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 126 speaking who were not present last time, we should 127 clarify that. 128 MR. BARTLETT: We're going to pause for a 129 second and I'm going to agree with Mr. Misleh. There 130 are a bunch of people on this participant list and I 131 would like to ask, first of all I have a question for 132 John Boyle and Akida: Who owns this property? 133 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I'm sorry. There's a lot 134 of interference and I just was able to get on. I'm Anna 135 Krishnan and I own the property. 136 (Microphone feedback.) 137 MR. BOYLE: All right. Anna, you're the owner 138 of the property. 139 For the record she waved "yes." 140 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Bartlett and John, I think 141 it's important to note that what was circulated prior to 142 this meeting and what's being presented on the screen is 143 an updated description of the application. So I think 144 that the comment of whether or not you'll allow new 145 speakers, I think there's new information that was 146 presented since our last meeting. So I don't know if 147 that has an impact on that comment. 148 MR. BOYLE: I think that's the only thing that 149 matters. If there's sufficient new material, then let's 150 consider this a do-over, a new hearing from square one 151 and then that would bring us up to the chair's point of 152 swearing in folks from this point forward. 153 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I think I fixed the thing. 154 Can you guys hear me better now? 155 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much. 156 So I would like to find out in this chat, who 157 is going to be speaking. If you write your name into 158 the chat that you plan to speak, we can read those names 159 off, if I just see -- 160 MR. BOYLE: I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, does 161 everyone have the ability to show the "raise the hand" 162 icon perhaps? 163 MR. BARTLETT: Scott Reid, Anna Teeter, 164 Brenda. 165 Are there others? 166 And, Anna, you intend to speak for your 167 application and you only? 168 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I believe me and Brenda, 169 yes. I have some slides I would like to share. 170 MR. BARTLETT: So I would just ask that 171 everyone who has raised their hand and intends to speak, 172 and if others do eventually want to add their names to 173 this, they can do this afterwards. 174 (Witnesses sworn.) 175 MR. BARTLETT: So if we're going treat this as 176 a new application based on sufficient new information, 177 I'm just going to ask the City to provide a quick 178 scenario of the situation, staff update on this variance 179 application. 180 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, do we 181 now have four members of the Board, is that correct? 182 That's not our Peter from the Board? 183 MR. BARTLETT: I don't know who that "Peter 184 Guest" is but that "Peter Guest" can try to get their 185 name into the chat and we can announce that name. 186 MR. BOYLE: Peter Guest, are you a citizen? 187 (No response.) 188 MR. BOYLE: I don't think it's Mr. Kien. 189 MR. BARTLETT: Peter Guest says he is not on 190 the Board but a neighbor. 191 MR. BOYLE: Just to cover all our bases then, 192 we're down one member. We have a quorum but we're short 193 one so just as a matter of routine, the applicant should 194 be given the opportunity to continue. 195 The Board at this point because there's been 196 one continuance doesn't have to grant it but they should 197 at least be asked on the record. 198 MR. BARTLETT: Do we do that now? We usually 199 do that later, right? 200 Mr. Boyle? 201 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, your prerogative. 202 MR. BARTLETT: So, Anna, this is not really a 203 request actually, John, because they've already been 204 given a continuance. You can ask for voting members, 205 you have to have a -- receive a unanimous vote for 206 approval of your variance application. 207 You can request a continuance and as Mr. Boyle 208 already stated, we don't have to approve that. 209 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I guess we'll continue. 210 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you. 211 MR. BOYLE: Continue meaning we'll hear the 212 case tonight? 213 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. 214 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, you had asked for a 215 staff summary. I think enough of this application has 216 evolved and notices to abutting neighbors that staff, 217 then what was presented at the last meeting, that staff 218 is going to get out of the way and defer to applicant. 