Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 3 Thursday, January 13, 2022 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. BARTLETT: I'm going to call to order the 8 BZA meeting for Thursday, January 13, 2022. 9 If I could get a roll call from staff, that 10 would be wonderful. 11 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 12 13 2. ROLL CALL 14 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Bartlett. 15 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 16 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Calabrese. 17 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 18 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Misleh. 19 MR. MISLEH: Here. 20 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Kien. 21 MR. KIEN: Here. 22 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Eppler. 23 MR. EPPLER: Here. 24 MR. BOYLE: Ms. Ward. 25 MS. WARD: Here. 26 27 MR. BARTLETT: John, is Akida here as well? 28 MR. BOYLE: No. I should say Akida, we think, 29 has come down with Covid. She's been off work the last 30 two days. Was polite enough to sign in and show me a 31 few tricks of this meeting software. 32 She's home this evening. Our office has been 33 decimated. We probably have 6 or 7 people out of 20 34 that have gone down so we're all working remotely. 35 MR. BARTLETT: Good to hear and sorry to hear 36 as well. 37 So I'm just going to read a notice that this 38 meeting will be held pursuant to and in compliance with 39 the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Section 40 2.2-3708.2 and state and local legislation adopted to 41 allow for continued government operations during the 42 COVID-19 declared emergency. All participating members 43 will be present at this meeting through electronic 44 means. All members of the public may view this 45 electronic meeting via the meeting link listed above and 46 in the City's website calendar. 47 Public comments may be submitted to our email 48 address until 4:30 today. All comments received by the 49 deadline were provided to the BZA. 50 So this is our normal BZA meeting through 51 Microsoft Teams online. It's as if same old, same old, 52 just the normal meeting. 53 54 3. PETITIONS 55 MR. BARTLETT: So, John, are there any new, 56 any Petitions that we're unaware of to the Board of 57 Zoning Appeals today? 58 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 59 60 4. OLD BUSINESS 61 MR. BARTLETT: And I don't see any Old 62 Business as of right now. 63 64 5. NEW BUSINESS 65 b. Variance application V1629 by Karen Stoll and 66 Scott Hiromoto, applicant and owner, for variances to 67 Sections 48-238(3)a and 48-1102(e)(1)c, to allow: 68 1. A front setback of 25.2 feet instead of 30 69 feet along the Jackson Street frontage and 70 2. A side setback of 10.1 feet instead of 15 71 feet for the purpose of constructing a second story 72 addition, and 73 3. A front porch setback of 18.7 feet instead 74 of 22 feet for the extension of an existing porch 75 76 extension on premises known as 600 Jackson Street, RPC 77 #52-205-001 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 78 zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 79 MR. BARTLETT: So we'll just proceed to New 80 Business. 81 There are two items on the Agenda for this 82 evening. One is our annual Review of our Rules of 83 Procedure and election of officers and one variance 84 application from the public. 85 As my choice I'm going to switch those around 86 and hear our variance application before we proceed to 87 bore you with our own internal procedures and election 88 of potentially new officers. 89 So I see that there are two folks on your 90 video screen, Scott. Are there other folks in the 91 public on the meeting tonight? I see Dean. Are there 92 others? 93 And the reason I'm asking is that we are going 94 to swear you in and so I want to make sure that I know 95 who is online tonight so that I can then ask you a 96 couple of questions and attest to those. 97 MR. HIROMOTO: Karen is the other, my mom, 98 Karen, would be the other person who probably needs to 99 be sworn in. 100 MR. BARTLETT: And who's Karen? 101 MR. CRETSINGER: Karen Stoll. 102 (Witnesses sworn.) 103 MR. BARTLETT: So the New Business for tonight 104 is variance application V1629-21 by Karen Stoll and 105 Scott Hiromoto, applicant and owner, for variances to 106 Section 48-238(3)a and 48-1102(e)(1)c, to allow: 107 1. A front setback of 25.2 feet instead of 30 108 feet along the Jackson Street frontage and 109 2. A side setback of 10.1 feet instead of 15 110 feet for the purpose of constructing a second story 111 addition, and 112 3. A front porch setback of 18.7 feet instead 113 of 22 feet for the extension of an existing porch 114 extension on premises known as 600 Jackson Street, 115 Residential Property Code, Real Property Code, 116 #52-205-001, Falls Church City public records. 117 We received some information from you as far 118 as your application is concerned. What do right now is 119 we're going to ask staff or John Boyle to provide a 120 quick little summary of the application and how it 121 relates to our zoning codes. Then what I'll do is we'll 122 ask you to present your need for a variance and why we 123 should potentially grant your variance, and then the 124 members of the Board of Zoning Appeals will confer, 125 we'll ask you questions, we'll have some discussion, 126 conversation, and then we'll move forward with a motion 127 to either approve or deny one, two, or three or all of 128 your variances. 129 So at this point I'm just going to ask John to 130 provide a summary of our variance in front of us 131 tonight. 132 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 133 As you described in the public advertisement, 134 they're seeking front and side setback variances and 135 then a recognition that that would include a porch that 136 would require a variance into the front setback. 137 I usually like to describe why staff cannot 138 administratively approve cases that come before the 139 Board. There are some we do have authority to do that. 140 In this case front setbacks are always going 141 to be a matter for the Board. Once staff identifies 142 there's a setback issue in the front yard, that has to 143 come to the BZA. 144 We have some authority on side yard setbacks 145 but it deals with ground level additions projecting 146 towards the rear. This one is making use of the side 147 setback and going up as well. 148 So again, it's an area of Code that staff does 149 not have authority to waive or consider allowing in some 150 fashion. 151 And then front porch again involves a front 152 yard setback. 153 You have a very complete package in front of 154 you and what will jump out I think almost immediately is 155 the unusual nature of this lot. It's our favorite 156 variance application in the sense that it's a corner lot 157 and many of those we see built to different front 158 setbacks. At the time of construction the Code was 159 different. 160 In addition to that, this lot itself is 161 unusually shaped and has a very prominent easement 162 cutting across it. 163 So with that, I'll defer to the applicant's 164 presentation and I think I can share the screen here. 165 Can you see the Agenda? 166 MR. HIROMOTO: Yes. 167 MR. BOYLE: Actually just in front of this is 168 your justification letter. Would you like that? 169 MR. CRETSINGER: Actually, we can just start 170 with, if you don't mind, with the plat that you have 171 shown. That's perfect. 172 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 173 MR. CRETSINGER: So, did you have anything 174 else you wanted to say first, John? I didn't mean to 175 cut you off. 176 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. In this case I think 177 it's better for staff to be brief. It's such a, I 178 think, an obvious collection of issues that I should 179 defer to you straight away. 180 MR. CRETSINGER: Well, thank you Board members 181 for being here tonight. And, John, thanks for your help 182 both tonight and previously, in our previous 183 conversations. 184 I just wanted to briefly introduce Scott and 185 Diana here as homeowners as well as Karen Stoll. They 186 are a truly multi-generational family who are looking to 187 make this house into their own and to create a place in 188 Falls Church that meets both their needs and works 189 within the lot as it is currently. 190 Just to give a quick overview, and I know you 191 guys have probably seen this lot before. It's a corner 192 lot. It's about 9700 square feet. It's in a R-1A zone. 193 As you can see from the existing plat here, it's 194 irregularly shaped. The rear of it I would say is about 195 half the size of the front. 196 So overall, currently the driveway is off 197 Timber Lane with the front of the house not having any 198 access to the street from cars. 199 The lot overall is relatively flat and there's 200 an existing front porch in the lower left corner that 201 202 you'll note. It's currently a one and a half story 203 residence. It's small, to say the least. It's only 204 about 32 feet wide. I want to say it's 24 feet deep and 205 it has only about a little bit less than 1200 square 206 feet of finished space inside. 207 So it's obviously not a large residence to 208 start with and doesn't meet the needs of -- there's 209 actually five people altogether. Both Scott and Diana 210 have two children who also will be living there. 211 So sort of the big obvious thing here is not 212 only do we have the front yard setback on both Timber 213 Lane and on Jackson, but then we have the storm water 214 easement that's going right through the middle of the 215 lot, almost bisecting it from top to bottom. 