Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 3 Thursday, March 17, 2022 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. BARTLETT: My name is Keith Bartlett, and 8 I'm going to, as chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals 9 for the City of Falls Church, call to order the BZA 10 meeting for Thursday, March 17, 2022. 11 Akida, could you do a roll call of the members 12 of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 13 MS. ROUZI: Will do. 14 Before I do that I am required to read this 15 virtual meeting notice. 16 This meeting will be held pursuant to and in 17 compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, 18 Section 2.2-3708.2 and state and local legislation 19 adopted to allow for continued government operation 20 during the COVID-19 declared emergency. All 21 participating members will be present at this meeting 22 through electronic means. All members of the public may 23 view this electronic meeting via the meeting link listed 24 above and the City's website calendar. 25 Thank you. 26 2. ROLL CALL 27 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 28 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 29 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 30 MR. MISLEH: Here. 31 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 32 I believe Mr. Kien will be absent this 33 evening. 34 Mr. Eppler. 35 MR. EPPLER: Here. 36 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 37 MS. WARD: Here. 38 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 39 40 3. PETITIONS 41 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you, Akida. 42 Are there any new Petitions in front of the 43 Board this evening? 44 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 45 46 4. OLD BUSINESS 47 a. Variance application V1630-22 by Priya 48 Krishnan, applicant and owner, for a variance to 49 Sections 48-238(3)a to allow a rear setback of 19 feet 50 instead of 40 feet for the purpose of constructing a new 51 single family dwelling on premises known as 608 Laura 52 Drive, RPC #52-605-005 of the Falls Church Real Property 53 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 54 55 MR. BARTLETT: So we'll move on to Old 56 Business. 57 This is variance application V1630-22 by Priya 58 Krishnan, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 59 48-238(3)a to allow a rear setback of 19 feet instead of 60 40 feet for the purpose of constructing a new single 61 family dwelling on premises known as 608 Laura Drive, 62 RPC #52-605-005 of the Falls Church Real Property 63 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 64 And I'm just going to start talking for a 65 second because I believe that's inaccurate. And so I'm 66 going to clarify based on the information presented in 67 an update, it seems from the applicant, for a variance 68 of 29 feet instead of 40 feet along the rear of the 69 property as submitted in the application included in the 70 Agenda. 71 So I'm just going to also share that my 72 understanding is that there was a -- this variance 73 application was presented at the February 2022 meeting 74 of the Board of Zoning Appeals. There were lots of 75 questions. There were concerns presented by the public. 76 There were some changes to the variance application that 77 was advertised and shared with neighbors prior to the 78 actual meeting and new information was presented during 79 the February '22 BZA meeting. 80 And I'm stating this information because we 81 have an attendance concern for members of the BZA. 82 Currently we have four members present and according to 83 the minutes from February 2022, BZA meeting for this 84 application, Vice Chair John Misleh recused himself for 85 voting purposes from this application due to his living 86 as a neighbor. He felt that it was in his best interest 87 not to have to vote and I'm fine with that. 88 But I would also share with the applicant that 89 right now you have three voting members present for this 90 meeting of the BZA. I was not present as I said, I was 91 not present at the prior meeting but I reviewed the 92 minutes from that meeting. I feel I'm aware of the 93 concerns and the issues that we're considering tonight 94 and the concerns that were presented by members of the 95 public. 96 So I feel like I am sufficiently apprised of 97 the information to be able to vote on and consider this 98 application for a variance. 99 (Microphone feedback.) 100 MR. BARTLETT: And so I feel like I'm 101 sufficiently able to and capably able to consider this 102 without rehashing everything, without having to 103 discredit -- with also considering all the other 104 comments that were presented at the prior meeting. 105 So what I'd like to do at this point is to ask 106 for a quick update from staff and the City as to what is 107 new, what is the status of the application, and what are 108 we considering this evening as a variance. 109 And I would also say that was something 110 presented at the last one but I would like to just 111 clarify what we're considering this evening. 112 MR. MISLEH: Chair Bartlett, you think now 113 would be a good time to swear in anybody that's planning 114 to speak this evening. 115 MR. BARTLETT: I was going to wait for John 116 but we can do that now or then. 117 MR. MISLEH: Let's go ahead and wait for John. 118 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 119 Couple of points to clarify. I think it's 120 appropriate to ask the applicants if they object to 121 anyone speaking tonight that was not present before. I 122 think that's the first thing, first and foremost. 123 If the Chair could ask the applicants do they 124 object if any Board members or members of the public 125 speaking who were not present last time, we should 126 clarify that. 127 MR. BARTLETT: We're going to pause for a 128 second and I'm going to agree with Mr. Misleh. There 129 are a bunch of people on this participant list and I 130 would like to ask, first of all I have a question for 131 John Boyle and Akida: Who owns this property? 132 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I'm sorry. There's a lot 133 of interference and I just was able to get on. I'm Anna 134 Krishnan and I own the property. 135 (Microphone feedback.) 136 MR. BOYLE: All right. Anna, you're the owner 137 of the property. 138 For the record she waved "yes." 139 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Bartlett and John, I think 140 it's important to note that what was circulated prior to 141 this meeting and what's being presented on the screen is 142 an updated description of the application. So I think 143 that the comment of whether or not you'll allow new 144 speakers, I think there's new information that was 145 presented since our last meeting. So I don't know if 146 that has an impact on that comment. 147 MR. BOYLE: I think that's the only thing that 148 matters. If there's sufficient new material, then let's 149 consider this a do-over, a new hearing from square one 150 and then that would bring us up to the chair's point of 151 swearing in folks from this point forward. 152 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I think I fixed the thing. 153 Can you guys hear me better now? 154 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much. 155 So I would like to find out in this chat, who 156 is going to be speaking. If you write your name into 157 the chat that you plan to speak, we can read those names 158 off, if I just see -- 159 MR. BOYLE: I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, does 160 everyone have the ability to show the "raise the hand" 161 icon perhaps? 