Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 3 Thursday, February 17, 2022 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Bartlett is not able to 8 attend this evening so I think that puts me in the hot 9 seat. 10 I'd like to call this meeting of the Board of 11 Zoning Appeals for Thursday, February 17 to order. 12 Akida, if you wouldn't mind please doing the 13 roll call. 14 15 2. ROLL CALL 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 17 Mr. Bartlett is absent this evening. 18 Mr. Misleh. 19 MR. MISLEH: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. Mr. Kien. 21 I thought I saw him on the participant list. 22 Mr. Kien. 23 Okay. Mr. Kien is absent for now. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 25 Mr. Eppler. 26 Mr. Eppler was here earlier. Maybe he's 27 coming right back. 28 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 29 MS. WARD: Here. 30 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 31 Before we start I am required to read this 32 virtual meeting notice. 33 This meeting will be held pursuant to and in 34 compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, 35 Section 2.2-3708.2 and state and local legislation 36 adopted to allow for continued government operation 37 during the COVID-19 declared emergency. All 38 participating members will be present at this meeting 39 through electronic means. All members of the public may 40 view the electronic meeting via the meeting link listed 41 above in the City's website calendar. 42 Thank you. 43 MR. EPPLER: Akida, this is Dale Eppler. I 44 was present but my microphone was not working so now I'm 45 back. 46 MS. ROUZI: Got it. Thank you. 47 MR. MISLEH: And, Akida, I think Mr. Kien has 48 also joined us. 49 MR. KIEN: I have. 50 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Misleh, if I might, we have a 51 couple of orders of business I think before the meeting 52 starts. One is the chair is absent but our vice-chair, 53 Mr. Calabrese, has unfortunately had to step down from 54 the Board for demands of work. I'll leave it to the 55 Board to decide, should they hold an election now or 56 given the members present, go ahead and conduct this 57 meeting, I think that's your option. 58 And then when we get to the calling of the 59 item, the applicant should be made aware of the lack of 60 a full Board. 61 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, John. I believe we 62 held the election at the last meeting at which time I 63 believe we elected Mr. Bartlett as chair and myself as 64 the vice chair. 65 MR. BOYLE: My apologies. You're correct. 66 If the Board wishes to proceed, then I'd 67 suggest swearing everyone in en masse who wishes to 68 speak and then offering straight up the option to 69 continue for any of the applicants here. 70 MR. MISLEH: If you wouldn't mind, Akida, 71 would you mind swearing in those who choose to speak 72 this evening. 73 MR. BOYLE: I can, if you wish. 74 (Witnesses sworn.) 75 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, John. 76 77 3. PETITIONS 78 79 MR. MISLEH: It appears we have two items, one 80 Old Business and one New Business. 81 If no one objects, I'd like to tackle them in 82 order as they're shown on the agenda, Old Business and 83 then New Business. 84 85 4. OLD BUSINESS 86 a. Variance application V1629 by Karen Stoll and 87 Scott Hiromoto, applicant and owner, for variance to 88 Section 48-1102(e)(1)c, to allow: 89 (3) a front porch setback of 18.7 feet instead 90 of 22 feet for the extension of an existing porch 91 extension on premises known as 600 Jackson Street, RPC 92 #52-205-001 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 93 zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 94 95 MR. MISLEH: If you would, please walk us 96 through item No. 4, Old Business, variance application 97 V1629-21. 98 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  99 This matter was before the Board last month 100 and I believe all the members present tonight were 101 there. If I'm incorrect, let us know if you need to 102 recuse. 103 If I recall there were two matters before the 104 Board, one was for a ground level and second story 105 addition and then a porch addition, a porch extension. 106 The Board and the applicants essentially came 107 to agreement on the first item, the ground level and 108 second story additions, with letters of support from the 109 neighbors. 110 The Board showed some concern for the extent 111 of the variance being requested for the porch and it's 112 my understanding that the applicants have returned 113 tonight with a relatively simple revision to that plan 114 showing a reposition of their porch work to be done 115 which also complies with the notice that was sent out to 116 the public. 117 So their proposed revision to their first 118 application is properly noticed and available for 119 discussion tonight. 120 So with that, I'll defer to the applicants for 121 their presentation and how they've revised the plan. 122 MR. CRETSINGER: Thank you, John, for the 123 introduction there and thank you, Board members, for 124 taking the time tonight. 125 I'd like to just start with the existing plat, 126 if I could, just so that we can kind of have a reference 127 back to where we started. 128 And you'll note, this is all familiar from our 129 last meeting, but you'll note what we are looking at is 130 essentially taking the porch that is in the northwest 131 corner there, which is approximately six and a half feet 132 deep by eight and a half feet wide and moving that to 133 the center of the house. 