216 And from a usability standpoint that just 217 limits really what we can do with the lot. 218 John, if you can go to the proposed lot plan. 219 So there you can see the corner. We can go 220 through the photos at the same time if you want. 221 Do the Board members have a package that has 222 all the photos with them? 223 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 224 MR. CRETSINGER: Perfect. If you want to just 225 go right to the proposed plat, John, that would be 226 great. 227 There's the Jackson Street elevation. 228 That's the backyard. 229 That's the Timber Lane -- that's the driveway, 230 the current driveway entrance, just to give orientation 231 to everything. 232 You can keep scrolling through. 233 We have a couple of letters of no objection 234 from several neighbors which we can discuss. 235 There should be a separate sheet, it's BZA 1. 236 This is BZA 2, 3, 4. I think this got out of order a 237 little bit. 238 MR. BOYLE: We're ruining the dramatic effect. 239 MR. CRETSINGER: There we go. 240 You can see what we're really proposing here 241 is to try to accommodate both the corner lot nature of 242 this property which requires a 30 foot setback on both 243 street addresses. 244 In addition, you can see what the storm water 245 easement does and that just cuts us off right near the 246 rear of the house. 247 So what we are proposing is to essentially 248 take the roof and lift it up roughly 6 and a half feet. 249 So we're not increasing the size of the overall 250 footprint. It is a proposal that respects the existing 251 front edge of the house so the front setback doesn't 252 change from what the existing house is to what will be 253 proposed, nor does the side yard setback change. In 254 both cases they remain the same. 255 Essentially we are just lifting up the entire 256 house by about 6 and a half feet in order to accommodate 257 a full two bedroom on the second floor. 258 We are also, you'll see the second floor -- 259 the first floor porch there, the existing porch we are 260 proposing to extend over the full width of the house. 261 This provides both scale to the front facade, and 262 particularly in these Covid times it also provides an 263 opportunity for neighbors to interact in ways that they 264 might not otherwise get if you just have a small little 265 porch up there. And it allows for a way, as I 266 mentioned, to scale the house appropriately. 267 Although, do bear in mind while this is an 268 existing one and a half story residence, it will still 269 maintain a one and a half story residence even after we 270 raise the height of the roof. 271 So the overall effect from a design and from 272 walking down the street if you're walking particularly 273 down Jackson, it won't be a significant difference. It 274 will still appear quite similar. 275 And there is a new addition off both the rear 276 and you can see how we kind of tucked this in to 277 278 accommodate along the storm water easement as well as 279 the front on the right hand side where we've got the 30 280 foot setback. And you'll see on the plans when we go 281 back to that, there's essentially a garage on one side 282 and a family room/kitchen on the rear. 283 So it overall keeps the massing very similar 284 and accommodates the storm water easement which is 285 really the crux of the problem here. It really just 286 chopped off our whole weird extension here. 287 I would like to just note in case anybody 288 picks up on this, I sent along and I see this is the old 289 site plan that I sent over. And I only just mention 290 this, it's more of a typo than anything else, the 291 addition by right on the back side is required to be 15 292 feet. For some reason that number came up as 14.8 on an 293 earlier version of the plat that I sent over. That 294 number there I sent over a corrected plat. That's 295 actually 15 feet. So I apologize for that. 296 So you know, the two story addition that's in 297 the back and on the right hand side of this drawing, 298 they will both be by right. This is not part of the 299 variance package. 300 If we can circle back, right to the first 301 floor plan and we can run through those portions of it. 302 And you can see one of the nice things that 303 will be with this, the property, because it's so small, 304 neither the house nor the property itself has been 305 really well maintained over the years. This is a 306 prominent corner lot, quite visible from multiple 307 directions. It's been mostly a rental unit. So by 308 Scott and Karen's purchasing of the house and developing 309 it, it will be much better maintained both from a 310 building perspective and from a landscaping perspective. 311 So one more thing. So on the first floor, 312 just so you can see, again we have the setback lines on 313 the right hand side and along the rear. The right hand 314 side one is the 30 foot setback, that's the natural 315 zoning setback, but then it immediately has to 316 accommodate the easement that's chopping off the whole 317 rear of the property to us. 318 It has a first floor bedroom suite, again to 319 allow multi-generational living; with a living room, 320 dining room, and kitchen all as one great room. A small 321 little breakfast tucked into the back corner of the 322 easement, and then a single car garage with a little 323 bike storage area off to the side. 324 And you can see how the covered porch really 325 enhances the entire front elevation of the plan because 326 it really centers everything and lets us align both the 327 entry and the stairs going up to it in a way that 328 balances the whole front facade. 329 If we can take a quick look at the second 330 floor. 331 The second floor simply has four bedrooms. 332 It's got a hall bath. 333 I should mention, I don't have the existing 334 plans in this set but the existing plans have two, the 335 existing house because again, it's a one and a half 336 story house, the existing house has two bedrooms 337 upstairs and a hall bath. So it really hasn't changed 338 dramatically what we're proposing as the use. 339 The bedrooms are, of course, much nicer now. 340 They're more livable, shall we speak, the previous ones 341 were very narrow, very low. Literally the spring point 342 at each edge was I think at maybe 36 inches, something 343 like that. 344 So this accommodates a nice bedroom, hall 345 bath, we have a laundry space and then a main bedroom 346 suite with a separate bedroom over the garage. 347 And then if we want to look at some of the 3-D 348 here. So the front elevation you can see how the main 349 portion of the house is proud of the garage so that the 350 garage isn't sitting right on the front facade. It's 351 actually recessed back. And also the front porch also 352 allows us to basically carry what is the existing 353 massing and just make it a little bit taller but still 354 keeping the same character that's always been there as 355 part of the house. 356 And again you can see here, this is actually a 357 nice view. If you look at the house from this angle 358 currently and you just take that roof and move it down 6 359 feet, you've got the existing house, minus the two 360 dormers. 361 And then the rear, we really tried to make 362 sure that the rear stayed low. It does not protrude 363 past the front expanse so that you keep a low profile 364 both on the front street of Jackson and on Timber Lane. 365 I should mention there's a little areaway 366 there, the existing house right now is on a crawl space 367 and so the areaway is to provide access down to that 368 crawl space. 369 And again, in trying to keep a low profile, 370 these are all still works in progress, you know, this is 371 not a finished design in the sense of all the trim 372 detailing and everything else going on to it. But it 373 does give you an overall massing perspective. Even 374 you'll see with the rear breakfast room and the rear 375 study, those become much more transparent and break down 376 the overall size and feel of the space. 377 So just to kind of summarize, this really is a 378 proposal for a multi-generational house for its current 379 owners. The two story addition that we are proposing on 380 the front and on the left hand side do not encroach any 381 further than they do currently. So it's not as if we're 382 pushing the house forward, it's not as if we're pushing 383 the house sideways, we're really just pushing the house 384 up. And even "up" is a very modest "up". 385 The front porch, I think you saw from the 386 design, the front porch really helps us balance the 387 overall front aspect. So even though it has gone up 388 higher, it still will look from its current size and 389 configuration very similar. 390 The rear portions as I mentioned before and 391 the garage to the right, they all meet the current 392 zoning codes so they're just by right. 393 I would mention and I think John had the 394 letters up there briefly before, the neighbor to the 395 left who is 602 Jackson Street, has sent a letter 396 stating that they don't object to the development. 397 Scott was able to meet with them and discuss 398 the project with them and they didn't see a problem with 399 it. 400 Obviously during Covid that's a very complex 401 thing to be able to do at this point, trying to go 402 403 around and talk to neighbors, but he was able to at 404 least get the neighbor adjacent to the property and the 405 one most affected by the redevelopment. 406 As I mentioned before, as a prominent corner 407 lot both the house and landscaping will be better 408 maintained as it has been primarily a rental before. 