162 MR. BARTLETT: Scott Reid, Anna Teeter, 163 Brenda. 164 Are there others? 165 And, Anna, you intend to speak for your 166 application and you only? 167 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I believe me and Brenda, 168 yes. I have some slides I would like to share. 169 MR. BARTLETT: So I would just ask that 170 everyone who has raised their hand and intends to speak, 171 and if others do eventually want to add their names to 172 this, they can do this afterwards. 173 (Witnesses sworn.) 174 MR. BARTLETT: So if we're going treat this as 175 a new application based on sufficient new information, 176 I'm just going to ask the City to provide a quick 177 scenario of the situation, staff update on this variance 178 application. 179 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, do we 180 now have four members of the Board, is that correct? 181 That's not our Peter from the Board? 182 MR. BARTLETT: I don't know who that "Peter 183 Guest" is but that "Peter Guest" can try to get their 184 name into the chat and we can announce that name. 185 MR. BOYLE: Peter Guest, are you a citizen? 186 (No response.) 187 MR. BOYLE: I don't think it's Mr. Kien. 188 MR. BARTLETT: Peter Guest says he is not on 189 the Board but a neighbor. 190 MR. BOYLE: Just to cover all our bases then, 191 we're down one member. We have a quorum but we're short 192 one so just as a matter of routine, the applicant should 193 be given the opportunity to continue. 194 The Board at this point because there's been 195 one continuance doesn't have to grant it but they should 196 at least be asked on the record. 197 MR. BARTLETT: Do we do that now? We usually 198 do that later, right? 199 Mr. Boyle? 200 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, your prerogative. 201 MR. BARTLETT: So, Anna, this is not really a 202 request actually, John, because they've already been 203 given a continuance. You can ask for voting members, 204 you have to have a -- receive a unanimous vote for 205 approval of your variance application. 206 You can request a continuance and as Mr. Boyle 207 already stated, we don't have to approve that. 208 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I guess we'll continue. 209 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you. 210 MR. BOYLE: Continue meaning we'll hear the 211 case tonight? 212 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. 213 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, you had asked for a 214 staff summary. I think enough of this application has 215 evolved and notices to abutting neighbors that staff, 216 then what was presented at the last meeting, that staff 217 is going to get out of the way and defer to applicant. 218 You should have a very complete application 219 package that lists past variances for other properties 220 on this street and some additional contact with 221 neighbors and leave it to the applicants to describe how 222 they further explained their intentions to the 223 neighbors. 224 That was a concern at the last meeting. A 225 number of neighbors had expressed that they didn't feel 226 that they understood completely what was planned, what 227 was going to be done and so the Board directed the 228 applicants to reach out and share that information. 229 We believe that's been done but we'll leave it 230 up to the neighbors present tonight and the applicants 231 to confirm that. 232 So the Board should have something of a 233 revision and additional contact with the neighbors to 234 report on tonight. 235 I think it's important that we consider this a 236 fresh start and I would encourage the applicants to 237 remake their case from the beginning stating how they 238 qualify for a variance under the City Code and then if 239 the Board could simply follow our routine procedure, not 240 leaving any of the steps out, then we'll guarantee a 241 fair and complete hearing. 242 With that, I will defer to the applicant's 243 presentation. 244 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Thank you. 245 I would just like to share my screen. I'm 246 familiar with how to do it on Zoom. I don't see a 247 "share screen" button here. 248 Do I need to be allowed to share it? 249 MS. ROUZI: At the very top do you see a 250 little screen with an arrow up next to the giant "leave" 251 or "end call" button. 252 MR. BARTLETT: And I see it right next to the 253 "Mute button" and the microphone. There's a box with an 254 arrow in it. Click that and then it says "open your 255 share train" and it provides the windows that are open 256 for you and then you click on the particular window you 257 want to share. 258 (Conferring on technical issues.) 259 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: So I'm requesting a rear 260 variance on my house at 608 Laura Drive and for the City 261 Code to be granted a variance, I found that we have to 262 document a hardship, which is either, one, the 263 exceptional size or shape of the property at the time of 264 the effective date of the ordinance, or two, the 265 exceptional topographic conditions or other exceptional 266 situation of such property. 267 And my property the hardship is for number 268 one, the size and shape of the property. 269 So it's a triangular shape. It extremely 270 reduces the building envelope which creates a 48 percent 271 reduction in the allowable building envelope so I'm 272 requesting a rear setback of 29 feet instead of 40 feet. 273 Here is a plat of the house. So as you can 274 see the green lines are the setbacks and the house, this 275 is the proposed house I would like to build. And so 276 those little three triangles would be sticking out 277 beyond the setback and so that's why I'm asking for the 278 29 foot variance but I'm not building up to it 279 completely, it will just be that area that you see 280 there. 281 And of note, the front and the sides, the back 282 will be adhered to. 283 So normally there's 25 percent coverage 284 allowed and I would be able to put a house with a 285 footprint of 2831 square feet on this lot. I'm 286 requesting to build this house with a footprint of 1485 287 square feet so it's less than the 25 percent coverage 288 allowed for the Code. But because of this triangular 289 shape of the lot and with the setbacks, I cannot build 290 the proposed house without the requested variance in the 291 rear. 292 To work with the lot constraints, I'm 293 positioning the house at an angle and that will conform 294 to the front and side setbacks as you saw on the 295 previous picture. So requesting the variance on the 296 rear and only about 150 square feet of the house would 297 be extended into this setback. 298 The two neighboring properties on the back, we 299 tried to minimize the impact on them. They have deeper 300 lots so I was hoping it would just be a minimal impact. 301 There's also a deck in the current house that 302 extends into this setback. So I'm really not building 303 beyond that. 304 MR. BARTLETT: Can you say that again? 305 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. About the deck in 306 the back, they are deeper lots, rectangular deeper lots, 307 and so I don't believe my request would impact them a 308 lot, with building where the deck currently is. 309 I'm just trying to minimize the impact of 310 building there. I'm not building to that complete 29 311 feet. This is what I was just explaining there, it's 312 just going to be where the current deck is, is where I 313 wanted to build. 