134 And this is a direct reduction in size from 135 our last proposal which was essentially extending that 136 porch all the way across the front. 137 If we could then go to the next slide. 138 What we are proposing now is essentially takes 139 it and shifts it over directly on center. What that 140 does is it allows a nice direct access right from 141 Jackson Street to the house and to the inside, to the 142 first floor. 143 It also, if we can go on to the next slide, 144 you'll see how the centering of the porch, as we 145 mentioned, it's the same size as the existing porch, 146 essentially six and a half feet to the front and then 147 eight and a half feet wide. And it's now centered right 148 on the front door which also happens to be centered in 149 the building and allows us to have the first floor suite 150 we discussed last time on the left hand side as you 151 enter and then it directly comes into the living room, 152 dining room, and kitchen areas. 153 So that all still works perfectly well. It's 154 just very modest, it's a much reduced version of what we 155 were discussing last time. 156 If you go to the next slide, there, the second 157 floor hasn't really changed much. It just shows the 158 roof line below. 159 If we go to the final two slides, it's 160 essentially a metal roof with the two probably like 161 Chatsworth columns, poly-stone columns, and it's just a 162 nice intro to the building. It nestles itself directly 163 into the middle and right between the two dormers and 164 you can see that both in this slide and even better in 165 the next slide, where you can see how it fits right 166 between the two dormers, straight in the middle of the 167 house. 168 And the dormers and the windows and everything 169 now are in perfect alignment. So from a front facade, 170 while actually smaller, it enhances the overall scale 171 and the front elevation of the house that we're 172 proposing. 173 I would like to note that I know there were 174 concerns last time, while we had the neighbor 175 immediately adjacent, they had written in with their 176 support. The neighbor to the rear, and the owner's here 177 too and he can attest to this, despite repeated attempts 178 to try to reach them, he has not. But he did send out a 179 certified letter, explains what the work is and all the 180 plans so that they are up to date or as much up to date 181 as we can get to them. Besides obviously the official 182 notice that the City sends out. 183 So with that, as I said, this is a fairly 184 simple revision. It really tries to take the concerns 185 that the Board expressed last time and essentially keep 186 what is the existing front porch, rebuilding it 187 obviously and moving it over into the center of the 188 house. 189 So with that, Scott, the owner, did you have 190 any comments you wanted to add? 191 MR. HIROMOTO: I think that's basically it. 192 We did go to the back neighbor two more times and then 193 as you said, sent the letter. On-line it is verified 194 that it was delivered. But we asked them if they had 195 paperwork that they wanted to return so we gave them the 196 form to sign that they could deliver it right next door 197 to 600 Jackson and they didn't do that. So that's the 198 effort we made. 199 MR. CRETSINGER: Thanks, Scott. 200 With that, is there any direct questions about 201 the size or scope or how we -- we honestly have tried to 202 take into account all the comments from the last meeting 203 and address them by keeping it to scale, centering it in 204 the building so it's still a very attractive front but 205 making it essentially much more modest in scope and 206 scale. 207 MR. MISLEH: Thank you for your presentation 208 and your attempts to reach the neighbor. 209 I'd like to open it up for Board members to 210 ask any questions. 211 MR. KIEN: Yeah, I have one question. 212 The square footage of this revision versus the 213 existing front porch, can you tell us what that is. 214 MR. CRETSINGER: It's six and a half, 6.4 by 215 eight and a half. And the proposal is the exact same. 216 So if I do my math really quickly, that equals 54 and a 217 half square feet. 218 MR. KIEN: Thank you. 219 MR. CRETSINGER: And that's what is currently 220 there and what we're proposing for the new. 221 And along those same lines, I think there was 222 a question last time about and I just didn't have -- I 223 hadn't had the figures in front of me, but just so you 224 know, the total building coverage on this property, 225 again, this is a decent size lot and even with this, 226 it's only at 19.4 percent is the current building 227 coverage and the impervious surface is only 27 percent. 228 So both of those are well underneath the Code 229 of 25 percent and 35 percent. They're both 230 substantially under. 231 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much. Any other 232 questions from the Board members? 233 (No response.) 234 MR. MISLEH: All right. Not hearing any 235 questions, I'd like to close the presentation and have 236 discussion amongst the Board. 237 Mr. Kien, Mr. Eppler, Ms. Ward, would anyone 238 like to start that off? 239 MR. EPPLER: This is Mr. Eppler. 240 So I was just going to say that I like the 241 proposal. It does seem that there's essentially no 242 difference from moving it from, all they're doing is 243 moving it to the center of the building which matches up 244 with the design but it's in keeping with the concerns 245 about the rest of the neighborhood and such and it's not 246 setting a precedent such that we're going to have a 247 flood of other people coming in wanting to have much 248 larger porches put on. 249 So I think they've done a good job of 250 presenting a good proposal. 