409 Relative to other construction projects in the 410 neighborhood, I would say it's a project that we went 411 out of our way to maintain sort of the character and 412 feel of the existing house while increasing it in a way 413 that both made it economically viable for the 414 homeowners, practical for a living area, and was able to 415 maneuver around what is obviously a very constricting 416 storm water easement that has a public use. I mean, 417 obviously storm water is a very vital issue to us all 418 and that easement is not going anywhere. 419 So it was our way of accommodating the 420 easement and still providing a house that was 421 comfortable for the owners and made economic sense. 422 So with that, that's basically our request for 423 the approval of the variance based on primarily the 424 storm water easement causing a hardship, the unique 425 nature of the lot being triangular shaped on a corner. 426 You take those two combinations and the lot becomes very 427 restricted with that easement. But I think what we 428 tried to do was accommodate both the easement and the 429 existing house in a way that keeps it with the 430 neighborhood and works with everything else going on in 431 the area. 432 So, I think, John, that's it for our 433 presentation unless Scott or Karen, if you had anything 434 you wanted to add. 435 MR. HIROMOTO: Yeah, I just wanted to mention 436 the attempt to talk to the neighbor in the back on 437 Timber. We did try to go over there more than 10 times. 438 Sometimes they weren't there. Sometimes they didn't 439 answer the door. It is tough in the current 440 environment. So we made that effort. 441 Also, Diane does Covid testing at work. She's 442 got a lot of contacts there so we didn't try to meet 443 with a lot of the other neighbors in January when things 444 were really spiking. So just kind of a context. 445 MR. CRETSINGER: And I would add to that, the 446 neighbor in the rear, the adjacent neighbor to the left 447 who is most affected by it is the neighbor who Scott and 448 Diana were able to contact and did write in in support 449 of the project. 450 The neighbor to the rear is probably most 451 affected by the two story addition that's by right and 452 so is really not as much a factor in this variance 453 application as the neighbor immediately adjacent. 454 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much for your 455 presentation and your discussion. 456 At this point we'll let members of the Board 457 ask questions of you and have a nice discussion about 458 your request for a variance. 459 I have a question so I will start. 460 When did you buy this property? 461 MR. HIROMOTO: Towards the end of the summer 462 last year. 463 MS. HIROMOTO: No, it was May. May of 2021. 464 MR. BARTLETT: When you bought the property, 465 were you aware there was a storm water easement on the 466 property? 467 MS. STOLL: Not initially. 468 MR. BARTLETT: Before you closed? 469 MS. STOLL: Yes. 470 MR. HIROMOTO: Yes. 471 MS. STOLL: I think so. 472 MR. BARTLETT: Can you share the footprint and 473 square footage of the home with us please. 474 MR. CRETSINGER: The current square footage is 475 on the first floor, 770 square feet. The second floor 476 there is 415. 477 MR. BARTLETT: No, I'm asking about what it's 478 going to be, what you're proposing. 479 MR. CRETSINGER: So the proposal for the first 480 floor has it at 1470 square feet plus a garage that is 481 approximately 370. And then the second floor would 482 total 1840. So the total conditions square feet is 483 3,310. 484 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. And what's your 485 footprint, proposed footprint on the property? 486 MR. CRETSINGER: You know what? I don't have 487 that immediately available. 488 MR. BARTLETT: The first floor is 1470 plus 489 370 and then -- I just want to make sure you're aware of 490 the 25 percent restriction on building on your buildable 491 lot and to make sure you're aware of the potential 492 ramifications of the 25 percent and 35 percent limits 493 both on building envelope and impermeable space on your 494 lot. And so you know that once you get to 25 percent, 495 you can't expand, add a roof, covered structure; 35 496 percent you can't add more impermeable space to your 497 lot. And I'm just trying to visualize this and make 498 sure that that's all right. 499 MR. CRETSINGER: I'll double check. I know I 500 ran those calculations initially. 501 Corner lots fortunately because of their 502 nature have a lot of open space and this one is no 503 exception to that. You can see, we have a fairly 504 compact footprint and at almost 10,000 square feet, it 505 would have to be almost 2500 square foot for the base 506 footprint. 507 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. I'm going to pause my 508 questions now and defer to the rest of the members of 509 the Board and see if they have any questions. I'll come 510 back to you. 511 MR. CALABRESE: I'll start, Mr. Chairman. I 512 wanted to get on the first question that the Chairman 513 mentioned was the easement. 514 First of all just as a point to make for the 515 record, you say the easement was a hardship. That's not 516 correct. If anything, it's a self-imposed hardship. 517 You purchased the property knowing there was an easement 518 there. So I don't agree with the statement that it's a 519 hardship. Again, it's something that was known. Just 520 to start with that point. 521 The second is I'm a little concerned, this is 522 going to be a very large house, which is fine, however 523 there is a neighbor that for whatever reason has not 524 been consulted. And I know it sounds like you tried to 525 make physical attempts to reach them but, perhaps 526 leaving a message on their porch or other means to 527 contact them, that's another criteria we always look to, 528 is making sure there are no negatively-affected 529 neighbors. 530 So that would be very important for me, 531 especially a house of this size and in that area. 532 So those are two points I'll just start with. 533 I think those would be concerns that I would have. 534 MR. BOYLE: Dave, I can speak to some of that 535 on the part of staff. 536 They were noticed. They did receive a 537 notification of this as part of our public advertising 538 and it was advertised. We didn't receive any comments 539 back from any of the neighbors other than what's in the 540 package. Sometimes we get emails or folks will ask to 541 see the materials. We had no contact from the public. 542 One thing I might point out about the nature 543 of corner lots, this is the neighbor up here that did 544 not respond. The setback as you can see is 15 feet here 545 for a corner lot. They have two fronts and two sides. 546 Because of the pipe and other reasons, the easement, 547 they're almost 43 feet off that line. I believe they 548 would be hard pressed to make a case that they're 549 negatively impacted by this, given that the setback was 550 15. Just some points to consider. 551 MR. HIROMOTO: So the back is not part of the 552 variance though, am I right on that? 553 MR. BARTLETT: To that point, Mr. Hiromoto, I 554 hear in the presentation that the easement has some sort 555 of impact on your request for a variance and I would say 556 it has nothing to do with the variances requested. The 557 variances requested are, Can I build up in the current 558 non-conforming space and can I extend my front porch. 559 It has nothing to do with the storm water easement. 560 But there are other questions to ask as far as 561 what you're trying to build in the space that's 562 available to you. And to me, when you're building a 563 home, we see this all the time. You have two options, 564 right, when you buy a house. A structure you bought, 565 we'll just put it like that, it's either going to be 566 torn down or it's going to be renovated. And if you 567 built a brand new home on this lot, then that storm 568 water easement might impact where and how big you could 569 build a new home. 570 By asking for a variance to renovate and add 571 on to your home, you are seeking to allow the continued 572 use of your non-conforming space to build as a bigger 573 home than you could or a larger footprint on the lot if 574 you had just built a brand new home on this space. 575 And I'm not necessarily going to make a 576 judgment as to whether one is the right decision for you 577 but the easement would only impact the size of the house 578 you can build, but it's not associated right now with 579 the variance application in front of us. 580 MR. MISLEH: So I have a question for the 581 applicant. I'll just first echo the comments from the 582 other Board members regarding the letter for 402 Timber 583 Lane. That's one thing this Board looks for on almost 584 every application similar to this, is overwhelming 585 support from all of the impacted neighbors. 586 Whether some of us believe they're impacted or 587 not, everyone that surrounds the property will have some 588 level of impact and so we'd like to see them considered 589 and have their support reflected in the package. 590 The question I have for you is I notice that 591 there's an access to a basement level but there was no 592 discussion from the architect regarding the basement and 593 how it impacts the existing structure and what the 594 layout will be. 595 I'll say this in two parts. That's one 596 question. The second part is there's some concern on 597 the part of this Board where an applicant will attempt 598 to salvage the existing structure and build on to it and 599 then partial way through the project they'll scrap the 600 existing house for one reason or another and build a 601 whole new house. So that's the basis or some of the 602 background to that question. 