garage structure. That 670 storage just cannot accommodate the amount of water 671 that's being discharged. 672 The water that's not going to get stored in 673 that space will get discharged through a pipe very close 674 to the back of their property, basically draining into 675 our back yard. So they have very little space to 676 collect water and anything extra will be discharged. 677 So, I'm expecting the most of the water will 678 continue to be flowing right into our back yard. 679 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. 680 And then if I could just ask the Skalkas, the 681 remediation plan that you've proposed, why do you 682 believe that it is sufficient? 683 MR. SKALKA: Well, we gave direct instruction 684 to the professional engineering firm that designed this 685 for us. What the purpose was, what we're looking to do, 686 they have all the documentation that you all have seen 687 as far as our plans for the deck and they've designed a 688 system that would remediate any additional runoff. 689 And they've provided their calculations which 690 are summarized on that slide that's on the screen right 691 now that indicates that, in fact, it is certainly 692 possible to reduce or eliminate any additional runoff. 693 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. I have one last 694 question and then I'll let others speak. 695 But the threshold question that we still have 696 to answer and there's a number of criteria and we 697 mentioned this, we went over this last week, we have to 698 consider there's a threshold question as to whether the 699 need for this variance is so fundamental to your 700 enjoyment and use of the house that without it, you're 701 essentially barred, in so many words, from using the 702 house or being able to effectively live in the house. 703 Can you please address this threshold issue of 704 why it is important to issue the variance in terms of 705 the hardship essentially that you would suffer. 706 MR. SKALKA: Sure. So our property as it 707 looks today is consisting of this -- these sliding doors 708 that are not functional at all right now. We have a 709 five foot drop from our living room to our back yard and 710 it was extraordinarily clear that the purpose for this 711 area was to have a deck constructed. 712 And again, I think that it was very 713 disappointing that we were led as buyers to believe 714 that, in fact, we were able to construct something that 715 our family would be able to enjoy when we're now looking 716 for a variance to that Code. 717 So I'll leave it at that. 718 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. 719 Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further 720 questions. 721 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Calabrese. 722 I have one question for the Skalkas. 723 The structure that you're proposing to build 724 is 17 feet by 15 feet. Was there any consideration to 725 alternate designs to get you within Code? 726 MR. SKALKA: So right now our property is very 727 close to being maxed out of the coverage that we're 728 allowed without seeking this variance. So that 729 essentially it would look like a single chair on your -- 730 on a roof. That would be it, only two feet by two feet. 731 So unfortunately that was not an option. 732 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I can weigh in. 733 What probably happened here, and it's not a 734 zoning-specific issue, but what we see from time to time 735 is the builders have a house plan that they like to 736 build and they'll build that throughout the Metro area. 737 And it's better for them if they don't have to change 738 the plan. So that one probably was designed for a 739 larger lot and when they actually got into the grading 740 plan review, our engineers discovered they were at their 741 maximums. 742 So this house probably exists, this actual 743 floor plan probably exists in different iterations in 744 the area and it no doubt has a deck or a screened porch 745 in the back, depending on the lot size. 746 So on this particular lot, because of the 747 reduced square footage, they had to part with something 748 and I think that's what happened here. 749 MR. JONES: Thank you. 750 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Chair, I don't mean to 751 interrupt but there are a couple of families in the chat 752 cue wanting to speak up as well. It's the Brains family 753 and then Tucker family. 754 A member of the Tucker family, you'll need to 755 address the Board with those questions you're typing in 756 the chat if your mic's working because if you type 757 there, we can't include you as part of the recording and 758 that doesn't work for the record keeping. 759 MR. KIEN: Before we get to that, Mr. 760 Chairman, could I ask a question of the Skalkas. 