251 MS. WARD: I was going to say a very similar 252 thing. I think that this addressed our concerns and I 253 support the modification that has been proposed. 254 MR. MISLEH: I think it's helpful to note that 255 the door is moving from the existing location on the 256 left of the existing structure to the center and 257 therefore the porch is just following. So it's a one 258 for one porch modification and there's no additional 259 encroachment into the easement area. 260 And thank you for making efforts to contact 261 the neighbor and I would agree with the other two Board 262 members. 263 I think this is the point, John, where I need 264 to advise the applicant about not having a full Board, 265 is that correct? 266 MR. BOYLE: Yes. Simply that a full Board 267 present costs them one vote and they need three to 268 approve. So, yes, if you would, advise them of their 269 option to continue. 270 MR. MISLEH: I must advise you, Mr. Hiromoto, 271 that there's only four members of the Board present and 272 you require three votes in order for this variance to 273 pass. You have the ability to, before there's a motion 274 made and a vote taken, you have the ability to defer 275 this application. 276 Would you like to defer this evening? 277 MR. HIROMOTO: No, I'd like to continue 278 please. 279 MR. MISLEH: Okay. Thank you very much. 280 With that said, would a member of the Board 281 like to make a motion? 282 MR. EPPLER: I will make a motion for approval 283 of variance application V1629-21. 284 MR. MISLEH: Would somebody like to second? 285 MR. KIEN: I'll second that motion. 286 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Mr. Eppler and thank 287 you, Mr. Kien. 288 Akida. 289 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 290 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 291 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 292 MR. KIEN: Yes. 293 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 294 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 295 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 296 MS. WARD: Yes. 297 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 298 MR. MISLEH: Congratulations, Mr. Hiromoto, 299 and good luck with your project. 300 MR. HIROMOTO: Thank you. 301 MR. CRETSINGER: Thank you. 302 303 5. NEW BUSINESS 304 a. Variance application V1630-22 by Priya 305 Krishnan, applicant and owner, for a variance to 306 Sections 48-238(3)a to allow a rear setback of 19 feet 307 instead of 40 feet for the purpose of constructing a new 308 single family dwelling on premises known as 608 Laura 309 Drive, RPC #52-605-005 of the Falls Church Real Property 310 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 311 312 MR. MISLEH: So we're on to New Business, 313 variance application V1630-22. 314 John, if you would, please walk us through 315 this application. 316 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 317 Akida, if you could bring up the plat please. 318 Actually I was not seeing -- looking at who's 319 present, would the chair mind taking a poll of the 320 applicants present. I believe we have one. 321 Can we confirm that everyone's here from the 322 applicant's case please. 323 MS. KRISHNAN: Yes, Anna Krishnan is here. 324 MS. KRISHNAN: Priya Krishnan. 325 MR. BOYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. 326 Mr. Chair, this is an application related to 327 setbacks on this lot, on Laura Drive. 328 We see this sometimes with subdivisions that 329 end in cul-de-sacs as you see here, where the 330 subdivision just kind of runs out of room. 331 This Lot 7, the subject lot, has almost 332 actually 11,250, it has sufficient square footage but 333 because of the orientation of the subdivision lines it's 334 an odd building envelope, odd lot size. So it is 335 possible to take the minimum required square footage and 336 configure it in a number of ways. It's certainly not 337 rectangular. 338 We have an existing structure that was built 339 to the setbacks and what we have today is an application 340 seeking relief from the building envelope that the 341 current code would apply to this lot. 342 This envelope that you see on the screen was 343 done by myself and it's not to scale but I'd say it's a 344 very good representation of what could be built and that 345 would be within the yellow area there. And it shows 40 346 foot setbacks from the back property line and 15 from 347 the two sides with 30 foot at the front. 348 What is before the Board tonight is a variance 349 seeking relief to that rear setback and you should have 350 received both quite a detailed package from the 351 applicant but also a number of letters from the abutting 352 neighbors. 353 I like to characterize in our summary whether 354 this is something staff has discretion over and rear 355 yard setback variances we do not. There are some 356 instances where we can extend existing encroachments but 357 this would not qualify. So for what the applicant is 358 hoping to do would require a variance with approval from 359 the Board. 360 So with that I'd ask the applicant to proceed 361 with their presentation. 