314 There's been a precedence of variances granted 315 on Laura Drive and none of these houses had this 316 hardship of the triangular lot that I have. 317 I'm proposing a really cute, charming 318 Craftsman-style house with a builder who's very familiar 319 with building in Falls Church City. The total living 320 space is 2970 square feet. It's smaller than most of 321 the recent new built homes. 322 And this is just showing that the 12 323 properties built in the last 10 years, they were larger 324 than what I want to build. I believe my house is going 325 to look beautiful in the neighborhood, have curb appeal 326 and add to the charm and increase the value of everyone 327 else's house as well. 328 That's all I have. Are there any questions? 329 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you for your presentation 330 for your request for a variance. 331 I will open it up to members of the Board to 332 ask questions and some clarification on some items. 333 I have some questions and I'll start. 334 I don't know what's currently on this property 335 so I don't know what the existing home or footprint 336 looks like. Do you have any information on what's there 337 currently? 338 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. It's a small ranch. 339 It's a three bedroom, one bath. There's no basement. 340 And it's really in need of repair. So that's why I 341 would like to build a new house. 342 MR. MISLEH: Ms. Krishnan, it's important for 343 everyone, including Mr. Bartlett, to know that the house 344 is a rental and it's been rented since purchase, is that 345 correct? 346 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Well, yeah, it was 347 parents' house so I bought it from them. 348 MR. MISLEH: Did they live there? 349 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: My parents? No, it was a 350 rental for them. Right now I have a friend staying 351 there but it's not a rental anymore. 352 MR. MISLEH: Got it. Do you intend to occupy 353 this new home that you're proposing? 354 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. 355 I also wanted to add onto my slides, since the 356 last meeting I went around and tried to drop off and 357 meet all the neighbors and give them this information. 358 I mailed like 30 packets with the letters and the plats 359 with more information to 30 neighbors and I have 360 received four letters of support. I was just not able 361 to talk to a whole lot of people in person when I was 362 coming around and ringing doorbells. 363 MR. BARTLETT: So I'm going back to asking 364 sort of the same questions that I don't have information 365 on and I can't make decisions or inferences or 366 conclusions about how this new structure will compare to 367 what is currently. 368 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I wish I had a picture of 369 the current house. 370 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Boyle, do you -- 371 MR. EPPLER: There's a picture in the package 372 of the current building envelope. I can put that up if 373 I can share a screen. 374 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: It's in the original 375 application, that's right. 376 MR. BARTLETT: Is that page 3, Mr. Eppler? 377 MR. EPPLER: Yes, exactly. 378 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: No, this is the proposed 379 house. 380 MR. EPPLER: No, page 3 has the current 381 building envelope on it which I think is what he was 382 asking to see. 383 MR. BARTLETT: I'm going to try to do some 384 quick math here so hold on a second. 385 So it says here it's about 38.5 by 26 feet 386 when this house was built it was somehow perfectly to 387 Code or Code-less. I'm not sure when this house was 388 built. 389 My intent of the question was to try to figure 390 out based on the setbacks of your current home, could 391 you build your current home to Code? So when I look at 392 this plot, I see a structure that is not built to Code, 393 not that that's a problem. 394 That front left corner of your current home is 395 in the front yard setback; is that correct, Akida and 396 John, is that what I'm seeing here? 397 MR. BOYLE: Yes, that's correct. The real 398 estate data base says the existing house built in 1950. 399 It's possible that the subdivision went in with the plan 400 to put storm water pipes in the back and they probably 401 did the subdivision with an eye towards keeping the 402 houses away from the easements at the rear. 403 The 40s and 50s are a fascinating period of 404 zoning and setbacks if anyone has the time to read about 405 it. We deal with it to this day. 406 MR. BARTLETT: John, I have another question 407 for you from a historic and zoning perspective. 408 This is a very unique lot: A split lot on the 409 inside of a curve that's split diagonally down the 410 middle. Is this not an inside corner lot that's split 411 that is not technically normal front yard/front yard/ 412 side yard/side yard, R-1A lot? 413 MR. BOYLE: I'd say it's approaching it but it 414 doesn't meet the angle definition at the front. It 415 escapes me but there's a definition of what constitutes 416 a corner. I think it's 140 degrees at the front. 417 What I see here is a subdivided lot that meets 418 the minimum area. The Planning Commission at the time 419 would have been looking at 11,250 for its lot size and 420 it obtains it. And a burden would have been placed on 421 the building envelope where they would have been forced 422 to originally to push the front setback to the rear 423 until it met the minimum lot width which is 75 feet. 424 All of which I consider constraints on this lot and 425 argue towards the variance but that's for the Board to 426 consider. 427 Today this subdivision probably would not have 428 been approved because of the anticipated hardships. 429 If the lines had been slightly different, like 430 at the back corner, if that had been a true triangle 431 back there and not that little leg, the short, brief leg 432 where there's an IPS note at the back right, if those 433 two points had been joined, it's been staff's practice 434 for many, many years to draw an arc from that single 435 point of 40 feet and then everything else is considered 436 a side yard setback. This lot I think is further 437 encumbered by the presence of that pretty much useless 438 travel of a few feet at the back there that requires 439 staff to define all of the other property lines as 440 follows: The front is simply the line that separates 441 the property from the right of way. The rear is the 442 line that is most distant and opposite from the front. 443 That's where we're getting this front determination. 444 And then it simply says, All other lines are sides. 445 So staff in coming up with what the 446 recommended setbacks were, the required setbacks, not 447 recommended, we really struggled with -- this is 448 probably the most extreme example of what you could get 449 away with under that definition. What's the most 450 distant and opposite line from the line that separates 451 it from the right of way. 452 Well, there you have the very long line across 453 the back and then everything else becomes a side. In 454 this particular case it's an extreme example of maybe 455 unintended consequences works in most cases but in this 456 case it's resulting in this unusually constrained 457 building envelope. 