219 You should have a very complete application 220 package that lists past variances for other properties 221 on this street and some additional contact with 222 neighbors and leave it to the applicants to describe how 223 they further explained their intentions to the 224 neighbors. 225 That was a concern at the last meeting. A 226 number of neighbors had expressed that they didn't feel 227 that they understood completely what was planned, what 228 was going to be done and so the Board directed the 229 applicants to reach out and share that information. 230 We believe that's been done but we'll leave it 231 up to the neighbors present tonight and the applicants 232 to confirm that. 233 So the Board should have something of a 234 revision and additional contact with the neighbors to 235 report on tonight. 236 I think it's important that we consider this a 237 fresh start and I would encourage the applicants to 238 remake their case from the beginning stating how they 239 qualify for a variance under the City Code and then if 240 the Board could simply follow our routine procedure, not 241 leaving any of the steps out, then we'll guarantee a 242 fair and complete hearing. 243 With that, I will defer to the applicant's 244 presentation. 245 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Thank you. 246 I would just like to share my screen. I'm 247 familiar with how to do it on Zoom. I don't see a 248 "share screen" button here. 249 Do I need to be allowed to share it? 250 MS. ROUZI: At the very top do you see a 251 little screen with an arrow up next to the giant "leave" 252 or "end call" button. 253 MR. BARTLETT: And I see it right next to the 254 "Mute button" and the microphone. There's a box with an 255 arrow in it. Click that and then it says "open your 256 share train" and it provides the windows that are open 257 for you and then you click on the particular window you 258 want to share. 259 (Conferring on technical issues.) 260 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: So I'm requesting a rear 261 variance on my house at 608 Laura Drive and for the City 262 Code to be granted a variance, I found that we have to 263 document a hardship, which is either, one, the 264 exceptional size or shape of the property at the time of 265 the effective date of the ordinance, or two, the 266 exceptional topographic conditions or other exceptional 267 situation of such property. 268 And my property the hardship is for number 269 one, the size and shape of the property. 270 So it's a triangular shape. It extremely 271 reduces the building envelope which creates a 48 percent 272 reduction in the allowable building envelope so I'm 273 requesting a rear setback of 29 feet instead of 40 feet. 274 Here is a plat of the house. So as you can 275 see the green lines are the setbacks and the house, this 276 is the proposed house I would like to build. And so 277 those little three triangles would be sticking out 278 beyond the setback and so that's why I'm asking for the 279 29 foot variance but I'm not building up to it 280 completely, it will just be that area that you see 281 there. 282 And of note, the front and the sides, the back 283 will be adhered to. 284 So normally there's 25 percent coverage 285 allowed and I would be able to put a house with a 286 footprint of 2831 square feet on this lot. I'm 287 requesting to build this house with a footprint of 1485 288 square feet so it's less than the 25 percent coverage 289 allowed for the Code. But because of this triangular 290 shape of the lot and with the setbacks, I cannot build 291 the proposed house without the requested variance in the 292 rear. 293 To work with the lot constraints, I'm 294 positioning the house at an angle and that will conform 295 to the front and side setbacks as you saw on the 296 previous picture. So requesting the variance on the 297 rear and only about 150 square feet of the house would 298 be extended into this setback. 299 The two neighboring properties on the back, we 300 tried to minimize the impact on them. They have deeper 301 lots so I was hoping it would just be a minimal impact. 302 There's also a deck in the current house that 303 extends into this setback. So I'm really not building 304 beyond that. 305 MR. BARTLETT: Can you say that again? 306 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. About the deck in 307 the back, they are deeper lots, rectangular deeper lots, 308 and so I don't believe my request would impact them a 309 lot, with building where the deck currently is. 310 I'm just trying to minimize the impact of 311 building there. I'm not building to that complete 29 312 feet. This is what I was just explaining there, it's 313 just going to be where the current deck is, is where I 314 wanted to build. 