761 MR. JONES: Yes, sir. 762 MR. KIEN: Is there a reason why impervious 763 solution which I believe a deck would be considered, is 764 not being considered as a solution to the completion of 765 your property? 766 MR. SKALKA: Certainly a deck would be 767 considered if we're unable to move forward with what our 768 request is tonight, why we're here. 769 We do think that the water mitigation that 770 comes along with a covered patio, certainly would be 771 attractive to mitigate that additional water runoff as 772 opposed to a deck that that is not a requirement of. 773 So we thought that it would be attractive and 774 our neighbors would actually appreciate more, what we're 775 suggesting tonight. 776 MR. BRAIN: Okay. The Brains are prepared to 777 speak, if you all would allow it. 778 MR. JONES: Yes, please. Thank you. 779 MR. BRAIN: Michael Brain, and my wife Shawn 780 as well would likely have something to say. We're at 781 204 Patterson which is kitty-corner to the Skalkas' 782 property. 783 And I just want to say for the benefit of the 784 Board, I can't speak to the intricacies or the 785 requirements of the variance code like other attorneys 786 on this call may be able to do. I'm certainly not 787 qualified to that. But I can tell you about the 788 meticulous nature with which the Skalkas have been 789 approaching this particular project. 790 In my experience, it's been sort of a 791 careful consideration and a two-fold approach. The 792 first is trying to improve the livability and aesthetics 793 of the structure but then they have taken even greater 794 care and time and consideration in the second part of 795 the approach, which was the storm water abatement. 796 Just as an anecdote, you know, when you have a 797 conversation with a neighbor, you know, their driveway, 798 your driveway, you like to talk about the things going 799 on and we've heard about this once or twice. 800 And I think it speaks to the fact that they 801 have cared more about the storm water abatement and 802 runoff issues than the actual sort of important part of 803 the project which would be the actual project and the 804 aesthetics of it. And I probably haven't heard once 805 about the aesthetics of it but I've heard about the 806 storm water runoff more so than anything else. Because 807 I think they recognize that it's a concern that's been 808 brought up and they've taken due time and due care to 809 put sort of their best foot forward on that. And in my 810 opinion, they've gone above and beyond. 811 MS. BRAIN: I think too just to echo 812 something, one of our neighbors said, a note that was 813 delivered by Melissa Polinsky, you know, I think Mike 814 had spoken to the idea that, you know, the proposed 815 mitigation we believe allays all, at least we feel like, 816 has all the right intentions for what they're hoping to 817 do. 818 I also feel like they've been handcuffed a bit 819 by the builders and a broader issue around disclosures 820 for their home. And I think it's highly disappointing 821 that they have to come in and recognize that they can't 822 actually do what they were hoping to do on the back of 823 their lot. 824 Largely again, I recognize that you can read 825 the very fine print but it feels like there's actually a 826 broader issue where if we don't solve around kind of 827 disclosures for homeowners or making sure that this is 828 more clear that any change, material change you look to 829 make to your home, could have -- you would have to go 830 before the Board every single time you do that, it feels 831 that that's actually a broader issue that's going to 832 continue arising as new, more homes are built and homes 833 like our own which is small across the street get 834 knocked down and bigger structures come up, it feels 835 like this problem is going to continue to arise. 836 So I would hope that they don't have to be 837 used as kind of the pain point of what this is. 838 Also, just to speak to kind of generally who 839 the Skalkas are. I know them to be very environmentally 840 oriented and I think that they will do everything they 841 can in their power to make this the best project 842 possible, particularly for those neighbors behind them 843 that they have been very concerned about. 844 So, that is all. Thank you. 845 MR. JONES: Thank you very much for that. 846 I don't have any questions for the Brain 847 family. 848 Any members of the Board? 849 (No response.) 850 MR. JONES: Hearing none, I believe, Akida, 851 correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the Tucker family is 852 the last member of the public that wants to speak on 853 this variance request. 854 MS. ROUZI: That's correct. 855 MR. JONES: Do they have the technical 856 capabilities to participate? 