458 Something else that staff considers, is they 459 have 11,495 square feet. That is more than enough for 460 an R-1A lot. The Code limits them to 25 percent lot 461 coverage. I don't think they can even meet that, given 462 the setbacks. 463 So that's highly unusual that a lot would be 464 configured in such a way where you can't even satisfy -- 465 or you can't even enjoy 25 percent of your lot. I can't 466 think of another example. Maybe there are. 467 Usually you can get your 25 percent in one 468 way, shape, or form, and the Board has seen that in many 469 examples. This is the flip side of the coin where 470 setbacks are going to so severely constrain you, that 471 you can't even get your basic 25 percent lot coverage. 472 So perhaps a few more points that the Chair 473 intended to discuss but that's how we arrived at -- I 474 think I did this building envelope evaluation. It looks 475 like what we do in our CAD Program. It's not survey 476 accurate but it's very accurate. It does draw out how 477 constrained this particular lot is. 478 So that brings us to where we're at and how we 479 arrived I think at this variance application. 480 MR. BARTLETT: Anna, could you share just a 481 couple more details with me. You're stating that the 482 plan is to build a home with 2970 square feet. Does 483 that include a basement? 484 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I want to have a basement. 485 Brenda, are you on? Do you want to jump in 486 with the building design? 487 MR. BARTLETT: The 2970, is that first and 488 second floor or does that include the planned space in 489 the basement? 490 MS. BIDINGER: That is not finished area. 491 I represent NDI, the builder, just for 492 everybody's intent and purposes. It will be a two story 493 building. You know, finished on two levels. They 494 haven't determined whether they're going to finish the 495 basement or not but it would be unfinished at this 496 point. 497 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 498 I just wanted to point out that there are 499 homes being built in the City of Falls Church, many 500 homes that don't have 2970 square feet above ground. 501 I'm not sure where this number of 3350 came from, but 502 there have been a whole lot more than 12 houses built in 503 the City of Falls Church in the last 10 years. 504 My concern is trying to sort of force this 505 design into this sort of twisted building envelope. And 506 I understand that you have almost -- you're limited to 507 38.5 feet wide and 26 feet deep at its widest widths and 508 depths for building a new home, because that's where 509 your home is right now. 510 So trying to force this design with those 511 three corners into it at that particular angle is tough. 512 And I know it's better to build a home that, you know, 513 the specs are the way they are and instead of designing 514 and coming up with, I think you referenced some sort of 515 a new, modern home. 516 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: True, but we're not trying 517 to like use up all that space. I'm just asking for a 518 little bit of that, the variance, so that the kitchen 519 can be finished, extend just that little space. I mean 520 it is much less than that. It's less than the 25 521 percent and it's not like we're trying to use up -- 522 MR. BARTLETT: Most homes are. I'm just 523 saying, most homes are substantially less than 25 524 percent of their buildable envelope. Some do max out 525 because they have smaller lots and they want to build 526 big homes. You can build to 25 percent but just because 527 you can, doesn't mean you should. 528 I have one other question about your 529 orientation for this property. Have you considered 530 orienting it as your current home is instead of at an 531 angle and what you could build with those dimensions and 532 those angles? 533 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Then we would need a lot 534 more, I think it would jut into the side and front, so 535 that would be a higher request, we believe, than this. 536 So I thought this was like the least impact. 537 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. I'm going to defer to 538 other members of the Board at this time. 539 MR. MISLEH: John Boyle, I have a question. 540 The applicant referenced the deck, the existing deck 541 that's shown on the plat. Do we know, was that deck 542 permitted at the time it was installed? 543 MR. BOYLE: We don't have any past permits for 544 this but it would not have been unusual to have approved 545 that. The practice has been if it's at the main level 546 of the house, the first floor or lower, decks without 547 roofs are treated as patios, pavers. They're not 548 structures that require an extensive review. Not 549 unusual. 550 MR. MISLEH: There was an inference that the 551 requested setback is going to become equivalent to the 552 deck. I just want to make sure that we understood that 553 there's a clear delineation between the two. 554 I have another question. Actually, I'll pause 555 and allow the other Board members to speak. 556 Thank you. 557 MR. EPPLER: Ms. Krishnan, I have a question 558 for you also about the deck. I'm looking on the screen, 559 it shows the frame deck off the back of the house but it 560 doesn't give dimensions. How far or how close is it to 561 the property line, if you know? 562 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: You mean how much does 563 that extend? 564 MR. EPPLER: In other words, it shows 40 feet 565 from the existing house to the property line. What is 566 the distance from the frame deck to the property line, 567 on the existing structure. 568 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I'm not sure. 569 Brenda, did we ever measure that? 570 MS. BIDINGER: No. I think when we sited it, 571 it was about a 10 foot deck. It was like a 10 by 10. 572 MR. BOYLE: In staff's experience if it's not 573 part of the discussion, it's not unusual for items like 574 decks and sheds to not have their dimensions shown. 575 MR. EPPLER: All right. Thank you. 576 MR. MISLEH: Ms. Krishnan, you pointed out 577 that you had some new letters of approval. Can you 578 please clarify which lots and where they are in 579 reference to your specific property? 580 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Sure. The first one was 581 610 Laura Drive, so the neighbor. 618, 620, and 625. 582 MR. MISLEH: How many properties abut this 583 property? 584 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: One. 585 MR. MISLEH: No, I'm saying how many other 586 neighbors do you have? 587 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: One on each side of those 588 two, I'm not sure if technically -- I think there's two 589 in the back. Let me look. 590 Two in the back and then one in that tiny 591 point. So, two on Poplar and then one might be like 592 just on the edge, so maybe three on Poplar. 593 MR. MISLEH: And you have just one of those 5 594 or 6 that are in support. 595 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Correct, yes. 596 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 597 MR. BARTLETT: Do you plan to build a 598 driveway? 599 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. 