315 There's been a precedence of variances granted 316 on Laura Drive and none of these houses had this 317 hardship of the triangular lot that I have. 318 I'm proposing a really cute, charming 319 Craftsman-style house with a builder who's very familiar 320 with building in Falls Church City. The total living 321 space is 2970 square feet. It's smaller than most of 322 the recent new built homes. 323 And this is just showing that the 12 324 properties built in the last 10 years, they were larger 325 than what I want to build. I believe my house is going 326 to look beautiful in the neighborhood, have curb appeal 327 and add to the charm and increase the value of everyone 328 else's house as well. 329 That's all I have. Are there any questions? 330 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you for your presentation 331 for your request for a variance. 332 I will open it up to members of the Board to 333 ask questions and some clarification on some items. 334 I have some questions and I'll start. 335 I don't know what's currently on this property 336 so I don't know what the existing home or footprint 337 looks like. Do you have any information on what's there 338 currently? 339 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. It's a small ranch. 340 It's a three bedroom, one bath. There's no basement. 341 And it's really in need of repair. So that's why I 342 would like to build a new house. 343 MR. MISLEH: Ms. Krishnan, it's important for 344 everyone, including Mr. Bartlett, to know that the house 345 is a rental and it's been rented since purchase, is that 346 correct? 347 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Well, yeah, it was 348 parents' house so I bought it from them. 349 MR. MISLEH: Did they live there? 350 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: My parents? No, it was a 351 rental for them. Right now I have a friend staying 352 there but it's not a rental anymore. 353 MR. MISLEH: Got it. Do you intend to occupy 354 this new home that you're proposing? 355 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. 356 I also wanted to add onto my slides, since the 357 last meeting I went around and tried to drop off and 358 meet all the neighbors and give them this information. 359 I mailed like 30 packets with the letters and the plats 360 with more information to 30 neighbors and I have 361 received four letters of support. I was just not able 362 to talk to a whole lot of people in person when I was 363 coming around and ringing doorbells. 364 MR. BARTLETT: So I'm going back to asking 365 sort of the same questions that I don't have information 366 on and I can't make decisions or inferences or 367 conclusions about how this new structure will compare to 368 what is currently. 369 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I wish I had a picture of 370 the current house. 371 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Boyle, do you -- 372 MR. EPPLER: There's a picture in the package 373 of the current building envelope. I can put that up if 374 I can share a screen. 375 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: It's in the original 376 application, that's right. 377 MR. BARTLETT: Is that page 3, Mr. Eppler? 378 MR. EPPLER: Yes, exactly. 379 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: No, this is the proposed 380 house. 381 MR. EPPLER: No, page 3 has the current 382 building envelope on it which I think is what he was 383 asking to see. 384 MR. BARTLETT: I'm going to try to do some 385 quick math here so hold on a second. 386 So it says here it's about 38.5 by 26 feet 387 when this house was built it was somehow perfectly to 388 Code or Code-less. I'm not sure when this house was 389 built. 390 My intent of the question was to try to figure 391 out based on the setbacks of your current home, could 392 you build your current home to Code? So when I look at 393 this plot, I see a structure that is not built to Code, 394 not that that's a problem. 395 That front left corner of your current home is 396 in the front yard setback; is that correct, Akida and 397 John, is that what I'm seeing here? 398 MR. BOYLE: Yes, that's correct. The real 399 estate data base says the existing house built in 1950. 400 It's possible that the subdivision went in with the plan 401 to put storm water pipes in the back and they probably 402 did the subdivision with an eye towards keeping the 403 houses away from the easements at the rear. 404 The 40s and 50s are a fascinating period of 405 zoning and setbacks if anyone has the time to read about 406 it. We deal with it to this day. 407 MR. BARTLETT: John, I have another question 408 for you from a historic and zoning perspective. 