362 MS. KRISHNAN: Okay. Thank you. 363 My name is Anna Krishnan and I'm the owner of 364 608 Laura Drive. And we are requesting a variance on 365 just the rear setback and we've reduced it now by 366 altering the building design. So it's not what was 367 advertised as 19 feet anymore. We would like a 29 foot 368 setback in the rear. And the amount that will be built 369 into this setback is only 150 square feet. 370 Is it possible to share the slide that shows 371 the proposed house structure and the little bit that we 372 want to build into the rear setback? 373 So the three triangular areas will be the 374 construction into the rear setback. We'll be conforming 375 to the front and the side setbacks and it's only this 376 that we needed the variance for to allow us to build a 377 house that -- we put a picture of the house that I want 378 to put up. It's a very cute Craftsman style house. 379 It's not a huge house. 380 The square footage for the lot coverage with 381 the building allowance of 25 percent would have been 382 2831 square feet and we're only building a 1485 square 383 foot lot coverage and the house size would be 2970 384 square feet. And that's a picture of the house. 385 I do have a letter of support from the 386 neighbor directly on one side. 387 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: We weren't able to get 388 letters of support -- 389 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: And I was trying to 390 introduce this package and explain that I changed what 391 was advertised in the paper because some of the other 392 neighbors -- 393 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: Currently we don't have 394 any other letters of support except from 610 Laura. 395 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: What else? The lot 396 doesn't really have any trees. There are going to be no 397 trees that will be taken down. Instead I want to plant 398 trees. 399 And I think that's all that I have right now 400 unless there's any questions. 401 Is there anything else I missed? 402 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: No, I think that's it. 403 We tried to find, design a house that could 404 fit into that triangular shape but it was difficult to 405 really have the interior flow of the house go along with 406 that triangle, I mean unless we built some sort of an 407 ultra modern style home I guess. But this, we thought, 408 would be the minimum that we could ask for that would 409 make it a nice house that would look good and fit in 410 with the neighborhood in the City. 411 I said we did see some of the objections from 412 the neighbors and we had hoped that we would be able to 413 minimize any impact on specifically the two neighbors 414 behind us because that's the only place that we would be 415 so-called intruding into the current setback. 416 And I walked the lot and saw that actually the 417 point where the largest triangle, the first triangle, 418 which is the one that goes to 29 feet, is sort of almost 419 in between the two homes and I felt that those two homes 420 have very deep back yards so perhaps that would not be a 421 huge burden on them if we were to just ask for that. We 422 wouldn't be building out the entire setback, just those 423 three points really. 424 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 425 If that's all with the presentation, I'd like 426 to ask John, John, what was advertised was 19 feet. 427 What's being asked for this evening is different than 428 what was advertised. It also appears that there's a 429 front -- there may be an encroachment in the front 430 setback as well, given this plat. 431 Is this something that we would need to 432 readvertise? 433 MR. BOYLE: We discussed that and I don't 434 believe so. The rear portion is a reduction. It's less 435 than what was asked for. So traditionally that's 436 acceptable. We have had a few over the years that after 437 rethinking the engineering they wanted to ask for more 438 and we did have to readvertise. In this case they're 439 pulling it back. 440 In the front that's actually a by-right use, a 441 by-right extension of the porch into the front yard 442 setback. That would not require a variance. 443 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, John. 444 So if there's no additional comments from the 445 applicant, I'd like to open it up for questions from the 446 Board. 447 MR. EPPLER: This is Mr. Eppler. Thank you 448 for the presentation. 449 As you know we've had some letters of 450 objection from some of the neighbors and I wondered, I 451 think you indicated you had made some presentations to 452 them about the reduced size. What was their reaction, 453 was there any meeting of the minds, or what feedback did 454 you get? 455 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: So I got a lot of good 456 feedback because they liked the fact that we weren't 457 building out for the whole setback. They liked the 458 reduction. And then just showing the plans for the 459 construction of the house and what kind of house it was 460 going to be, it was only positive feedback that I got. 461 Just a couple of people had asked a couple of 462 questions and I was able to answer them so personally I 463 did not hear any negative feedback. 464 MR. EPPLER: Did you by any miracle ask them 465 to change their letters? 466 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Well, I left them the 467 packet of updated information and I got one letter of 468 support from the neighbor directly to my left. I didn't 469 ask anybody to change their objection when I spoke to 470 them, no. I just figured -- 471 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: No, but you asked them to 472 sign a letter of support. 