600 MS. BIDINGER: If it is allowed. Just so they 601 can park their cars. 602 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Bartlett, I think it's 603 important, there was a previous submission. On that 604 initial submission, it showed a garage, detached garage 605 along with a driveway that ran to the rear of the 606 property. Is that not -- 607 MS. BIDINGER: I think what happened -- this 608 is the builder speaking here, I think we pulled it out 609 due to the fact that I think their intent is to try to 610 get the house approved with what they're focused on. 611 MR. MISLEH: I think, Mr. Bartlett, the 612 driveway and the garage don't require a variance so 613 they're not being featured on this request, is what I'm 614 hearing. 615 MR. BARTLETT: Right. And to be candid I feel 616 like it would have been appropriate to show how the 617 entire build would impact this property, and how 618 by-right build and by-variance request build impacts 619 everything. 620 MR. MISLEH: That was included in the initial 621 submission. 622 Are we able to bring that up or is that not 623 part -- this is not a new package. It's just that this 624 is a supplement. So should we bring up those initial 625 photographs so you can see it so you have the full 626 context of the -- 627 MR. BARTLETT: I recall what they submitted 628 last time but I didn't remember where the driveway was. 629 MS. ROUZI: I can pull that up. I'm pulling 630 it up right now. 631 Which slide would be the one that shows the 632 driveway? Maybe it's a question for the builder's rep, 633 Brenda or -- 634 MS. BIDINGER: You know what? Our engineer 635 showed the proposed garage. He neglected to add the 636 driveway. So the driveway would come from the street. 637 It would have been this. 638 MR. BARTLETT: At this time I don't have any 639 further questions at this time but I would like to open 640 the meeting up if there's any comments from the public. 641 And if you plan to speak, please raise your hand and I 642 will ask you to unmute yourself and you can then share 643 your comments. 644 So if Brenda and Anna can lower your hands, 645 that would be wonderful. 646 And then, Peter Guest, I know that's not your 647 name, please announce your name, your address, and you 648 are free to speak. 649 MR. DOLPH: Yeah, Peter Dolph, 604 Laura 650 Drive, so I'm two doors down. 651 I'm opposed to this. I spoke out last time. 652 The two neighbors directly behind who would be most 653 impacted spoke out against this last time as well. 654 MR. BARTLETT: I can't hear you. Am I the 655 only one who can't hear him? 656 BOARD MEMBERS: I can hear him. 657 MR. DOLPH: Well, I'll continue. Four 658 neighbors are impacted by this strongly, the one on 610 659 who said okay, the two behind spoke up last time saying 660 they were opposed, the neighbor at 606 said no as well, 661 and as 604 I'm saying no. 662 But I would like to articulate why. The house 663 was purchased at a substantial discount. It went tax 664 assessed value, which is pretty much unheard of in Falls 665 Church, precisely because it's on a funny shaped lot. 666 It hasn't been maintained. So I think it was bought 667 with the knowledge that this would be hard to do. 668 That's my speculation. I can't prove that. So I don't 669 think it's reasonable to ask the City to grant a 670 variance to build a larger house there than the lot will 671 afford. 1000 square foot is what the house is right 672 now. That's what I live in. That's worked out just 673 fine for me. 674 The family who's put forth this application is 675 a real estate investment family. I think it's 676 reasonable to expect that this might well end up being 677 sold, so compared to the other variances that were 678 listed, all of which were for properties that people 679 lived in for decades, they were actual residents of 680 their homes, they were asking for variances on to expand 681 them marginally, I think it's just a completely 682 different application. 683 So those are my comments. Thank you. 684 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 685 Scott Reid? 686 MS. REID: It is Scott Reid but this is Jean 687 Reid speaking. Sorry about that. 688 MR. BARTLETT: That's okay. 689 MS. REID: I am the neighbor at 606 Laura 690 Drive and I am the property that's the longest length of 691 the property. And what I'd really like to say is what 692 Peter just said, I am 100 percent agreeing with. He 693 made all the comments that I had written down that I 694 wanted to say. 695 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Are there any other 696 comments? 697 Peter, are you raising your hand again? 698 MR. DOLPH: Yeah, sorry. One quick addendum. 699 This is almost neither here nor there, but a couple of 700 months ago, a real estate agent, I didn't write down her 701 name, I think it was Julie Ann, knocked on my front 702 door, saying, Hey, I know this house was listed for sale 703 and it's not anymore. Do you know what the deal is. 704 I've got an older couple who would like to buy it. 705 So there are people who are interested in the 706 property as is. 707 MR. BARTLETT: Tim Miller, I didn't swear you 708 in earlier but if you'd unmute yourself. 709 (Witness sworn.) 710 MR. MILLER: I'm Tim Miller, 603 Poplar Drive. 711 I just wanted to express the same as the previous two. 712 In addition to it, our concern is the runoff 713 of the lot being the highest peaking point and the 714 impact that it could have across the different lots. 715 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Miller, what was your address 716 again? 717 MR. MILLER: 603 Poplar Drive. So we are the 718 third lot there on the corner. 719 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 720 MR. BARTLETT: I don't see anybody else 721 raising their hand. 722 Does any member of the Board have any other 723 questions for the applicant or responses to concerns 724 from the public? 725 MR. EPPLER: This is Dale. I just have one 726 followup question from that, for Ms. Krishnan, if she's 727 taken any steps or if any of her design team wants to 728 address the concern about run-off. 729 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yeah, Brenda can talk more 730 about it because we definitely discussed with them ways 731 to control the water. 732 MS. BIDINGER: Yeah, we just recently had a 733 home off of Lincoln, there's different modes of water 734 runoff that we can do to the property. Planter boxes, 735 which we did at -- I'd have to look at the address real 736 quick, but it was off of Lincoln that we just settled. 737 There's a couple of them that we have just settled. One 738 was a water infiltration trench. 739 So there are different facets and different 740 modes of handling storm water management. 741 We've been in business since 1988 and we 742 comply with everything that the County, the City of 743 Falls Church, everybody looks at this and puts in their 744 two cents and we will do whatever it needs to abide and 745 comply and take care of whatever you may need. 746 MR. EPPLER: If I could just follow up with 747 that. So have you done any studies or looked at what 748 the existing runoff is or how to measure if something 749 additional is needed because of this proposed new 750 construction? 751 MS. BIDINGER: We have not gotten to that 752 point yet. The biggest point as a builder, we recommend 753 our clients to get, I mean this is, I call it the 754 biggest issue at hand, is whether we can get a variance. 