603 MR. CRETSINGER: I can answer the basement 604 question at this point. 605 The existing basement that's in it really 606 isn't a basement, it's a crawl space underneath the 607 house. You actually can physically stand in one small 608 section of it but I would say probably 75, 80 percent of 609 it is literally about 3 feet high. So you can crawl 610 around fairly easily under it. 611 Right now the plan was not -- it's kind of up 612 in the air as to whether or not to put a full basement 613 down there. We've had a number of discussions, I've had 614 a number of discussions with the homeowners. Haven't 615 quite come to a conclusion as to whether or not there 616 will be a full basement down there. It may just be just 617 like the existing house, an existing crawl space or a 618 condition crawl space. So hence, the areaway on the 619 side is to allow access down into the existing one down 620 below. 621 And obviously on the right hand side we would 622 not have the -- there wouldn't be a basement underneath 623 the garage. There is no intent to do that. 624 And I certainly hear you about getting through 625 a project and having it change as the contractors go. I 626 can assure you that these are the homeowners who are 627 very interested in preserving the house and the outside 628 shell of the walls will stay where they are where it's 629 applicable. We plan just to build right on top of it. 630 The exterior walls are actually in fairly good 631 condition on the inside. We've had a look through the 632 foundation. The foundation seems to be in good 633 condition. Technically we're not really even putting a 634 whole other story on top of it. It has a story 635 currently. And again, this is not -- this is a one and 636 a half story house. We really tried to minimize the 637 height of this house relative to what other houses in 638 the neighborhood are which are often two stories or two 639 and a half story houses. This is still just a one and a 640 half story house. 641 So the overall size and scale of it is such 642 that the existing structure can easily take it because 643 it's already what's built there. 644 MR. HIROMOTO: I think we have an economic 645 incentive to keep it like this. We're not really 646 looking to build something completely new anyway. 647 MR. EPPLER: If I could, you refer to the 648 letter of the non-objection from the neighbors to the 649 650 left but I believe there were at least two letters in 651 the packet that you had, other neighbors that you spoke 652 with. 653 MR. HIROMOTO: Yeah, the other neighbor was 654 across the street, across Timber, so almost directly 655 across Timber and we were able to get that signed in 656 December. 657 In terms of all of the adjacent neighbors, I 658 think just, Diane's occupation, the current environment 659 just kind of constrains that quite a bit. 660 MR. CRETSINGER: Yeah, the blow-up of Omicron 661 has really -- people don't want to open their doors to 662 neighbors. It really -- it would make it very 663 difficult. 664 MR. CALABRESE: But aren't there other ways of 665 communicating with them? 666 MR. HIROMOTO: How would I do that? 667 MR. CALABRESE: You could mail a letter to 668 them. 669 MR. HIROMOTO: I was under the impression that 670 that was going to happen when they got notified. 671 MR. BARTLETT: So there's a notice requirement 672 by the City in our Code to provide notice to adjacent 673 property owners that there's a variance application to 674 be presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals. It's a 675 little bit different than a new property owner reaching 676 out to their neighbors to say, this is actually what 677 we're planning on doing; do you have any issues with 678 that, I'm showing you, I'm presenting you, I'm providing 679 you an opportunity to have a conversation, versus just 680 legal notice. There's a distinction between the two. 681 And the legal notice I believe is 14 days, 682 John, 15 days? 683 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 684 MR. BARTLETT: So your neighbors would have 685 received a letter from the City December 27th or so 686 about today's meeting letting them know that you have a 687 variance application in front of us and they can go to 688 the City's -- I don't even know where they would see the 689 materials. They would have to request them from the 690 City instead of being pro-active from the applicant to 691 have a conversation about that. 692 Usually when we see situations like this, the 693 property owner has reached out pro-actively to their 694 neighbors to have a conversation. 695 So specifically, when you did, were able to, I 696 don't know how you were able to have a conversation with 697 the two people that signed the notice, because they were 698 available and willing, but did you share materials with 699 them as to what you're planning on doing or just that 700 you are seeking to add on to the home and request a 701 variance. 702 MR. HIROMOTO: At that time it was in 703 December, it was a little better of a situation, so I 704 went over with these materials and showed them 705 specifically what was going to be done as part of the 706 variance and with the construction in the back. So we 707 were able to sit down and explain it fully. 708 MR. BARTLETT: Can we talk specifically about 709 your request for an extension, an enlargement of your 710 covered front porch. 711 I live in the area. I see similar existing 712 structures to the one that's existing on your current 713 home in the area. I'm a little concerned about the idea 714 of allowing an extension of both non-conforming 715 structure and an enlargement of a non-conforming 716 structure that is inconsistent with your neighbors for 717 an aesthetic benefit. 718 So if there is something you can share with me 719 as to why there is some sort of reason that justifies us 720 granting a variance such that you can't enjoy the 721 property or that Code limits your ability to enjoy it 722 because your front porch is too small, I would love to 723 hear some more information on that. 724 MR. CRETSINGER: I can provide some insight 725 into that. In order to make the house work both as a -- 726 we needed a first floor/main bedroom suite as part of 727 this so that we can limit the amount of stairs up and 728 down and also that kind of required that we shift the 729 entry over. The entry obviously currently is over, 730 approximately where you see that window on the far left 731 side is there. 732 And when we started doing that, it seemed to 733 make a lot more sense to try to enhance the entire 734 facade in such a way that would provide the symmetry we 735 were looking for both the upper and lower levels. 736 But really it's more or less if we -- 737 basically if we just limit it to a small stoop, a front 738 porch equivalent to what we currently have, it would 739 have been just taking it and shifting it over rather 740 than keeping it is where it is currently. 741 The entry where it was, was for a house of 742 that size, perhaps worked on the floor plan but with the 743 new floor plan and everything, really shifting the door 744 over was of great benefit to both the plan and the use 745 of the house. 746 So the overall size of the porch kind of 747 reflected that. Once we were thinking that we could 748 extend the existing porch over to capture the new 749 location of the front door, it seemed to make sense to 750 also try to keep the same symmetrical look to it on the 751 opposite side. 752 So that's kind of the rationale for it. 753 And as I said, in Covid times and everything, 754 having an exterior space where people can meet and greet 755 and see neighbors and everything seemed to be a great 756 benefit. 757 MR. CALABRESE: Just to clarify, the documents 758 here are dated 12-21. The signatures are dated 12-11, 759 12-14. So what were they looking at when they signed 760 the letters of no objection? 761 MR. CRETSINGER: It would have been the same 762 drawings. When I submitted the drawings to the Zoning 763 Office, I dated them the day that we actually submitted 764 them. 765 MR. HIROMOTO: So it was this whole package, I 766 showed both the 3D drawings, and then the aerial view. 767 MR. CRETSINGER: Yeah, so what they saw and 768 what these are were the same drawings. 769 MS. WARD: You mentioned you submitted updated 770 drawings recently. Can you just give some details of 771 what was updated in those drawings. 772 MR. CRETSINGER: It was the one drawing and 773 that's the proposed site plan and the only thing that 774 775 changed on that proposed site plan was the typo. It 776 says 14.8 feet. I think on the current site plan you 777 have in front of you and the one I sent over that was 778 updated corrects that to the 15 feet, which is what's 779 required for the Code on that side. 780 So the 14.8, I just apologize. I'm not quite 781 sure how that got there. 782 But that's the one and only drawing that was 783 updated and it was the one and only change on that 784 drawing. 785 MS. WARD: Okay. Thanks. 786 This is, I'm not sure exactly how to ask this, 787 if it's to staff or -- but for an easement, are they 788 permitted to build any rear structures like decks or 789 rear porches on the back of properties when there's an 790 easement? I'm guessing no. I just wanted to get 791 clarification. 