473 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yeah, I also left them 474 with a letter of support to sign. 475 MR. MISLEH: Did we get the one letter of 476 support that you referenced submitted by the 4:30 477 deadline today? 478 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: No, we didn't submit it 479 at the 4:30 deadline. 480 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I didn't realize the 481 deadline. I have it with me. I can send it right now. 482 MR. BOYLE: Or is that party here present 483 tonight? 484 And I think also, if this is the first that 485 the neighbors are seeing of the reduction, perhaps 486 they'd like to comment versus what they saw previously. 487 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: We have a neighbor letter 488 to the neighbors addressing the comment, should we bring 489 that up? 490 MR. MISLEH: Are there any neighbors present 491 that would like to comment? 492 MR. REINFURT: Yeah, there's a bunch of us who 493 would probably like to comment, me, Greg, etcetera. 494 Hi, guys. Look, I don't want to be the turd 495 in the punchbowl here but we were not in favor of this. 496 The letter strongly states that. 497 Now, originally it did go from, we talked 498 about the -- from 40 to 19, so we're like, okay. Wait a 499 minute, I don't need a house in the middle of my back 500 yard, etcetera, and I think Greg feels the same way as 501 well. 502 And then we did meet. Anna said hi at the 503 front door, gave us a packet and that was it. We didn't 504 discuss anything. We just took the packet and saw and 505 realized there was a change but that's all we talked 506 about so. There was concern, everything from -- you saw 507 our concerns in the letters there so. That's what I've 508 got here. 509 Greg, anybody? 510 MR. CRONIN: This is Greg. I have not seen 511 the packet. This is the first time seeing it. I also 512 see a detached garage somewhere there in the easement. 513 I haven't had a chance to look at any of this material. 514 So the only thing I have to go by is what I'm seeing at 515 the moment and so I would certainly request time to 516 review any new documents and anything like that proposed 517 garage that might be in the easement. 518 As it stands now I'm not in favor of the 519 proposal but once again, I would need time to see it. 520 MR. MISLEH: Gentlemen, for clarification and 521 for the record can you please state your individual 522 addresses and where you are in relation to the applicant 523 property. 524 MR. CRONIN: Yes, my name is Greg Cronin. I 525 am at 607 Poplar Drive and I'm directly behind this 526 property. 527 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 528 MR. REINFURT: Ed Reinfurt, 605. I'm the 529 other piece of that directly behind. 530 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 531 MS. REID: I'm Jean Reid. I am 606 Laura 532 Drive. I'm the house immediately to the right of this 533 property. 534 And one thing I would like to say, I don't 535 know if Board members ever go and look at properties but 536 that is a very small piece of land. It looks different 537 in a plat than it does in person. It's not a very large 538 piece of land. 539 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 540 Akida, it looks like there's somebody in the 541 lobby. 542 MS. ROUZI: Just let them in. 543 MS. MISLEH: So we heard from three neighbors. 544 Is there anyone else that would like to speak this 545 evening? 546 (No response.) 547 MR. MISLEH: Hearing none, I'd like to open it 548 up for the Board to ask any remaining questions. 549 MR. KIEN: Mr. Boyle, the proposed attached 550 garage, does that fall within a variance or does that 551 fall within our normal guidelines for being able to 552 build that structure where it's currently located on 553 this plan? 554 MR. BOYLE: That's located where they could 555 build it by right. The setbacks for accessory 556 structures like sheds and garages are 10 feet from the 557 house, three feet off of a property line. 558 MR. KIEN: So then under this proposed 559 structure, the only variance that we would be looking at 560 currently is the backyard setback variance from 40 feet 561 down to 29, is that correct? 562 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 563 MR. KIEN: Thank you. 564 MS. WARD: I just have a couple of questions 565 for the applicant. 566 When you purchased this property, were you 567 aware of the irregular shape and the setbacks for the 568 house? If you can just speak a little bit to the 569 initial thought for the property when you purchased it 570 please. 571 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: Well, when we bought it 572 we had really not really considered the setbacks or 573 anything like that because at that time we didn't really 574 think we were going to build on it. We just thought it 575 was a home that we could buy in the City of Falls 576 Church. 577 So, yes, we knew it was an odd shape but 578 really we didn't -- 579 MS. WARD: It's a great location. 580 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: Yeah, sort of a 581 cul-de-sac and very nice location in the middle of 582 everything so we just really considered those things and 583 Laura Drive is a pretty street too. 584 So yes, I didn't think of the setbacks and 585 neither Anna at that time. 586 MR. EPPLER: When did you purchase the 587 property? 588 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: Four years ago. I'm not 589 sure. 590 MR. MISLEH: 2016, Mr. Eppler, is what I saw 591 referenced in the package. 