755 If we can't get a variance, then we have to either 756 change the building, a, or the project -- the clients 757 have to determine if they just want the project to die. 758 So there are a lot of things that we have to 759 get to before we have to look at that. Because at that 760 point you're getting an engineer involved on something 761 that may not even happen, so why invest in that? 762 MR. EPPLER: Thank you. 763 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I believe the initial 764 request that had gone out was when the two houses on 765 Poplar had opposed, it was requesting 19 and we changed 766 it to 29 so I did not get any more feedback from them 767 once we went with the updated letters. 768 I just wanted to put that out there because I 769 know that Peter said that everybody is still opposed but 770 I'm not -- I mean they were when they thought it was 19 771 so unless they are on this call and can speak, I don't 772 believe that they are opposed. 773 In addition, somebody brought this up last 774 time that, Oh, they must have boughten (sic) it at a 775 great deal. When you go through and you look at the 776 houses -- first of all it's irrelevant. Secondly when 777 you go through and look at what they bought it for a few 778 years ago, to me it didn't stand out as anything like a 779 great deal. And I lived for 10 years on Greenwich 780 Street. I'm not in real estate, whatever you said. My 781 parents are. I've been in the City for ten years. So, 782 yeah, some misinformation. 783 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you for clarifying that. 784 MR. MISLEH: I think it's important, Ms. 785 Krishnan, to point out that it was clarified at the last 786 meeting that you were amending your request and that was 787 stated prior to those neighbors speaking. And I think 788 the fact that they're not on -- I don't believe the City 789 readvertised this meeting. 790 John, can you please comment to that. 791 MR. BOYLE: Akida, was this sent for 792 readvertisement? I don't think we're required to. 793 MS. ROUZI: No, we did not because the changes 794 were lesser of a request compared to what was advertised 795 so we did not readvertise. 796 MR. BOYLE: Right. So anyone that was present 797 at the earlier hearing heard a greater request than what 798 is being present tonight and an opportunity to appear 799 tonight because they heard the case continued. 800 MR. MISLEH: Correct, but I think when we read 801 the minutes and approve the minutes tonight it will 802 reflect that that amended variance was what was 803 presented prior to those neighbors speaking. 804 MS. ROUZI: You're on mute. I think you're 805 talking but you're on mute. 806 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: I'm really bad at this 807 stuff. 808 MR. BARTLETT: Who is this? 809 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: This is Priya. I'm the 810 original -- Anna's mom. 811 MR. BARTLETT: I need to swear you in. 812 (Witness sworn.) 813 MR. PRIYA KRISHNAN: What I was trying to say 814 was in the past the neighbors that did object last time 815 did say that they didn't have time to review this 816 proposal. And so they've had time to review it and 817 we've also sent them all the updates and attempted to 818 talk to them, give them the phone number and email and 819 say that we want to explain everything if they had any 820 questions. We haven't heard anything from them. 821 They did not have a chance to see the whole 822 picture last time, at least that's what they said, they 823 didn't have time to review it. 824 And I think I should add since someone 825 commented about me being the original owner, I just 826 wanted to say that first of all I don't know where that 827 matters in this conversation about my purchasing the 828 property six years ago or five years ago, however long 829 that was. At that time I honestly had no idea of the 830 setbacks and I thought it was a pretty lot and thought 831 that eventually we would do something to the property. 832 Because it was a very run down property even at that 833 time but liveable. 834 And so we just weren't able to do anything then 835 so the easy thing was to rent it and when we're able to 836 do something about it, we were going to come back and 837 see what we could do with the property, build on it or 838 renovate it or something. 839 And then I did try to sell it because we were 840 like, Okay, you know what, it's just something that we 841 didn't want to take on and then my daughter said, No, I 842 want to buy it from you and I want to build a house and 843 move there. 844 So that's how it all turned out. 845 And, in fact, I think it was Peter who made 846 that comment about having gotten it at some discount 847 rate. I went back because I was so shocked of that 848 because honestly I never thought it was a discount rate 849 at 500 and 50,000 or whatever I paid for it in the year 850 that I did buy it. And I went back and looked at as 851 many property records as I could find in Falls Church 852 City records and actually many properties of the same 853 three bedroom, one bath ranches sold for less, equal or 854 less price in the next three years, between the time I 855 bought it in 2018. 856 So I started to think well, I clearly overpaid 857 for the lot. So I don't understand where that's coming 858 from. Whether it's relevant or not is another issue. 859 But I wanted to make that point. 860 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 861 I think from my perspective and I'm not trying 862 to pick sides at all about who is valuing property 863 appropriately or reasonably or anything. But there are 864 properties that people buy that are lower cost than 865 other easily buildable lots and they think that they can 866 build what they want instead of what they're able to. 867 And this lot has concerns and this Board does 868 issue variances when there are true hardships to make it 869 to the point where the property can't be used for its 870 intended purpose. 871 The size of the lot is one factor for us to 872 consider in granting a variance to the building code. 873 What I see in front of me is not sufficient 874 information. I'm concerned that there was a request to 875 take a pre-designed home that you would like and build a 876 home on this lot that demands a variance instead of 877 trying to figure out what is truly best for this 878 property. 879 We have issued variance, we have denied 880 variance requests in the past as well where on awkward 881 and what might be considered difficult to build lots. 882 In some of those circumstances what we've done is we've 883 allowed structures to be extended up that are 884 non-conforming and those are technically a variance but 885 we do not allow extensions of those non-conforming 886 spaces to build new homes. 887 So I'm sort of torn at this point as to 888 whether or not you have demonstrated hardship to build 889 this home on this property. 890 And I'm going to stop talking right there and 891 let other people speak. 892 MR. MISLEH: Chairman Bartlett, before we get 893 too far, it looks like we have a hand up. Are we 894 closing the public comment at this point? 895 MR. BARTLETT: No, John. I didn't see that. 896 It looks like Peter has his hand raised, is that 897 correct, Peter? 898 MR. DOLPH: Yes. I just wanted to respond to 899 two things. 