857 MS. ROUZI: Could you try speaking? 858 MS. TUCKER: I do have the capabilities. I 859 just wasn't sworn in earlier because I missed the intro. 860 MR. JONES: Okay. We will do the virtual 861 swearing in. 862 If you plan to speak before this Board, do you 863 swear to tell the truth? 864 MS. TUCKER: Yes. 865 MR. JONES: Thank you. 866 If you wouldn't mind just for clarity of the 867 record, Ms. Tucker, stating your full name and your 868 address. 869 MS. TUCKER: Sure. Simone Pass Tucker, 504 870 Randolph Street, Falls Church, Virginia. 871 MR. JONES: Very good. Thank you. 872 MS. TUCKER: So I was just wondering, I know 873 that it is extremely disappointing to be promised a deck 874 and to move in and not have one. I definitely 875 empathize, and yes, definitely been compromised. A door 876 to nowhere is not something that's desirable. 877 But I was just kind of wondering if maybe 878 stairs have been considered or like a patio outside. 879 The stairs could lead to something -- I know that we 880 just talked about a smaller deck but I guess I'm, you 881 know, maybe just a little confused about why 882 specifically a deck is needed to fix the problem. I 883 know that it was desired but I just -- yeah, I guess 884 that's it. 885 MR. SKALKA: Sure. So, we're unfortunately 886 unable to put a patio given the coverage requirements 887 and it being considered to be impervious with the 888 existing size of our lot. 889 As far as the actual deck itself goes, the 890 structure, yeah, you're right, I mean not only, one, 891 it's, of course, very frustrating that we were guided to 892 believe that we were able to construct such a deck, but, 893 you know, the other fact is that it's very clear that 894 this space was intended to have a deck and our thought 895 of, one, how we would like to utilize the space, when we 896 think of how we're spending our time over the past 897 six-plus months, much of that is at home and we would 898 love for there to be a place to where we can be outside 899 and enjoy mosquito-free weather. 900 Not to mention this area, should we not have a 901 deck, could have detrimental effects on potentially our 902 ability to sell our home for a value that it would 903 otherwise when that time comes. 904 MR. JONES: Akida, it sounds like Ms. Tucker 905 might be trying to speak. I'm not hearing her. 906 MS. TUCKER: I'm sorry. I think I was muted. 907 Can you hear me now? 908 MR. JONES: Yes, ma'am. 909 MS. TUCKER: So, yeah, I definitely empathize 910 with that. I totally see what you're seeing. 911 Is there maybe a way that you could have an 912 outdoor space that is not an impermeable surface? I 913 just don't know exactly like what you looked into I 914 guess previously and why you necessarily decided against 915 it. I'm just curious. 916 MR. SKALKA: We've looked into several options 917 and we believe that this is the best one for us. 918 MS. TUCKER: Okay. Thank you. 919 MR. JONES: Thank you very much. 920 Okay. Akida, I believe all the members of the 921 public who have had interest in this variance have 922 spoken. Are you aware of any other members of the 923 public that wish to speak? 924 MS. ROUZI: No, Mr. Chair. I think you got 925 everyone. 926 MR. JONES: Okay. Great. Thank you. 927 I just had sort of one final question for me 928 for the Skalkas and I'm curious about the alternate 929 designs. 930 When you say that this was the best design, 931 could you speak a little bit more to that. 932 MR. SKALKA: Sure. So one of the things that 933 we were thinking about is how can we construct something 934 that was within Code, did not need a variance approved. 935 And one of the ideas was having a, if you can picture a 936 pergola and having the ability to close the top of the 937 roof and open it, therefore allowing for rain, wind to 938 come through at your choosing. 939 And there was a builder that previously 940 constructed this system on a house that we actually 941 looked at prior to buying this house, and unfortunately 942 that particular design, that style what I'm suggesting 943 is not being constructed by anyone that we could find in 944 the City, be it they're not permitted to build here or 945 they're just geographically located in Baltimore that 946 does it, there's another one that's in Richmond, so just 947 too far away so they're unable to actually construct 948 that up here. 949 I would say that was unfortunate and that was 950 one of our other options that we were looking into. 951 MR. JONES: Thank you. 952 Mr. and Mrs. Skalka, are there any final 953 comments that you'd like to make before we close it or 954 any members of the Board, any there questions for the 955 Skalkas before we close it and open it up to a 956 conversation within the Board? 