409 This is a very unique lot: A split lot on the 410 inside of a curve that's split diagonally down the 411 middle. Is this not an inside corner lot that's split 412 that is not technically normal front yard/front yard/ 413 side yard/side yard, R-1A lot? 414 MR. BOYLE: I'd say it's approaching it but it 415 doesn't meet the angle definition at the front. It 416 escapes me but there's a definition of what constitutes 417 a corner. I think it's 140 degrees at the front. 418 What I see here is a subdivided lot that meets 419 the minimum area. The Planning Commission at the time 420 421 would have been looking at 11,250 for its lot size and 422 it obtains it. And a burden would have been placed on 423 the building envelope where they would have been forced 424 to originally to push the front setback to the rear 425 until it met the minimum lot width which is 75 feet. 426 All of which I consider constraints on this lot and 427 argue towards the variance but that's for the Board to 428 consider. 429 Today this subdivision probably would not have 430 been approved because of the anticipated hardships. 431 If the lines had been slightly different, like 432 at the back corner, if that had been a true triangle 433 back there and not that little leg, the short, brief leg 434 where there's an IPS note at the back right, if those 435 two points had been joined, it's been staff's practice 436 for many, many years to draw an arc from that single 437 point of 40 feet and then everything else is considered 438 a side yard setback. This lot I think is further 439 encumbered by the presence of that pretty much useless 440 travel of a few feet at the back there that requires 441 staff to define all of the other property lines as 442 follows: The front is simply the line that separates 443 the property from the right of way. The rear is the 444 line that is most distant and opposite from the front. 445 That's where we're getting this front determination. 446 And then it simply says, All other lines are sides. 447 So staff in coming up with what the 448 recommended setbacks were, the required setbacks, not 449 recommended, we really struggled with -- this is 450 probably the most extreme example of what you could get 451 away with under that definition. What's the most 452 distant and opposite line from the line that separates 453 it from the right of way. 454 Well, there you have the very long line across 455 the back and then everything else becomes a side. In 456 this particular case it's an extreme example of maybe 457 unintended consequences works in most cases but in this 458 case it's resulting in this unusually constrained 459 building envelope. 460 Something else that staff considers, is they 461 have 11,495 square feet. That is more than enough for 462 an R-1A lot. The Code limits them to 25 percent lot 463 coverage. I don't think they can even meet that, given 464 the setbacks. 465 So that's highly unusual that a lot would be 466 configured in such a way where you can't even satisfy -- 467 or you can't even enjoy 25 percent of your lot. I can't 468 think of another example. Maybe there are. 469 Usually you can get your 25 percent in one 470 way, shape, or form, and the Board has seen that in many 471 examples. This is the flip side of the coin where 472 setbacks are going to so severely constrain you, that 473 you can't even get your basic 25 percent lot coverage. 474 So perhaps a few more points that the Chair 475 intended to discuss but that's how we arrived at -- I 476 think I did this building envelope evaluation. It looks 477 like what we do in our CAD Program. It's not survey 478 accurate but it's very accurate. It does draw out how 479 constrained this particular lot is. 480 So that brings us to where we're at and how we 481 arrived I think at this variance application. 482 MR. BARTLETT: Anna, could you share just a 483 couple more details with me. You're stating that the 484 plan is to build a home with 2970 square feet. Does 485 that include a basement? 486 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I want to have a basement. 487 Brenda, are you on? Do you want to jump in 488 with the building design? 489 MR. BARTLETT: The 2970, is that first and 490 second floor or does that include the planned space in 491 the basement? 492 MS. BIDINGER: That is not finished area. 493 I represent NDI, the builder, just for 494 everybody's intent and purposes. It will be a two story 495 building. You know, finished on two levels. They 496 haven't determined whether they're going to finish the 497 basement or not but it would be unfinished at this 498 point. 499 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 500 I just wanted to point out that there are 501 homes being built in the City of Falls Church, many 502 homes that don't have 2970 square feet above ground. 503 I'm not sure where this number of 3350 came from, but 504 there have been a whole lot more than 12 houses built in 505 the City of Falls Church in the last 10 years. 