900 I wanted to emphasize, as Mr. Misleh said 901 earlier, that the two neighbors on Poplar who objected 902 to this build were present for the entire duration of 903 the meeting last time so they were fully aware of the 904 exact design that was being proposed. So there hasn't 905 been any updates since then. So they're opposed and 906 they remain opposed. 907 And it's somewhat cumbersome to have to keep 908 coming to these meetings when nothing has changed. 909 Number two, the home was purchased in December 910 of 2016 for $553,000. The 2016 Falls Church tax 911 assessment was $595,000. So it was bought at a discount 912 and if my memory is correct it was listed for about 595 913 or 600 K. So it definitely was purchased for a 914 discount. 915 Thank you. 916 MR. BARTLETT: One other hand. 917 MS. REID: Yeah, it's Jean Reid again, at 604 918 Laura Drive. 919 I feel like I'd like some clarification 920 because I am a property that adjoins this home and I am 921 concerned about the runoff and the power lines that run 922 between our two homes and it concerns me that we have 923 this proposal of this large house but there have been no 924 actual studies done to support this variance. 925 That's it. 926 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I think I can weigh in 927 on that. There are no studies required by Code. 928 There's a burden laid out for the applicant that has to 929 be met. There are Supreme Court records that define 930 what a threshold is for a variance and the Commonwealth 931 of Virginia sets that. 932 Falls Church under its charter respects those. 933 So it's a question of whether this request meets the 934 burden of our understanding of what the Supreme Court 935 and the Commonwealth defines as a satisfying the burden 936 for a variance. 937 And in its authority the Board of Zoning 938 Appeals is considered a quasi-judicial body. It's a 939 court for code items that are adopted under local code. 940 So there is no study that's required. It's a simple 941 application of what the understanding burden is on the 942 applicant. 943 And I think this Board's been very good at 944 applying past decisions and consistency in application 945 of the Code and I think that's where we are tonight. 946 MR. BARTLETT: And I'm just going to throw 947 something out there as well that but for the awkwardness 948 of this lot, they could build a house this size and 949 there would be no concern about storm water other than 950 developing it and instrumenting an appropriate grading 951 plan pursuant to state and local authorities and Code. 952 My concern is that we're trying to force this 953 house into this building lot, building space when there 954 are other potential options. 955 MS. WARD: I know I haven't spoken yet but I'm 956 kind of going to echo what Keith has already brought up. 957 When I think of hardship, this property was 958 purchased in 2016 after our Code has been in place. So 959 in my mind, it was well known that the property, you 960 know, restrictions were in place with the different 961 setbacks. 962 And then we also have only one direct neighbor 963 support that's been provided. So that's concerning to 964 me, that the neighbors still are not in support. And I 965 still think, like he said, that there may be some other 966 options within that shape. The house may not be 967 perfectly square but this was the lot, this was the 968 house that was purchased. And, yes, I am still 969 struggling with those things. 970 MR. BARTLETT: One of the other things I'd 971 like to discuss is the list of the other variances and 972 how we review and consider variances to new builds 973 relative to additions or second floor additions. And 974 when homes that are built, as I alluded to earlier, when 975 they are non-conforming, if you want to do anything to 976 that structure, whether it's up or left or anything to 977 move those basically cornerstones of the non-conforming 978 portions of the home or amend them, you have to get a 979 variance to do anything that would extend up or move it 980 a little bit. And that's where it's like, yeah, this 981 home is in an awkward space. 982 My consideration would be a little bit 983 different to you if you were popping the top and moving  984 it over a little bit, that it would be a little bit 985 non-conforming but you're maintaining the structure 986 that's been in existence, not disturbing the entire 987 property -- not that you're disturbing the property -- 988 but more of the property than necessary. 989 So that's where I pretty much stand at this 990 point. 991 MR. MISLEH: I think we can close the public 992 comment, Mr. Bartlett. 993 MR. BARTLETT: Yeah, if there are no further 994 comments, we can do just that, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank 995 you. 996 And does the applicant have any further 997 information or comments they would like to make before 998 we close consideration for Board consideration? 999 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: No, nothing further. 1000 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you, Anna. I 1001 appreciate it. 1002 At this point I'm going to close comment from 1003 the applicant and the public and open it up for Board 1004 member consideration and discussion. 1005 There are a couple of things I'd like to point 1006 out. I would have liked to have seen a full application 1007 that addresses not just the fact that this home is 1008 trying to be built on an awkward lot. There are three 1009 other elements to the consideration as to what is a 1010 variance. And I would have liked to have seen the 1011 entire proposed build as to what you plan to do to the 1012 property, including if you have seen or have heard 1013 concerns about storm water or other types of 1014 information, what you plan to do to address that. 1015 And I don't see a demonstrated statement that 1016 this is the only thing that you can build on your 1017 property. I don't want to characterize it simply as a 1018 "want" but I don't see that this as the only option to 1019 better enjoy your property. And I'm not trying to stop 1020 you from trying to enjoy your property but I don't think 1021 that this proposed build is the way to do it. 1022 MR. EPPLER: So I've heard lots of and 1023 listened to the discussion back and forth. My problem 1024 is with the October 16, 2008, Falls Church Board of 1025 Zoning Appeals approval which appears to be -- to allow 1026 a structure to be built into the back yard to the 1027 distance of an existing deck structure, which appears to 1028 me to be pretty much what we're looking at here. 1029 So I'm having a hard time distinguishing what 1030 we did back in 2008 from what they're proposing to do 1031 here. 1032 Now that was an addition, it wasn't new 1033 construction but I'd like to have some sense of whether 1034 we have a precedent here that kind of binds us a little 1035 bit or what the precedent is going forward because I 1036 would have a hard time distinguishing what was done 1037 there from what we're proposing here. 1038 MR. BARTLETT: I would just provide some 1039 feedback to that, Mr. Eppler. 1040 We are not bound by any prior decisions. All 1041 of our decisions, while we attempt to be consistent in 1042 our application, are judged and determined on a 1043 case-by-case basis and I don't know also what the 1044 scenario was for this particular addition to their 1045 property and how it relates to a deck. And this 1046 application is also different. It's not trying to go to 1047 the deck, it's trying to deal with it different. 