957 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Jones, I have a question for 958 the Skalkas. 959 MR. JONES: Sure. 960 MR. MISLEH: Out of curiosity, where do the 961 downspouts for the main structure terminate currently? 962 MR. SKALKA: So the primary downspouts are 963 going to come from the side of our house and then go to 964 the middle of our back yard. 965 MR. MISLEH: So is there any water retention 966 facility on the property or do they just dump on to the 967 yard? 968 MR. SKALKA: I actually don't know the answer 969 to that because I don't know how it was originally 970 constructed. There may be or perhaps there's not. 971 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 972 MS. TUCKER: I do have one final question. I 973 was just wondering, I know, again, the desire for a 974 deck, but is there a possibility to just maybe rebuild 975 so that there isn't a door there? Like to remove the 976 door, I don't know. 977 MR. SKALKA: I mean, there's certainly a 978 possibility to do anything on this lot. To have us pull 979 out the existing door to build a wall would certainly 980 not be something we would be interested in doing though. 981 MS. TUCKER: Yeah, that's totally fair. I was 982 just wondering. Thanks. 983 MR. BARTLETT: I would just like to point out, 984 there's been some confusion about whether you can build  985 a deck or patio or a louvered pergola system. The 986 current allowable building is you could build a deck. 987 You cannot build a patio without a variance and you 988 cannot build a roofed screened-in porch without a 989 variance. 990 So, earlier you mentioned when you went and 991 were looking at the property before you bought it, you 992 mentioned this idea that there were these doors that 993 were leading off that room towards the back yard which 994 would have allowed you to build a deck. And I'm trying 995 to reconcile this issue of hardship because the strict 996 application of the property is not unreasonably 997 restricting the utilization of your property because you 998 have a beautiful home and a beautiful yard and you live 999 and enjoy it. 1000 The fact of the matter is that your builder 1001 maxed out your building space and if the builder had 1002 come to the City of Falls Church and asked them to allow 1003 a screened-in porch to be built, the answer would have 1004 been no. If the builder had come to the Board of Zoning 1005 Appeals and asked us to provide a variance for a 1006 screened-in porch to be added or onto and exceeding the 1007 buildable limits, there would have been no reasonable 1008 interpretation that would have allowed us to say that 1009 that was a hardship to the builder. 1010 I recognize this conundrum you're in and 1011 frustration you're having and I said earlier in our last 1012 meeting that I empathize with you completely that this 1013 is very, very frustrating. 1014 But I still need to understand, and I hear you 1015 say that you have a hardship that you can't build what 1016 you want but it's getting to the point where it's 1017 convenience and it's what you want instead of what you 1018 can do. 1019 And so if there's a way that you can truly 1020 articulate there's a hardship, I think that's a 1021 fundamental issue that we need to resolve. The whole 1022 second list of questions derive from whether or not you 1023 have a hardship and whether or not we issue a variance 1024 and then we can address subsequent questions about 1025 mitigation, neighbors, does it impact the City, does it 1026 have any impact on our zoning, which I do believe it 1027 would have. 1028 I'm going to say one more thing and then 1029 I'll let you answer my question. There are a bunch of 1030 substandard lots in the City of Falls Church. Your lot 1031 is not unique. If we grant you a variance to build up 1032 to 35 percent and 25 percent of the minimum lot size, 1033 then we're changing the intent of the actual zoning laws 1034 in that we have to recognize that certain properties 1035 have different sizes. 1036 And I'm uncomfortable with the concept, 1037 inherently uncomfortable with the concept of allowing 1038 folks to build or allowing you to build outside of those 1039 building limits because of choice. 1040 MR. SKALKA: I think that's a good point and 1041 it really goes back to the point that Shawn Brain made 1042 which is why are we allowing for builders to potentially 1043 build these lots that are then no longer developable 1044 when clearly there is not only the space but they're 1045 also indicating that we can, in fact, build whatever it 1046 is that we want. Not that we would want to build 1047 something that would not be attractive, but I mean if 1048 that's the way builders are operating, I do agree that 1049 it could potentially be an issue going forward. 