506 My concern is trying to sort of force this 507 design into this sort of twisted building envelope. And 508 I understand that you have almost -- you're limited to 509 38.5 feet wide and 26 feet deep at its widest widths and 510 depths for building a new home, because that's where 511 your home is right now. 512 So trying to force this design with those 513 three corners into it at that particular angle is tough. 514 And I know it's better to build a home that, you know, 515 the specs are the way they are and instead of designing 516 and coming up with, I think you referenced some sort of 517 a new, modern home. 518 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: True, but we're not trying 519 to like use up all that space. I'm just asking for a 520 little bit of that, the variance, so that the kitchen 521 can be finished, extend just that little space. I mean 522 it is much less than that. It's less than the 25 523 percent and it's not like we're trying to use up -- 524 MR. BARTLETT: Most homes are. I'm just 525 saying, most homes are substantially less than 25 526 percent of their buildable envelope. Some do max out 527 because they have smaller lots and they want to build 528 big homes. You can build to 25 percent but just because 529 you can, doesn't mean you should. 530 I have one other question about your 531 orientation for this property. Have you considered 532 orienting it as your current home is instead of at an 533 angle and what you could build with those dimensions and 534 those angles? 535 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Then we would need a lot 536 more, I think it would jut into the side and front, so 537 that would be a higher request, we believe, than this. 538 So I thought this was like the least impact. 539 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. I'm going to defer to 540 other members of the Board at this time. 541 MR. MISLEH: John Boyle, I have a question. 542 The applicant referenced the deck, the existing deck 543 544 that's shown on the plat. Do we know, was that deck 545 permitted at the time it was installed? 546 MR. BOYLE: We don't have any past permits for 547 this but it would not have been unusual to have approved 548 that. The practice has been if it's at the main level 549 of the house, the first floor or lower, decks without 550 roofs are treated as patios, pavers. They're not 551 structures that require an extensive review. Not 552 unusual. 553 MR. MISLEH: There was an inference that the 554 requested setback is going to become equivalent to the 555 deck. I just want to make sure that we understood that 556 there's a clear delineation between the two. 557 I have another question. Actually, I'll pause 558 and allow the other Board members to speak. 559 Thank you. 560 MR. EPPLER: Ms. Krishnan, I have a question 561 for you also about the deck. I'm looking on the screen, 562 it shows the frame deck off the back of the house but it 563 doesn't give dimensions. How far or how close is it to 564 the property line, if you know? 565 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: You mean how much does 566 that extend? 567 MR. EPPLER: In other words, it shows 40 feet 568 from the existing house to the property line. What is 569 570 the distance from the frame deck to the property line, 571 on the existing structure. 572 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I'm not sure. 573 Brenda, did we ever measure that? 574 MS. BIDINGER: No. I think when we sited it, 575 it was about a 10 foot deck. It was like a 10 by 10. 576 MR. BOYLE: In staff's experience if it's not 577 part of the discussion, it's not unusual for items like 578 decks and sheds to not have their dimensions shown. 579 MR. EPPLER: All right. Thank you. 580 MR. MISLEH: Ms. Krishnan, you pointed out 581 that you had some new letters of approval. Can you 582 please clarify which lots and where they are in 583 reference to your specific property? 584 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Sure. The first one was 585 610 Laura Drive, so the neighbor. 618, 620, and 625. 586 MR. MISLEH: How many properties abut this 587 property? 588 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: One. 589 MR. MISLEH: No, I'm saying how many other 590 neighbors do you have? 591 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: One on each side of those 592 two, I'm not sure if technically -- I think there's two 593 in the back. Let me look. 594 Two in the back and then one in that tiny 595 point. So, two on Poplar and then one might be like 596 just on the edge, so maybe three on Poplar. 597 MR. MISLEH: And you have just one of those 5 598 or 6 that are in support. 