792 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. They could not 793 build anything into the easement. And we've already 794 cautioned them that the pipe needs to be located, I'm 795 not certain if that's been done yet, but we had seen 796 some pipes meander outside the center line of the 797 easement so the actual location of that pipe may have an 798 impact on this. 799 But, yes, no structures in the easement. And 800 the engineer's pleased that the driveway is coming out 801 of the easement. 802 MR. CRETSINGER: To follow up on that, I did 803 talk to the Public Works Department. I talked to a Mr. 804 Andre Prince over there. I guess he's the senior 805 engineer. And he basically confirmed what John just 806 said. 807 He did mention, he said that you can put a 808 driveway there even now, across the easement, not just 809 the existing one but we could have moved it anywhere 810 along that line. 811 Again, I'll just reiterate, he was happy that 812 we were moving it because it's just that many fewer 813 things that could possibly be impacted if they ever 814 needed to do work on the pipes below. 815 MR. BARTLETT: Yeah, it would be your 816 responsibility to fix it if they had to access it. 817 MR. CRETSINGER: That's absolutely correct. 818 MR. BARTLETT: So, Kristine, the actual answer 819 to your question is they could build a deck, or some 820 other structure, not like a roof structure or permanent 821 structure on the easement but they could put a deck over 822 the easement, but if the City had to access the 823 easement, then the homeowners would be responsible for 824 any repairs to that structure if they had to demo it or 825 move it. 826 MS. WARD: Okay. Gotcha. Thanks. 827 MR. BARTLETT: You can use the land, you just 828 can't prohibit access to it. 829 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Chair, I was just going to 830 say, do we need to close the questions portion? 831 MR. BARTLETT: If no one else has any 832 questions, then, yes, we can. 833 Does anyone else have any questions? 834 MR. KIEN: Keith, this is Peter. 835 One question in looking at this, the porch is 836 what's standing out to me is the most relevant topic 837 based on where the current structure is and would remain 838 if there was no improvement. 839 You had said there was a necessity to create a 840 first floor bedroom. Was that a generational issue that 841 was trying to be mitigated? Because when I look at 842 this, if you push the porch back to where the existing 843 structure was or something along those lines so it's not 844 protruding as much, I guess my question would be what 845 impact would that have on the ability to continue to 846 have a usable first floor floor plan? 847 MR. CRETSINGER: Yeah, and Scott, I don't know 848 if you want to jump in here as well, but the necessity 849 850 of a first floor bedroom is what makes this a 851 multi-generational house. We can't function without it. 852 For what their programatic needs are, it's necessary 853 that we have a good first floor basement. 854 And I'm sorry, the second part of your 855 question about the location of the porch? 856 MR. KIEN: I guess what I was really asking 857 was is that if you were to push the location of the 858 porch say kind of north to south on what we're looking 859 at here into the footprint of the existing property, 860 does that make that generational first floor floor plan 861 not doable? Is that part of why the construction is the 862 way it is in asking for the placement of the porch where 863 it is? That's what I'm trying to understand. 864 MR. BARTLETT: Peter, I think if that 865 happened, then they would have to remove the existing 866 front wall of the home. 867 MR. KIEN: Correct. 868 MR. BARTLETT: And they're telling us they're 869 not. 870 MR. KIEN: I guess my question is why not move 871 the front wall of the home back to meet or have less of 872 an encroachment or is that not possible based on making 873 it a truly useable first floor floor plan? 874 MR. CRETSINGER: Well, there's kind of multi 875 points to that question. If we were to push the front 876 wall back, essentially we have only 24 feet of wall left 877 in the house, on the exterior portion of the house. For 878 all intents and purposes, this is a completely new house 879 at that point. 880 And from a structural standpoint it would 881 require us to basically put a whole new foundation in. 882 So it's more digging, it's just more everything from 883 that perspective. 884 Could we make the plan work? I doubt it. I 885 honestly doubt it. And financially I'm not sure that it 886 would make sense at that point because of the amount of 887 structural work we'd have to do. 888 Our whole idea was to try to preserve as much 889 of the house as we can without increasing, basically 890 taking that roof and lifting it up 6 feet and calling it 891 a day. 892 If we were then to push that whole wall back, 893 there would basically be almost no house left. 894 MR. BARTLETT: And if you could just freeze 895 that picture right there, John. 896 This is my heartburn. If you look at that 897 white house behind you and if they can't come to us and 898 tell us they're raising the roof of that house and 899 they're going to be, well, we want a front porch too 900 because it looks better. And so I'd have to consider a 901 variance request to allow further encroachment into the 902 front yard setback because that little portico that they 903 have doesn't align with the aesthetic of a second floor. 904 We've seen other properties where we have 905 allowed extension of the setback up but not forward. 906 And if you were just renovating this home going up, 907 that's all we're really looking at. We're just looking 908 at the existing home. We really have no concern about 909 your by-right addition other than how it impacts and 910 flows with this "up" increase in your home. 911 So if you were just going to take this 912 structure that you have, this home that you have, and 913 raise the roof 6 feet, I wouldn't see a justification 914 for adding a full front porch to your existing home 915 because you're raising the second floor six and a half 916 feet. 917 MR. CRETSINGER: Would it be -- and I'm just 918 tossing this out there as a thought, if we took 919 essentially the footprint of the existing front porch 920 and moved it to the middle, would that be a more 921 acceptable solution? It wouldn't be a full, grand first 922 floor porch, but it wouldn't be substantially changing 923 the current encroachment, meaning the existing front 924 porch that's there now is just being shifted over. 925 MR. MISLEH: I think we're getting into the 926 weeds of your design. I think we need to respect the 927 fact that the porch needs to be extended to cover the 928 new location of the front door. It does make a dramatic 929 aesthetic improvement to the existing house. 930 The applicant does have additional lot 931 coverage that they could have used in the carve outs of 932 the expansion portion of the building; they're just 933 choosing not to utilize them to create additional 934 architectural character of that other side of the house. 935 So if we're looking at the porch just from a 936 lot coverage standpoint, there are other places where 937 they could have captured additional lot coverage that 938 they didn't. So I think we shouldn't harp too much on 939 that one particular issue. 940 MR. CALABRESE: One of the issues that I have 941 is under the law we judge these variances by the fact 942 that if but for the setbacks, you could not build a 943 house, you could not enjoy the property. Whenever we 944 start getting into conversations about preferences, 945 well, we could have done it this way, but we decided not 946 to, we could have done it this way, but we decided not 947 to, that takes us out of the realm of a true hardship. 948 It's just now to the realm of a preference. 949 And it's very hard for me to think positively 950 of a variance application where I'm hearing from the 951 designer that you could have done it a number of 952 different ways, but you just chose not to. And maybe 953 they're legitimate reasons. 954 But when we approve a variance it's based upon 955 a true hardship. You cannot build a house, you cannot 956 enjoy the property if but for -- unless we're granted 957 the variance. And I'm hearing lots of other options 958 here. 959 I always ask that question: Could you have 960 done it another way? And a true approved variance, the 961 answer will be no. It wasn't possible. Here, it sounds 962 like there's many permutations that could have been 963 considered. 964 So I'm having a problem, I must say. 965 MR. CRETSINGER: Just to reply to that 966 quickly, there weren't a lot of options, if any. On the 967 front porch, is there an option not to build it all the 968 way across? Yes, that's certainly true. But from a 969 standpoint on the interior of the building, this really 970 was the only option we had in order to get a typical 971 layout of the master, you know, the bedroom on the first 972 floor which would allow the multi-generational living 973 that was required. 974 And I'm not quite sure, honestly, we've taken 975 as far as lot occupancy, with the exception of a couple 976 of little triangles everywhere, we built out just about 977 every square inch of the allowable space. So the need, 978 the moving in of the wall, the front wall or the side 979 wall, would not be equivalent to those little bits of 980 triangles that are left over. 981 But, yes, I would say on the front porch, 982 there are another option. You know, just making it a 983 single front porch. But from a planning perspective of 984 the floor plan, the first floor and second floor plan, 985 this was really the only solution. 