1050 And then, I'm sorry, would you -- 1051 MR. BARTLETT: I would just like to address 1052 that quickly. You know, I think that we have zoning 1053 limits to allow certain construction to occur. If every 1054 time someone bought a home, whether it's a new 1055 construction, existing structure, 20 year old home, 50 1056 year old home, it doesn't matter. They don't get to 1057 start over with like, well, the prior person did 1058 something that built up the limit of what's allowable. 1059 It's not like a re-do. It's like you take the property 1060 as it is. 1061 And I don't understand this -- I don't think 1062 the City of Falls Church is willy-nilly allowing 1063 builders to do whatever they want. I think they're very 1064 strict in what they allow and when they allow it and 1065 they do a really good job of maintaining that 1066 consistency. 1067 MR. SKALKA: I wouldn't say otherwise. I 1068 apologize if that's how it came off. 1069 I guess, if anything, I'm a little bit 1070 disappointed that the builder, in fact, would construct 1071 something as they have and then pass it off as being 1072 something that we, in fact, can do that we cannot. It's 1073 not only that we can't do it, but it's that the property 1074 was designed, as John Boyle mentioned, it's likely that 1075 this -- in fact I've seen this same house in Vienna on a 1076 larger lot and then it was placed on what was now a 1077 sub-standard lot so we're a bit handcuffed by that fact 1078 as well. 1079 As far as I think your question, I don't 1080 remember it for certain but I believe it was around a 1081 hardship and what is it we're experiencing and I would 1082 say it is for us not to be able to utilize our property 1083 as we intended or as we would like to. 1084 MR. EPPLER: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the 1085 Skalkas one more question please. 1086 MR. JONES: Yes, sir. Absolutely. 1087 MR. EPPLER: Excuse me because a few minutes 1088 ago you had just started talking about mitigation steps 1089 and then I lost signal and so I had to log back in so I 1090 missed most of what you said, so my apologies. 1091 I did want to ask if you had looked at the 1092 possibility of converting some of your driveway to a 1093 permeable driveway as a way to mitigate the water runoff 1094 and stay within the 35 percent within the impermeable 1095 limit. Thank you. 1096 MR. SKALKA: So after purchasing our house, we 1097 actually decided to take up some of the concrete and 1098 lay -- to have three feet of drainage gravel there 1099 underneath them. So I think that you and I are thinking 1100 along the same direction there, but there's no more 1101 driveway for us to do that unfortunately. 1102 MR. EPPLER: Thank you. 1103 MR. MISLEH: Excuse me, Mr. Skalka. Am I to 1104 understand that that's already factored into these 1105 numbers? 1106 MR. SKALKA: Yes. 1107 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1108 MR. JONES: Are there any other questions from 1109 the Board for Mr. and Mrs. Skalka? 1110 (No response.) 1111 MR. JONES: Okay. Hearing none, thank you, 1112 Mr. and Mrs. Skalka, for your presentation. 1113 We will close that part of the presentation 1114 and now we will open it up to conversation amongst the 1115 Board. 1116 MR. CALABRESE: I'll just start. I mean, from 1117 the beginning I've had questions about the burden and 1118 the harm suffered with denying this variance. And just 1119 as Mr. Bartlett has mentioned, I've had those same 1120 concerns. And we have discussed these other secondary 1121 and tertiary issues of mitigation but it really goes 1122 back to that primary threshold question. 1123 And we've granted many variances over the 1124 years and we follow those guidelines very strictly and 1125 they're always in situations where there's no other 1126 option. That it would be a true burden, the house 1127 essentially couldn't be built in a fashion that normal 1128 people could enjoy. 1129 And I feel for the Skalkas. It sounds like a 1130 very unfortunate situation but I'm having a very hard 1131 time finding this to be a burden that rises to the level 1132 of a variance. So that's where I am right now. 1133 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Calabrese. 1134 Any other thoughts from members of the Board? 1135 I'm happy to provide my take on it. 1136 I'm very, very concerned, sort of two things, 1137 with this threshold issue about the harm and the burden 1138 that creating this structure would have. 1139 I am sympathetic very much to the Skalkas. I 1140 don't know if that threshold has been met for me 1141 personally. And I'm also very concerned if the variance 1142 were granted, the substantial detriment that this would 1143 have on the neighbors. 1144 So those are my two immediate concerns. 