599 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Correct, yes. 600 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 601 MR. BARTLETT: Do you plan to build a 602 driveway? 603 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yes. 604 MS. BIDINGER: If it is allowed. Just so they 605 can park their cars. 606 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Bartlett, I think it's 607 important, there was a previous submission. On that 608 initial submission, it showed a garage, detached garage 609 along with a driveway that ran to the rear of the 610 property. Is that not -- 611 MS. BIDINGER: I think what happened -- this 612 is the builder speaking here, I think we pulled it out 613 due to the fact that I think their intent is to try to 614 get the house approved with what they're focused on. 615 MR. MISLEH: I think, Mr. Bartlett, the 616 driveway and the garage don't require a variance so 617 they're not being featured on this request, is what I'm 618 hearing. 619 MR. BARTLETT: Right. And to be candid I feel 620 like it would have been appropriate to show how the 621 entire build would impact this property, and how 622 by-right build and by-variance request build impacts 623 everything. 624 MR. MISLEH: That was included in the initial 625 submission. 626 Are we able to bring that up or is that not 627 part -- this is not a new package. It's just that this 628 is a supplement. So should we bring up those initial 629 photographs so you can see it so you have the full 630 context of the -- 631 MR. BARTLETT: I recall what they submitted 632 last time but I didn't remember where the driveway was. 633 MS. ROUZI: I can pull that up. I'm pulling 634 it up right now. 635 Which slide would be the one that shows the 636 driveway? Maybe it's a question for the builder's rep, 637 Brenda or -- 638 MS. BIDINGER: You know what? Our engineer 639 showed the proposed garage. He neglected to add the 640 driveway. So the driveway would come from the street. 641 It would have been this. 642 MR. BARTLETT: At this time I don't have any 643 further questions at this time but I would like to open 644 645 the meeting up if there's any comments from the public. 646 And if you plan to speak, please raise your hand and I 647 will ask you to unmute yourself and you can then share 648 your comments. 649 So if Brenda and Anna can lower your hands, 650 that would be wonderful. 651 And then, Peter Guest, I know that's not your 652 name, please announce your name, your address, and you 653 are free to speak. 654 MR. DOLPH: Yeah, Peter Dolph, 604 Laura 655 Drive, so I'm two doors down. 656 I'm opposed to this. I spoke out last time. 657 The two neighbors directly behind who would be most 658 impacted spoke out against this last time as well. 659 MR. BARTLETT: I can't hear you. Am I the 660 only one who can't hear him? 661 BOARD MEMBERS: I can hear him. 662 MR. DOLPH: Well, I'll continue. Four 663 neighbors are impacted by this strongly, the one on 610 664 who said okay, the two behind spoke up last time saying 665 they were opposed, the neighbor at 606 said no as well, 666 and as 604 I'm saying no. 667 But I would like to articulate why. The house 668 was purchased at a substantial discount. It went tax 669 assessed value, which is pretty much unheard of in Falls 670 Church, precisely because it's on a funny shaped lot. 671 It hasn't been maintained. So I think it was bought 672 with the knowledge that this would be hard to do. 673 That's my speculation. I can't prove that. So I don't 674 think it's reasonable to ask the City to grant a 675 variance to build a larger house there than the lot will 676 afford. 1000 square foot is what the house is right 677 now. That's what I live in. That's worked out just 678 fine for me. 679 The family who's put forth this application is 680 a real estate investment family. I think it's 681 reasonable to expect that this might well end up being 682 sold, so compared to the other variances that were 683 listed, all of which were for properties that people 684 lived in for decades, they were actual residents of 685 their homes, they were asking for variances on to expand 686 them marginally, I think it's just a completely 687 different application. 688 So those are my comments. Thank you. 689 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 690 Scott Reid? 691 MS. REID: It is Scott Reid but this is Jean 692 Reid speaking. Sorry about that. 693 MR. BARTLETT: That's okay. 694 MS. REID: I am the neighbor at 606 Laura 695 Drive and I am the property that's the longest length of 696 the property. And what I'd really like to say is what 697 Peter just said, I am 100 percent agreeing with. He 698 made all the comments that I had written down that I 699 wanted to say. 700 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Are there any other 701 comments? 702 Peter, are you raising your hand again? 