986 MR. BARTLETT: Does anyone have any further 987 comments or questions for the applicants from the Board? 988 MR. EPPLER: Not from me. 989 MR. MISLEH: No. 990 MR. CALABRESE: Nothing from me. 991 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much for your 992 presentation. 993 At this point the Board's going to deliberate 994 and have some conversations amongst ourselves. It's 995 obviously still public. But we're just going to share  996 some of our thoughts and then proceed with potentially 997 making a motion on your variance application. 998 MR. CALABRESE: I'll just start. I mean I 999 think another issue I mentioned is I'm still concerned 1000 about the other neighbor. I understand where that 1001 neighbor is located may not be directly abutting the 1002 area where the variance is, but it is one of the 1003 criteria we judge this and it's an important factor. 1004 And I do think more of an effort could be made to 1005 contact them. 1006 So that would perhaps help in the decision for 1007 me. 1008 I do have problems as I've mentioned earlier. 1009 I don't have to repeat those. But that's one that seems 1010 to be hanging that hasn't been resolved that I think 1011 more of an effort could be made. There are other means 1012 to contact people. 1013 And I agree we all need to stay safe under 1014 Covid but there are ways, non-contact ways of contacting 1015 people, communicating with people. 1016 MR. HIROMOTO: I don't know if I can respond 1017 to that, or I'm allowed to respond. 1018 MR. CALABRESE: Not at this point but thank 1019 you. 1020 MR. BARTLETT: Anyone else on the Board have 1021 information or comment? 1022 MR. KIEN: I have less of an issue with the 1023 contact probably, based on what I think would be 1024 considered reasonable best efforts. But I do continue 1025 to have issue with sizing of the front porch. It looks 1026 as though it couldn't have been located anywhere else 1027 but does it need to be the size that it is into that 1028 encroachment? And from what I have garnered thus far 1029 the answer to that is the sizing of the front porch is 1030 more of a preference than a necessity. 1031 I think we could all agree that some level of 1032 front porch is probably necessary but for me to get 1033 comfortable with approving that key part of this 1034 variance I think proving that sizing out would need to 1035 be necessary which is not something that I've seen in 1036 this presentation. 1037 MR. EPPLER: I would also reference the porch 1038 just from purely the precedential point of view. As 1039 Keith pointed out, as much as it would probably make a 1040 great impact on the house, it would look very nice, if 1041 we approve it for this house, we have to come up with a 1042 reason why we therefore would not have to do the same 1043 for every other house that has a similar situation, 1044 wants to build into the setback. 1045 So with that said, I don't see a problem with 1046 simply moving something the same size as it was over to 1047 the middle. It doesn't seem to have any more impact 1048 than the existing house. 1049 MR. MISLEH: I agree with the other Board 1050 members regarding the lack of response from the rear 1051 neighbor but at the same time we have to rely on the 1052 City to notify the residents and the residents had an 1053 opportunity to represent themselves if they did have an 1054 issue or needed more information. In this particular 1055 case they didn't. So we have to assume that they've 1056 been properly notified. 1057 It sounds to me like the other Board members 1058 are agreed that the footprint of the existing house 1059 going up with the exception of the porch is a pretty 1060 standard request that we see as a Board and it's 1061 something that is a function of staff just not having 1062 the ability to approve that and having it come to this 1063 Board. 1064 So I think what it seems like is everybody's 1065 hung up and I would agree with Mr. Eppler, that the 1066 porch, even if they moved it and it was the same size, 1067 it would still require that variance. So at what level 1068 or at what reasoning would this Board be willing to 1069 grant that porch variance? 1070 MR. BARTLETT: And procedurally, I am not sure 1071 how -- so I'll just start actually with variance 1, 1072 Front yard setback of 25.2 feet and then going up 1073 utilizing the existing non-conforming structure. I 1074 don't have a problem with that. 1075 I don't have a problem with utilizing the 1076 non-conforming use to the west on Jackson. I actually 1077 am thankful that you chose not to request a further 1078 extension of that non-conforming use further back into 1079 your property. 1080 But regarding 3, I am uncomfortable with 1081 allowing a full front porch into the front setback even 1082 though it looks nice. And so procedurally I believe you 1083 would have to amend your variance request to not allow 1084 the full front porch but allow a transition from that 1085 left front porch to the middle of the front porch. 1086 But I'm hearing a lot of questions and a lot 1087 of statements that don't seem to be completely resolved, 1088 especially regarding where you're actually going to be 1089 able to build your by-right addition in that you don't 1090 know exactly where these pipes are and you don't know 1091 exactly what the dimensions of your house will be. 1092 So do you want to come back with more detailed 1093 information and a revised variance application? That's 1094 a question that I'm asking to John Boyle and to the 1095 applicants. 1096 MR. HIROMOTO: I don't have enough knowledge 1097 to answer that. 1098 MR. CRETSINGER: I can say that the storm 1099 water easement has been very carefully calculated, 1100 meaning our CPOs went out there with their survey crew, 1101 it was one purpose pretty much besides the obvious, of 1102 trying to get the overall footprint correct. But that 1103 storm water easement was very accurately located upon 1104 their records. So I'm fairly confident that's exactly 1105 where it is. 1106 So until we actually get out there and dig 1107 down, it would probably be one of the first things we 1108 would do as part of the new construction, is to 1109 ascertain exactly where they are. We know they are 1110 about 7 feet down below grade, depending on where you 1111 are on the lot, they're sloping from the front to the 1112 back, so depending on where you are on the lot, 1113 obviously they vary in depth. 1114 But the pipes are, we're very confident that 1115 they're within that easement, it's just where exactly 1116 they are is the big question. But we will certainly do 1117 all our due diligence to locate them prior to it but 1118 again, it only affects the by-right construction and if 1119 we had to tweak that a few inches or something like 1120 that, that's fine. It's not an overly big concern for 1121 us. 1122 And in regards to the porch, can I just ask 1123 the Board for guidance here, would it be acceptable to 1124 take the -- basically the existing footprint and move it 1125 over to the center, aligning it on the front door? Is 1126 that a possible acceptable solution? 1127 MR. BARTLETT: If that was the request to the 1128 Board today, I would not have much concern with that. 1129 But what I'm seeing is not that right now. So that's 1130 why I'm asking John Boyle for procedural guidance from 1131 the City on can we consider the first two and then have 1132 them come back for the third as a separate and distinct 1133 variance request. And maybe Mr. Misleh and Mr. 1134 Calabrese have some guidance on that as well. 1135 MR. MISLEH: I think we could make a motion to 1136 limit the size of the porch to not greater than the 1137 existing. That may be more limiting to the applicant 1138 than postponing the application to the next hearing. 1139 MR. BOYLE: I'd agree and I think the Board 1140 has the authority to approve something less than what 1141 was advertised. I don't think you have the authority to 1142 say let's go further into the setback than was 1143 advertised. But you can certainly approve an 8 by 8 1144 stoop centered on the center of the house, something 1145 along those lines. 1146 MR. CALABRESE: I'd prefer to see a new plan 1147 with the new dimensions and the new design and just 1148 approve it all at once. The applicant will have to come 1149 back anyway. I would just as soon do it all at once. 1150 MR. BARTLETT: And I think from a design 1151 perspective, and it's not my job, but I believe it would 1152 be better for you to come back and do a revamp of that 1153 look and space and dimension so that we do it properly, 1154 I agree. 1155 MR. EPPLER: So is the question whether we 1156 approve the first two and hold the third or do we just 1157 hold all three? 1158 MR. BOYLE: You'd entertain a motion to 1159 continue. 1160 If the Board wishes to approve the first two, 1161 I wasn't sure if they're kind of contingent on each 1162 other. 1163 MR. BARTLETT: I believe that they are 1164 logically distinct and if the other members of the Board 1165 agree, we could proceed with the first two and then ask 1166 for a continuance on the third or deny. But if we deny, 1167 then they would have to come back with a different 1168 variance request, isn't that correct? 1169 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 1170 MR. CALABRESE: I think it would just be 1171 simpler if the applicant wanted to just agree that they 1172 would come back. 1173 MR. BARTLETT: For the whole thing, Dave? 1174 MR. CALABRESE: That would seem simpler to me, 1175 but yeah, that's what I was thinking, just come back for 1176 the whole thing. Unless there's a benefit to approving 1177 partially. 