592 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: We tried to answer some 593 of the neighbors' concerns. The main things that we 594 think that -- we understand the neighbors' concerns, 595 first of all. And wanted to really work with -- we 596 certainly want everyone in the neighborhood to be happy. 597 We don't want to make people unhappy although I'm sure 598 having construction going on next door to you is not 599 going to be fun for a while. So we thought if we 600 flipped the design we'd be able to ask for much less. 601 We also are not building a huge house as might 602 have been indicated in one of the letters. I think 603 "monumental construction", or something like that, I 604 don't remember it off the top of my head. But literally 605 it is smaller. And I did construct a letter, we put 606 together a list of some of the recent newer homes built 607 in the City and this house is actually smaller in living 608 space than many of the homes, including five that are on 609 Laura itself. 610 So it's not a huge house, first of all, and we 611 just think it would be an improvement even to the 612 street. Because that house is literally a tiny little 613 ranch, three bedroom, one bath, in need of updating, not 614 something that a family can really live in comfortably. 615 So we just felt like this was something due to 616 the extreme odd shape of the lot that we would have to 617 get. We tried to fit it some other way and then we 618 thought, well, we should ask if it's possible to just 619 extend just a little bit into the rear setback. 620 And the lot coverage is actually very much, 621 probably 50 percent of what we would be allowed, based 622 on the 25 percent, we would be able to cover 28, 30 623 square feet. But we're literally covering under 1500. 624 MR. MISLEH: I think one of the criteria that 625 we're supposed to evaluate these applications and judge 626 these applications on is the hardship that it presents 627 to the applicant. 628 In this particular case, this home has been a 629 rental now since you purchased it, is that right? 630 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: After the first year, 631 yeah. 632 MR. MISLEH: So the hardship that these 633 setbacks present, I'm personally having a hard time 634 understanding and being able to read between the lines. 635 So if you could help us understand as a Board that 636 hardship and why this variance will help you resolve 637 that. 638 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: So I guess we wanted to 639 improve the property which would mean building a new 640 home on the property and the shape of the property 641 prevents us from putting any average size home on it, 642 unless we get some relief with a variance. We could go 643 back to putting the similar size house that was already 644 there and that's 950 square feet on one level really. 645 So it just seems if we wanted to build a new 646 home for a family, that just doesn't seem to work as far 647 as designing -- due to the constraints of the lot being 648 that odd shape. 649 I mean the neighbors, all the other neighbors, 650 for example, or most neighbors except the ones who have 651 been on cul-de-sac, have rectangular lots that are 652 easier to put a normal, standard, not even size, just 653 the normal shape of a house on it. 654 And actually we found that a neighbor two 655 doors down on Laura, 612 Laura, I believe I submitted 656 that, we put that in the package, they had received a 657 variance on the rear setback and they have a rectangular 658 lot actually. 659 So I didn't think we were out of line in 660 asking for this because it is a hardship trying to build 661 a house on a strange triangular lot with these strict 662 setbacks which we definitely want to abide by, except 663 we're not going to -- like you could see, I think it's 664 about 155 square feet that would actually encroach into 665 the setback. 666 MS. WARD: From my perspective one of the 667 things that I'm struggling with is you purchased this 668 property that I assume was at a bit of a reduced rate 669 compared to a rectangular lot because it would make a 670 teardown or a reconstruction more difficult. So I'm 671 having a hard time seeing the hardship as well. 672 Have you guys considered building up on the 673 existing structure? 674 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: Yeah, we looked at that 675 too. But like I said, building up on the structure, it 676 has a crawl space under it so you wouldn't have a 677 basement, for example, and you put -- we'd be literally 678 having to, if we built up on top of it, we would be 679 under 2000 square feet for the complete house. 680 I'm sure you realize today that's not really 681 an average size home for a family. 682 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: And I don't think in 2016 683 it was at a reduced price. 684 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: And actually, yes, we 685 don't think it was a reduced price. We don't have proof 686 of that but I'm sure if we looked at other homes at that 687 year, I don't think we bought it at a reduced price at 688 all. 689 MR. DOLPH: Are you open to comments from the 690 public still? 691 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: I'm sorry, is that 692 question for us? 693 MR. DOLPH: It's a question for the Board. Is 694 the public still able to speak? 695 MR. MISLEH: John, are we still able to take 696 comment at this point? 