1145 My third concern from my notes are, there 1146 seems to be alternate designs that could have been 1147 considered that would have mitigated a lot of the 1148 impermeable concerns and the runoff associated with 1149 that. 1150 From my notes, those are my three concerns. 1151 MR. EPPLER: Let me ask a question as a 1152 relative, probably the newest member of the Board. My 1153 concern was more about the general application. To what 1154 extent would granting this variance set a precedent that 1155 then would be a standard which you would have to apply 1156 to all other substandard or under normal size lots in 1157 Falls Church City? 1158 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Eppler, I would agree, that 1159 that's a concern of mine as well. 1160 MR. EPPLER: But is there a legal standard 1161 that says basically that we're setting a standard when 1162 we do this or is it individual by individual? Or do we 1163 open ourselves up to being, you know, declared arbitrary 1164 and capricious if we make one decision here and a 1165 different decision somewhere else? 1166 MR. CALABRESE: We are generally not held to 1167 follow previous decisions and they're all fact-based and 1168 all different. So I don't believe that is a problem 1169 that we would face. 1170 I mean, there's probably a more generic issue 1171 in the end. You mentioned one of the tertiary issues, 1172 is that as Mr. Bartlett mentioned there's lots of 1173 substandard lots. And one of the criteria in the 1174 statute is that if you have a situation that could be 1175 better handled through a change to the ordinance, then 1176 that's how it should be done. And this feels like 1177 something that could be done through a change to the 1178 ordinance. Certainly we can't do that. Either the City 1179 or the legislature has to do that. 1180 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Calabrese. 1181 Any other members of the Board have any 1182 comments? Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Misleh, Mr. Kien? 1183 MR. BARTLETT: I have no further comments at 1184 this time. I would just say that -- I'm not sure if I 1185 really want to say this but if the builder had exceeded 1186 his buildable allowable and it was found that you were 1187 out of Code, that might be a hardship which would allow 1188 you get a variance for your current as-purchased 1189 scenario. But I still don't believe we're in that 1190 situation, where wanting is a hardship. 1191 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 1192 MR. MISLEH: I would just like to say, Mr. 1193 Jones, I don't believe that the City's enforcement of 1194 the storm water management by the developer and the 1195 impacts on the neighbors has any impact on this Board's 1196 decision on whether or not this meets the requirement 1197 for this variance. 1198 MR. KIEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would say that 1199 the storm water drainage issue is a secondary issue. 1200 The real issue is whether or not this unreasonably 1201 restricts their ability to enjoy this property, the 1202 comments of some of the other Board members, and I don't 1203 see that as being unreasonable. I don't believe 1204 preference to the hardship while unfortunate and while I 1205 certainly empathize and appreciate all the time and 1206 effort the Skalkas have put into this, that 1207 "unreasonably restrict" guideline to me, I don't see 1208 having been met. 1209 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Kien. 1210 Any other comments from members of the Board? 1211 (No response.) 1212 MR. JONES: Hearing none, is there a motion? 1213 MR. BARTLETT: I'll make the motion to deny 1214 variance application V1616-20 by Jeff and Katie Skalka, 1215 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-238, 1216 to allow 27.4% lot coverage instead of 25% maximum 1217 permitted by Code, and 37.2% impervious lot coverage 1218 instead of 35% maximum permitted by Code, for the 1219 purpose of constructing a screen porch at the premises 1220 of 205 Patterson Street. 1221 MR. CALABRESE: I'll second that. 1222 MR. JONES: Akida, before we roll call, to be 1223 clear, a "yes" vote would support the motion to deny the 1224 variance application and a "no" vote would be to approve 1225 the variance; is that correct? I just want to be clear 1226 on the record what a "yes" or "no" vote means. 1227 MS. ROUZI: I think so. 1228 MR. BOYLE: Yes, that's correct. 1229 MR. JONES: Okay. So for the record, a "yes" 1230 vote from the Board will be the denial based on Mr. 1231 Bartlett's motion and a "no" vote will be to approve the 1232 variance. 1233 Akida, can I have a roll call please. 