1178 MR. CRETSINGER: My only comment on that would 1179 be that it would be a benefit to us to approve at least 1180 the second floor, the front and rear of the second floor 1181 use simply because we did get started sort of on those 1182 drawings, albeit because they take time obviously. And 1183 then we could also come back with a revised front porch 1184 addition that would be harmonious with the now approved 1185 rear portion or the existing portion of the house. 1186 And if it's a continuation on that third item, 1187 the continuation I guess would mean based on an 1188 assumption of a resubmittal of the porch, we would be 1189 more than happy to do that. 1190 MR. MISLEH: How big is the existing porch? 1191 It's not really referenced on any of the -- 1192 MR. CRETSINGER: It's 8.5 feet wide and 6.5 1193 feet deep. 1194 MR. MISLEH: And what's the proposed width of 1195 the new porch total? 1196 MR. CRETSINGER: It is just shy of 32 feet. 1197 It's about 31.6. 1198 MR. MISLEH: Okay. So it's 24 feet. It's 1199 four times the original size. 1200 MR. CRETSINGER: Yes, that's correct. 1201 MR. MISLEH: Okay. I think what we're hearing 1202 is that most of the Board -- I would be comfortable if 1203 somebody made a motion to limit the porch to the 1204 existing size. I think for the applicant that may be 1205 more restrictive than coming back with a better -- with 1206 an actual drawing and reasoning behind the updated or 1207 amended request. And maybe a note from the neighbor. 1208 MR. BARTLETT: That's where we as a Board have 1209 to decide, do we want to separate it out and does 1210 someone want to make a motion to separate it out? 1211 MR. MISLEH: John, can the applicant choose to 1212 hold just one third of the variance request or do they 1213 need to request to postpone the entire application? 1214 MR. BOYLE: They can request a continuation at 1215 any time up until the vote. So I think Mr. Bartlett's 1216 correct, we're at the stage now where someone should 1217 propose a motion and see how that carries. It sounds 1218 like there's two motions being considered. So up until 1219 the time of the vote on those motions, the applicant can 1220 ask for a continuation and then we'd have whatever 1221 motions the Board is entertaining. 1222 I think the Board should frame a motion or 1223 two, take a vote, and see what it looks like at that 1224 point. 1225 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you, John Boyle. 1226 MR. EPPLER: I will make a motion that we 1227 approve the first two of the variance requests and that 1228 we reject or we extend until the next meeting a decision 1229 on the third, pending a resubmission of a front porch 1230 design. 1231 MR. BARTLETT: So just to clarify, Mr. Eppler, 1232 you are making a motion to approve variance application 1233 b(1) and b(2) and continue variance application b(3). 1234 MR. EPPLER: That is correct. Thank you. 1235 MR. BARTLETT: Does anyone want to second that 1236 motion or revise that motion? 1237 MR. CALABRESE: Are we clear -- well, I guess 1238 we need a second before I can ask the question, so. 1239 MR. MISLEH: Second. 1240 MR. CALABRESE: Are we clear that we have all 1241 the information we need? There were some other 1242 questions about details that you had yet to be 1243 determined, even on the other parts of the house. Do we 1244 feel confident that we have all the information we need, 1245 because the architect was saying, Well, I'll get back to 1246 you on that, I need to look into that further. Do we 1247 feel we have everything that is necessary to make a 1248 decision on those first? 1249 I'm not saying we don't but in all the 1250 discussion it appeared to me there were still some 1251 questions. 1252 If it is, it's fine, but could someone answer 1253 that. 1254 MR. BARTLETT: I believe I'm fine with the 1255 information regarding the first two. 1256 MR. EPPLER: Yes, it's basically they're 1257 building and this is something we've run into several 1258 times before and they are staying within the existing 1259 footprint for the first two variances. 1260 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. 1261 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Boyle, we received a second 1262 for that motion. Can we do a roll call vote on that 1263 motion? 1264 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 1265 Mr. Misleh. 1266 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1267 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Kien. 1268 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1269 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Eppler. 1270 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1271 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Calabrese. 1272 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1273 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Bartlett. 1274 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1275 MR. BOYLE: And it's been a long time since 1276 we've had a full Board plus alternate, let's have, for 1277 her trouble, let's have Kristine vote and I'll determine 1278 whether that has effect or not. 1279 Ms. Ward. 1280 MS. WARD: Yes. 1281 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. 1282 MR. BARTLETT: So, Ms. Stoll and Mr. Hiromoto, 1283 congratulations and thank you for coming to present your 1284 application to us. We just request that you submit a 1285 new variance application for a revised variance 1286 application for b(3) regarding your request for a 1287 setback to move or enhance or enlarge the porch on this 1288 new structure. 1289 John, can you clarify as to when they need to 1290 submit that so they know. 1291 MR. BOYLE: I just gave someone that 1292 information today for the February meeting. February 1293 17th is the cutoff. February 17th. 1294 Let's see. No, I'm sorry. 1295 MR. BARTLETT: That would be our meeting date 1296 I believe. 1297 MR. BOYLE: The cutoff date would be January 1298 27th for the February 17th meeting. 1299 MR. BARTLETT: So there's your information 1300 regarding when you need to submit that information to 1301 the City so that we can consider it at our next Board of 1302 Zoning Appeal meeting in February. 1303 MR. HIROMOTO: Okay. And what specifically 1304 would we need to -- I just want to make sure. Do we 1305 need to have the entire packaging again or is it 1306 basically just the one drawing with the porch? 1307 MR. MISLEH: You can connect with Mr. Boyle 1308 offline and I think he'll be able to assist you. 1309 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 1310 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much. 1311 1312 a. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND ADOPTION OF THE RULES 1313 OF PROCEDURE 1314 MR. BARTLETT: So moving on New Business a, 1315 Election of Officers, and adoption of the Rules of 1316 Procedure. 1317 I believe we were provided copies of the BZA 1318 Rules of Procedure in our Agenda and I just want to make 1319 1320 sure that before we move to approve them that no one has 1321 any issues or concerns with the existing Rules of 1322 Procedure for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 1323 MR. CALABRESE: No, no objections. 1324 MR. MISLEH: I have no objection. 1325 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I think the last major 1326 change here was participation in meetings through 1327 electronic means and if the Board recalls when we 1328 adopted those changes we had no idea what was in our 1329 future. 1330 Is everybody comfortable with how we've been 1331 administering these meetings? 1332 MR. CALABRESE: Yes, I'd say using the Teams 1333 has been much better too. It's clearer and fewer 1334 problems than the previous software. 1335 MR. BOYLE: Yes, it's been very convenient for 1336 staff. 1337 MR. BARTLETT: I agree. And it's interesting 1338 though, and I think regarding the rules of our 1339 electronic use, our use of electronic means to attend, I 1340 think the Covid issues in the state parameters and rules 1341 regarding public meetings trumps our rules, in that it 1342 says here, No member participates by electronic means 1343 more than two times, etc, etc. 1344 So there are some limits here on our rules but 1345 I think we should retain those rules as they are because 1346 the intent of the rules in this provision is to attend 1347 in person when we all can attend in person. 1348 But it's great to know we have the ability to 1349 meet remotely even if we're under normal circumstances 1350 and someone is out of town and would like to 1351 participate. So I don't see the need to amend our 1352 rules. 1353 MR. BOYLE: We'll update the notes on that and 1354 redistribute them. 1355 MR. CALABRESE: So I just make a motion to 1356 approve the Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure, 1357 if that's necessary. 1358 MR. EPPLER: And I will second, if that's 1359 necessary. 1360 MR. BOYLE: How about if we do an "All in 1361 Favor"? 1362 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1363 MR. BOYLE: Any objections? 1364 (No response.) 1365 MR. BOYLE: Hearing none. 1366 1367 MR. BARTLETT: So moving on to election of 1368 officers which is Rule i in our Rules of Procedure, We 1369 1370 shall organize and elect a chair and vice chair from 1371 among its regular members annually at our first meeting 1372 in January. The new chairman shall take office 1373 immediately and serve for one year and no more than two 1374 consecutive terms after which time they would be 1375 restrained from service for at least one year. 1376 Great. I had to read it, Dave. I had to read 1377 it out loud. 1378 So then there's a chair and a vice chair. 