697 MR. BOYLE: Yes, I don't believe the chair has 698 closed the meeting to comment. Usually closing the 699 meeting is preparatory to making a motion so I think 700 we're still open. 701 MR. MISLEH: Okay. 702 MR. DOLPH: Yes, my name is Peter. I live two 703 doors down, 604. I live in basically the exact same 704 house. We spent probably two years looking at every 705 single house in Falls Church that cost less than a 706 million dollars and we looked at that house in 707 particular. And my recollection is it listed for 630 or 708 something and then was purchased for about 550. 709 So it did go for substantially less I think 710 for exactly the reason that Ms. Ward suggested, that 711 it's an odd lot and it's hard to build on. 712 Second comment is we live in basically the 713 exact same house and somebody popped our top and we live 714 in a sub-2000 square foot home and we're perfectly 715 comfortable with a family of four. 716 Third comment, are you planning on living in 717 this house because I think what's being asked of the 718 City is a variance reduction so that you can build a 719 home to sell at a profit and I think maybe that's -- 720 well, I'm not familiar with this process but maybe 721 that's asking much. 722 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 723 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: I'd like to see what they 724 say. 725 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Is that a question for us, 726 for me? 727 Hello? Yes, I'm building -- 728 MR. MISLEH: That was a comment from one of 729 the neighbors. You're welcome to speak to it if you 730 choose. 731 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Well, I understand that 732 everyone has different expectations and preferences and 733 it's perfectly reasonable to have a family in a smaller 734 house as well. I have done that. But what I'm asking 735 for is to build this size house and I would like that 736 variance so I can extend the kitchen a little bit in the 737 back. 738 And, yes, it's to live in. 739 So that is my request. 740 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. Any other neighbors 741 who would like to speak or questions from the Board? 742 MR. CRONIN: Yeah, this is Greg Cronin again 743 at 607 Poplar Drive. 744 Once again I haven't seen any of this or had 745 any discussion with anybody and I'm certainly directly 746 affected. I think the Board was going on the right path 747 here that people have been living in that house since 748 I've been here since 1993, and it's an odd shaped lot 749 and I think everybody understood that. And I'm not sure 750 that the shape of the lot should dictate how much the 751 house should or should not go into the variance. 752 So I certainly appreciate what the applicants 753 are trying to do and I think that the existing house and 754 the existing footprint have been within the regulations 755 and I would certainly encourage them to stick to that 756 footprint. 757 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. If there are no other 758 neighbors with new comments I'd like to -- 759 MS. REID: I have a comment. This is Jean 760 Reid again on 606 Laura Drive. 761 I do have one question for them. They did in 762 September try to sell this property for $750,000 and I 763 know that that was unsuccessful. What made you change 764 from September to now to convert this to your primary 765 residence? 766 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: Because well, my daughter 767 decided she wanted to -- 768 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: It's my parents' property. 769 So I bought it from my parents. 770 MR. MISLEH: All right. Thank you to all the 771 neighbors who have commented. 772 At this point does the Board have any 773 additional questions? 774 MR. KIEN: I have one. You've referenced 775 another property that is proximate to this property that 776 you believe did receive a rear setback variance. Could 777 you please reference that address again and, John, is 778 there a way for you to provide us with any type of 779 clarity on that particular variance and as to why it was 780 granted. 781 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, bear with me. I can look at 782 the list of variances we have. 783 In my experience, Laura Drive, when it comes 784 out of the cul-de-sac runs back to the access street 785 there. They're kind of rectangles that are rotated 90 786 degrees and this Board has seen some setback variances, 787 some rear setback variances. There was a front setback 788 variance because there was a tree that needed to be 789 preserved. 790 But if you'll bear with me, I'll look at the 791 applications we've had. 792 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: It's in the package. We 793 actually attached a copy of the variance to the last 794 page of the package that was submitted. 795 Is that it? 796 MS. REID: That's from 1997. 797 MR. MISLEH: Akida, I'd like to ask the 798 members of the public to mute themselves and not comment 799 at this point. 800 So, John, please go ahead. 801 MR. BOYLE: I'm looking at several screens 802 here so pardon me, but I did a sort on our spread sheet 803 and there was 616 Laura Drive, received a variance for 804 front and side setback; 621 Laura Drive, a rear setback; 805 623 Laura Drive for rear setback; 602 Laura Drive, for a 806 front yard setback; 619 Laura Drive for a rear yard 807 setback; 613 Laura Drive for accessory structure, 808 probably into the side setback; 613 for a front yard 809 setback; 623 Laura Drive for a front yard setback; 617 810 Laura Drive for a front yard setback; 620 for a rear 811 setback was denied; 618, all the way back in 1998, rear 812 yard setback; 612 Laura Drive for a rear yard setback; 813 and then we're back to the start. 