1048 MR. EPPLER: No, I understand. But again, as 1049 stated here is that, The BZA finds that the proposed 1050 addition will not extend further into the rear yard than 1051 the existing deck structure. 1052 Now, admittedly we don't have a number on it, 1053 but if it's 10 feet, we're within one foot or very close 1054 to the same thing. So that's where I was looking at 1055 that, okay, how do we make -- and this again was on 1056 Laura Drive and also citing that the peculiar shape and 1057 shallowness of the lot, etcetera. 1058 So again, I would like to have some thought 1059 given to what is our rule going forward because we are 1060 trying to have some consistency here and I'm struggling 1061 with that, frankly. 1062 MR. MISLEH: I think, Mr. Eppler and Mr. 1063 Bartlett, that the issue at hand and something that the 1064 Board has struggled with is that the precedent that's 1065 set going forward for new homes being built on irregular 1066 lots, if you start granting variances so that the 1067 builders and developers can build what they want rather 1068 than what conforms, it opens up the door going forward. 1069 So I think this Board has consistently tried 1070 to manage that in the best interest of the property 1071 owners and the City so I think it's important that you 1072 consider that as well. 1073 MR. EPPLER: So are we making then a 1074 distinguishing between basically going straight up from 1075 existing structures as opposed to new design which would 1076 have to meet the requirements or would be assessed from 1077 the beginning of an issue as opposed to an existing 1078 building where we've generally speaking have allowed 1079 people to go up? 1080 MR. BARTLETT: I think that's a fair 1081 characterization of how this BZA has resolved various 1082 obligations in the past and I too, am -- to meet -- 1083 MR. EPPLER: You froze up there, sorry. 1084 MR. BARTLETT: -- is without demonstrated 1085 hardship. Whereas building up on an existing property 1086 that's already non-conforming is completely 1087 distinguishable. 1088 I have a question. Mr. Misleh, are you at 1089 this point still considered abstaining in this 1090 application? 1091 MR. MISLEH: Yes, Mr. Bartlett. I will not be 1092 voting this evening. 1093 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you very much. 1094 Are there any further comments from the Board 1095 at this time? 1096 (No response.) 1097 MR. BARTLETT: Hearing none, I'm going to make 1098 a motion to deny variance application V1630-22 by Priya 1099 Krishnan, it's actually not by Priya. 1100 I'm sorry. I'm going to have to start over. 1101 This is how it's advertised. 1102 I'm just going to actually pause and read it 1103 as it's advertised. 1104 I'm going to make a motion to deny the 1105 variance application V1630-22, by Priya Krishnan, 1106 applicant and owner, for a variance to Sections 1107 48-238(3)a to allow a rear setback of 19 feet instead of 1108 40 feet for the purpose of constructing a new single 1109 family dwelling on premises known as 608 Laura Drive, 1110 RPC #52-605-005 of the Falls Church Real Property 1111 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 1112 MS. WARD: I'll second. 1113 MR. BARTLETT: Akida, can we do a roll call 1114 vote on this motion. 1115 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1116 MR. BARTLETT: No. 1117 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1118 MR. MISLEH: I abstain. 1119 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1120 MR. EPPLER: No. 1121 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1122 MS. WARD: No. 1123 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1124 1125 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much for your 1126 time. I appreciate it. 1127 1128 5. NEW BUSINESS 1129 MR. BARTLETT: Moving on to New Business, John 1130 or Akida, is there any New Business not advertised? 1131 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. Not that I'm aware of. 1132 And, Akida, do we have any applications 1133 pending for next month? 1134 MS. ROUZI: No, we do not. 1135 MR. BOYLE: All right. Potential for no 1136 meeting next month. 1137 Offhand, what is the Board's preference for 1138 continuing remote meetings versus in council chambers? 1139 Anyone have any thoughts on that? 1140 MR. MISLEH: John, I was just going to ask 1141 that question, when and if we were going to return to 1142 the in-person meeting. 1143 MR. BARTLETT: I know City Council and School 1144 Board are meeting in person. How are the other Boards 1145 and Commissions doing? 1146 MS. ROUZI: Planning Commission is still 1147 virtual by the way. 1148 MR. BOYLE: I think it's at the discretion of 1149 the Board unless Council says otherwise. There are some 1150 obvious advantages to being in person but there's also 1151 some disadvantages. I think we've all learned how to do 1152 this remotely and I think we've been serving the public 1153 well remotely so the staff has no preference. 1154 The staff serves a number of Boards and will 1155 do whatever this Board prefers unless we hear otherwise 1156 from Council. 1157 So if I'm hearing Akida correctly, we do not 1158 have an agenda for next month. Maybe April or May the 1159 situation will change but for now we do not anticipate 1160 an April meeting and maybe we'll cross that bridge with 1161 more information at that time. 1162 MR. BARTLETT: And then we can be flexible. 1163 Do you know when we need to let you know or let City 1164 Clerk know that we would like to? I'd like to poll the 1165 members at some point before we make that recommendation 1166 to meet. 1167 MR. BOYLE: I think it hinges on the public 1168 notice so the public knows where the meeting is going to 1169 be. And we notify roughly three weeks out, it's like 1170 two and a half based on actually the newspaper 1171 publication date. But roughly two and a half weeks out. 1172 So if staff notified Board we had an agenda, I 1173 think as long as we were in advance of the newspaper 1174 public notice, we could discuss where that meeting was 1175 going to be. 1176 1177 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1178 a. Approval of the February 17, 2022 Meeting 1179 Minutes 1180 MR. BARTLETT: Then we just have to approve 1181 minutes from the February 17, 2022, meeting. If 1182 everyone could take some time to review those. 1183 (Minutes reviewed.) 1184 MR. BARTLETT: I'm going to abstain from 1185 making a motion to approve minutes because I wasn't at 1186 the February 17, 2022, meeting. 1187 MR. MISLEH: I'll make a motion to approve the 1188 meeting minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting 1189 on Thursday, February 17, 2022. 1190 MR. EPPLER: I will second. 1191 RECORDING SECRETARY: Roll call. 1192 Mr. Bartlett. 1193 MR. BARTLETT: I will abstain. 1194 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1195 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1196 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1197 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1198 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1199 MS. WARD: Yes. 1200 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1201 1202 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1203 1204 8. ADJOURNMENT 1205 MR. BARTLETT: And I will close the meeting of 1206 the Board of Zoning Appeals for March 17, 2022. 1207 Thank you very much and have a great evening. 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229