1379 Currently I'm the chair and Dave is the vice chair. A 1380 vice chair will serve in the absence of the chair, the 1381 chair is not in attendance. If neither of us are there, 1382 the ranking member in terms of service will serve as 1383 chairman. 1384 So we just need to make motions to nominate a 1385 chair and a vice chair. 1386 MR. CALABRESE: I would just say if Mr. 1387 Bartlett is interested in continuing, I think you do a 1388 great job. I would encourage you to do that. But I 1389 understand if it's not something you're able to do. 1390 That would be my comment. 1391 MR. EPPLER: I would have made exactly the 1392 same comment, again, if you're willing to do so. 1393 MR. CALABRESE: Let me make another comment, 1394 that I would be willing to have someone else serve in 1395 1396 the vice chairman slot. I mean there's lots of others 1397 that have joined and perhaps others want to get the 1398 experience. I would be very happy to not run for that 1399 and I think it would be good for someone else to get the 1400 experience. So that would be my other comment. 1401 MR. BARTLETT: I think it's been really great 1402 serving as chair and it's certainly not as intimidating 1403 as I thought it was going to be. And I say that humbly 1404 in that you all are very supportive and egalitarian in 1405 the way of we all just take the reins and speak our mind 1406 and speak our truth to what we're facing and I can 1407 handle the procedural starting of meetings and opening 1408 and discussing things. I have no problem for doing this 1409 for another year if that's what you would like. 1410 But I do like the idea of, I know, Dave, 1411 you've been doing this for a long time, and if someone 1412 would be interested in serving as vice chair, it would 1413 be a great stepping stone to next year when I can no 1414 longer serve as chair and I know Dave has served as 1415 chair for years before. So it might be a great 1416 opportunity for somebody to do something a little 1417 different. 1418 MR. CALABRESE: I agree. 1419 MR. BARTLETT: And I know there's a lot of 1420 procedure here, but is there someone that's not 1421 1422 interested in serving as vice chair? Or is there 1423 someone interested in serving as vice chair? 1424 MR. MISLEH: Dave, if you want to be relieved, 1425 I would be willing to take over the vice chair position, 1426 but only if you were looking for relief. 1427 MR. CALABRESE: Yeah, I am. 1428 MR. MISLEH: Because I do value, both of you 1429 being well-educated lawyers, it's very helpful when it 1430 comes to interpreting the actual law in these matters. 1431 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you and I'd be very 1432 happy to have you -- I'd be very happy to step down or 1433 to have you accept the position. I think it would be 1434 great, so yeah, I would fully support that. 1435 MR. BARTLETT: I'll make a motion for John 1436 Misleh to serve as vice chair for the Board of Zoning 1437 Appeals for the calendar year 2022. 1438 MR. KIEN: I would second that motion. 1439 MR. BOYLE: All in favor? 1440 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1441 MR. BOYLE: Any opposed? 1442 (No response.) 1443 MR. EPPLER: And I will make a motion that 1444 Keith Bartlett serve a second year as chairman of the 1445 Board of Zoning Appeals. 1446 MR. MISLEH: I second that motion. 1447 MR. BOYLE: All in favor? 1448 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1449 MR. BOYLE: Any opposed? 1450 (No response.) 1451 MR. BARTLETT: Sounds good. 1452 Thank you very much. Thank you, John, for stepping up. 1453 You'll do a great job. 1454 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Dave. 1455 1456 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1457 a. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 MEETING 1458 MINUTES 1459 MR. BARTLETT: Moving on to Approval of 1460 Minutes. We have a couple months to approve. 1461 The September 16, 2021, meeting minutes were 1462 provided. These were related to the application for a 1463 special use permit. 1464 MR. EPPLER: I was going to ask what happened. 1465 MR. BOYLE: The property owner withdrew their 1466 support. The Boys Club, Scout House. 1467 MR. BARTLETT: So I would just take a few 1468 minutes, if you have any issues. 1469 (Minutes reviewed.) 1470 MR. BARTLETT: These are a lot of 1471 conversations about the Scout House. 1472 I know there's some sort of ad libbing here, 1473 that whole application and the meetings we had were a 1474 great example of our ability as a Board to ask really 1475 good questions and make sure that we're serving in the 1476 best interest of the City. Through no fault of theirs, 1477 it did happen but it was just a great example of our 1478 ability to serve as a board. 1479 So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes 1480 of the Board of Zoning Appeals for September 16, 2021. 1481 MR. CALABRESE: Second. 1482 MR. BOYLE: All in favor? 1483 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1484 MR. BOYLE: Any opposed? 1485 Hearing none. 1486 MR. MISLEH: John, I abstained. 1487 1488 c. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2021 MEETING 1489 MINUTES 1490 (Minutes reviewed.) 1491 MR. MISLEH: I'll make a motion to approve the 1492 meeting minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals from 1493 November 18, 2021. 1494 MR. EPPLER: Second. 1495 MR. BOYLE: All in favor? 1496 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1497 MR. BOYLE: Any opposed? 1498 (No response.) 1499 MR. BOYLE: Hearing none. 1500 1501 b. BZA RESOLUTION V1626-21 1502 MR. MISLEH: John, do we need to do anything 1503 with the Resolution? 1504 MR. BOYLE: Akida and I were trying to recall, 1505 the Board seemed to have some questions on this 1506 particular Resolution and so we brought the finished 1507 version. But that's the discretion of the Board. We 1508 weren't sure if there were any outstanding issues with 1509 the wording. 1510 MS. WARD: Wasn't it missing the text, there 1511 was an issue with the minutes, wasn't it something along 1512 those lines? 1513 MR. EPPLER: Is this the one where some of the 1514 minutes, the transcription didn't work? 1515 MS. WARD: That's what I think, yeah. 1516 MR. BOYLE: You're right. I think the 1517 recording -- who's waiting? 1518 MR. BARTLETT: Sorry about that. 1519 MR. BOYLE: Keith, we're discussing the 1520 Resolution, the question the Board may have had, we're 1521 wondering if it was the lack of recording at the 1522 beginning, was that this matter? 1523 MR. BARTLETT: Right. So I just closed the 1524 meeting and wasn't participating for a few minutes. 1525 Sorry. 1526 My understanding is that when this was not 1527 captured in the meeting minutes, it was just that the 1528 variance was approved and I wanted to make sure that the 1529 discussion and the variance was captured accurately 1530 based on the meeting minutes from that variance 1531 application. 1532 So we don't necessarily have to make a motion 1533 to approve this. We just wanted to make sure that it 1534 was captured properly, because the recording was jumbled 1535 at one point when Akida provided the notes to us. 1536 MR. BOYLE: Akida and I both through 1537 recollection, we knew there was an issue with the 1538 recording, we sat down the next day or thereafter and 1539 collected our notes and we erred on the side of being a 1540 little more verbose with this motion from what we could 1541 recall of the Board's discussion, but I believe it 1542 captured it. 1543 MR. CALABRESE: I apologize but I have to 1544 leave the meeting. I hope you have enough votes without 1545 me. I'm sorry but I have to leave. 1546 MR. BARTLETT: Thanks, Dave. Have a good 1547 night. 1548 MR. BOYLE: No pressure on Kristine. 1549 MS. WARD: I think I can handle this one. 1550 MR. BARTLETT: So, John, we do not need to 1551 make a motion on this. 1552 MR. BOYLE: No, it was just an FYI. We think 1553 we captured everything. And if you're happy, we don't 1554 need a motion. We'll leave it as is. 1555 MR. BARTLETT: Perfect. Thank you so much. 1556 MR. EPPLER: Much more than we actually were 1557 so that makes us look good. 1558 1559 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1560 a. 2022 BZA ANNUAL CALENDAR 1561 MR. BARTLETT: So back to the Agenda. 1562 Is there any Other Business besides Approval 1563 of the 2022 BZA Calendar? 1564 MR. BOYLE: None from staff. 1565 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. So I'll make a motion to 1566 approve the Board of Zoning -- 1567 MR. EPPLER: It says no August meeting but 1568 there's a meeting on August 25th. 1569 MR. BARTLETT: The August 25th is a cutoff 1570 date for submission of materials for the September 15th 1571 meeting. 1572 MR. EPPLER: Sorry. Okay. 1573 MR. BARTLETT: It's the same calendar every 1574 year. 1575 MS. WARD: Is June 16th, is that the new 1576 holiday? I don't know if the City celebrates that. Is 1577 that correct, Juneteenth? 1578 MR. BOYLE: We better find that out. 1579 MR. BARTLETT: It's the 19th anyways. 1580 MS. WARD: Sorry. 1581 MR. KIEN: The public holiday is the 20th for 1582 that. 1583 MS. WARD: Perfect. 1584 MR. BARTLETT: Do I have a second? 1585 MR. KIEN: I'll second. 1586 MR. BOYLE: All in favor? 1587 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1588 MR. BOYLE: Any opposed? 1589 (No response.) 1590 MR. BOYLE: Hearing none. 1591 1592 8. ADJOURNMENT 1593 MR. BARTLETT: So I'll move to adjourn the 1594 Board of Zoning Appeal meeting for Thursday, January 13, 1595 2022. Thank you very much. 1596 1597 1598 1599