814 So what you have here, if you look at the 815 larger subdivision of Laura Drive, the houses that 816 aren't on the cul-de-sac are, if I recall, they're 817 perfectly conforming rectangles that are rotated 90 818 degrees because the developer was running out of square 819 footage in Falls Church. So rather than set them at 820 narrow street frontage with depth, they rotated them. 821 So fast forward to today when we want to 822 rebuild our ranches, the front rear setbacks almost 823 overlap. 824 The cul-de-sacs that you see towards the end 825 where this application is may have sufficient square 826 footage but it's an odd pie-shaped lot. 827 So this Board over the years since going back 828 into the 90s has had considerable activity for rear and 829 front setback variances. I think this is one of the 830 first on the cul-de-sac though, if that helps. 831 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, John. I think it's 832 important to note that this exhibit that was provided by 833 the applicant, it clearly states on here that there's no 834 objection from the rear neighbor. I think it's 835 important also to note that it was a three to five vote. 836 So I'd like the applicant to make sure they take that 837 into consideration before we close the comments this 838 evening. 839 Are there any other comments from the Board 840 members or questions? 841 (No response.) 842 MR. MISLEH: So hearing none, I'd like to just 843 speak for a moment and before I do I'd like to disclose 844 that I do live on Laura Drive and I will recuse myself 845 from the vote this evening. So you're only going to 846 have three Board members who are able to vote and that's 847 going to require a majority -- a unanimous vote, sorry, 848 so you would need all three Board members to support 849 that. 850 I will tell you that given the comments we've 851 heard so far from the neighbors and some of the limited 852 information that we've had to work with, I think the 853 hardship here has not been fully articulated and I think 854 it would be hard, at least for myself, to be able to 855 understand, how to make this request fit inside of the 856 hardship test that's been given. 857 So with that said, I'd like to ask the Board 858 if you'd like to close the comments and if someone would 859 like to make a motion. 860 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I could I'd like to 861 ask the applicants if they'd like to continue, given the 862 two issues: One is the neighbors I think would benefit 863 from hearing more about the new proposal and obviously 864 the missing members of the Board. 865 A continuation in this case I think would 866 probably result in a full new hearing with an invitation 867 back to the neighbors but they should be extended that 868 option to request a continuance I believe. 869 MR. MISLEH: Absolutely. 870 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes, thank you. We'd like 871 to request a continuance for the neighbors to review the 872 information and for another hearing. 873 MR. MISLEH: Thank you for presenting this 874 evening and if there's nothing else on this application, 875 we'll look forward to seeing you at a future meeting. 876 Thank you. 877 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 878 And thanks to the applicants and the neighbors 879 for appearing. 880 Staff may -- I do not believe it's required 881 that we notify the neighbors of the next meeting. So 882 please contact staff and we'll make sure you're aware if 883 we have a quorum for the next meeting, when this case 884 will actually reappear. 885 As I said, I don't think we're required to 886 renotify, but with a new date pending, I'll check with 887 Akida but we probably will renotify the neighbors just 888 to be safe. 889 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, John. 890 891 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 892 a. Approval of the January 14, 2022 Meeting 893 Minutes 894 MR. MISLEH: So if there are no other New 895 Business, we'll move on to Approval of the Minutes from 896 the January 14, 2021 (sic) meeting. 897 (Minutes reviewed.) 898 MR. MISLEH: Once everyone has an opportunity 899 to review, if someone would like to make a motion, 900 please do. 901 MR. EPPLER: I will make a motion to approve 902 the Board minutes, and I'm sorry I don't have the date 903 here in front of me, but the February 17th I believe. 904 MS. WARD: January 14. 905 MR. EPPLER: January 14th. 906 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Mr. Eppler. 907 MR. KIEN: I'll second that motion. 908 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 909 Akida. 910 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 911 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 912 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 913 MR. KIEN: Yes. 914 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 915 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 916 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 917 MS. WARD: Yes. 918 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 919 920 7. OTHER BUSINESS 921 922 8. ADJOURNMENT 923 MR. MISLEH: So if there's no Other Business, 924 I'd like to move to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals 925 meeting from February 17, 2022. 926 MS. ROUZI: Thank you. Have a good night, 927 everyone. 928 929 930 931