1234 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1235 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1236 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1237 MR. JONES: Yes. 1238 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1239 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1240 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1241 Mr. Bartlett, I think you're on mute. 1242 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. Sorry. 1243 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1244 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1245 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1246 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1247 RECORDING SECRETARY: I think I got everybody. 1248 Thank you. 1249 MR. JONES: Thank you. 1250 So that concludes the Old Business. 1251 1252 5. NEW BUSINESS 1253 MR. JONES: Mr. Boyle, is there any New 1254 Business for the Board? 1255 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 1256 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1257 a. Approval of the July 16 and August 13, 2020, 1258 Meeting Minutes 1259 MR. JONES: Okay. With that we can move to 1260 the Approval of the Minutes. 1261 If we can take just a few minutes to look at 1262 the July 16 meeting minutes, I believe Akida very 1263 kindly provided a link to those. 1264 (July 16, 2020, BZA meeting minutes reviewed.) 1265 MR. JONES: Are there any motions on the July 1266 16 meeting minutes? 1267 MR. CALABRESE: I'll move to approve. 1268 MR. JONES: Is there a second? 1269 MR. KIEN: I'll second. 1270 MR. JONES: Roll call please. 1271 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1272 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1273 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1274 MR. JONES: Yes. 1275 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1276 Mr. Misleh, are you on mute? 1277 MR. MISLEH: I abstain. 1278 RECORDING SECRETARY: Okay. Mr. Bartlett. 1279 MR. BARTLETT: I also abstain as I was not 1280 present for that meeting. 1281 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1282 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1283 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1284 MR. EPPLER: I also abstain. 1285 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1286 1287 MR. JONES: Thank you. 1288 And if we could just take a few minutes to 1289 review the August 13, 2020, meeting minutes. 1290 (August 13, 2020, BZA meeting minutes 1291 reviewed.) 1292 MR. JONES: Once a member is ready, are there 1293 any motions on the August 13th meeting minutes? 1294 MR. EPPLER: Move to approve. 1295 MR. JONES: Is there a second? 1296 MR. BARTLETT: I'll second that motion. 1297 MR. JONES: Roll call please. 1298 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1299 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1300 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1301 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1302 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1303 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1304 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1305 MR. MISLEH: I abstain. 1306 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1307 MR. JONES: Yes. 1308 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1309 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1310 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1311 1312 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1313 MR. JONES: Okay. The second to last item on 1314 the agenda is Other Business. Mr. Boyle or Akida, is 1315 there any Other Business before the Board? 1316 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 1317 MR. JONES: Okay. Very good. 1318 I thank everyone for their time tonight. I 1319 know this was a challenging discussion but I thank 1320 everyone for their time. 1321 1322 8. ADJOURNMENT 1323 MR. JONES: Is there any motion to adjourn the 1324 meeting? 1325 MR. MISLEH: I move to adjourn the meeting. 1326 MR. JONES: Second? 1327 MR. EPPLER: I'll second. 1328 MR. KIEN: I second. 1329 MR. JONES: Roll call. 1330 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1331 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1332 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1333 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1334 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1335 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1336 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1337 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1338 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1339 MR. JONES: Yes. 1340 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1341 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1342 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1343 1344 MR. JONES: Thank you. Good night, everyone. 1345 1346 1347