703 MR. DOLPH: Yeah, sorry. One quick addendum. 704 This is almost neither here nor there, but a couple of 705 months ago, a real estate agent, I didn't write down her 706 name, I think it was Julie Ann, knocked on my front 707 door, saying, Hey, I know this house was listed for sale 708 and it's not anymore. Do you know what the deal is. 709 I've got an older couple who would like to buy it. 710 So there are people who are interested in the 711 property as is. 712 MR. BARTLETT: Tim Miller, I didn't swear you 713 in earlier but if you'd unmute yourself. 714 (Witness sworn.) 715 MR. MILLER: I'm Tim Miller, 603 Poplar Drive. 716 I just wanted to express the same as the previous two. 717 In addition to it, our concern is the runoff 718 of the lot being the highest peaking point and the 719 impact that it could have across the different lots. 720 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Miller, what was your address 721 again? 722 MR. MILLER: 603 Poplar Drive. So we are the 723 third lot there on the corner. 724 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 725 MR. BARTLETT: I don't see anybody else 726 raising their hand. 727 Does any member of the Board have any other 728 questions for the applicant or responses to concerns 729 from the public? 730 MR. EPPLER: This is Dale. I just have one 731 followup question from that, for Ms. Krishnan, if she's 732 taken any steps or if any of her design team wants to 733 address the concern about run-off. 734 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: Yeah, Brenda can talk more 735 about it because we definitely discussed with them ways 736 to control the water. 737 MS. BIDINGER: Yeah, we just recently had a 738 home off of Lincoln, there's different modes of water 739 runoff that we can do to the property. Planter boxes, 740 which we did at -- I'd have to look at the address real 741 quick, but it was off of Lincoln that we just settled. 742 There's a couple of them that we have just settled. One 743 was a water infiltration trench. 744 So there are different facets and different 745 modes of handling storm water management. 746 We've been in business since 1988 and we 747 comply with everything that the County, the City of 748 Falls Church, everybody looks at this and puts in their 749 two cents and we will do whatever it needs to abide and 750 comply and take care of whatever you may need. 751 MR. EPPLER: If I could just follow up with 752 that. So have you done any studies or looked at what 753 the existing runoff is or how to measure if something 754 additional is needed because of this proposed new 755 construction? 756 MS. BIDINGER: We have not gotten to that 757 point yet. The biggest point as a builder, we recommend 758 our clients to get, I mean this is, I call it the 759 biggest issue at hand, is whether we can get a variance. 760 If we can't get a variance, then we have to either 761 change the building, a, or the project -- the clients 762 have to determine if they just want the project to die. 763 So there are a lot of things that we have to 764 get to before we have to look at that. Because at that 765 point you're getting an engineer involved on something 766 that may not even happen, so why invest in that? 767 MR. EPPLER: Thank you. 768 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: I believe the initial 769 request that had gone out was when the two houses on 770 Poplar had opposed, it was requesting 19 and we changed 771 it to 29 so I did not get any more feedback from them 772 once we went with the updated letters. 773 I just wanted to put that out there because I 774 know that Peter said that everybody is still opposed but 775 I'm not -- I mean they were when they thought it was 19 776 so unless they are on this call and can speak, I don't 777 believe that they are opposed. 778 In addition, somebody brought this up last 779 time that, Oh, they must have boughten (sic) it at a 780 great deal. When you go through and you look at the 781 houses -- first of all it's irrelevant. Secondly when 782 you go through and look at what they bought it for a few 783 years ago, to me it didn't stand out as anything like a 784 great deal. And I lived for 10 years on Greenwich 785 Street. I'm not in real estate, whatever you said. My 786 parents are. I've been in the City for ten years. So, 787 yeah, some misinformation. 788 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you for clarifying that. 789 MR. MISLEH: I think it's important, Ms. 790 Krishnan, to point out that it was clarified at the last 791 meeting that you were amending your request and that was 792 stated prior to those neighbors speaking. And I think 793 the fact that they're not on -- I don't believe the City 794 readvertised this meeting. 795 John, can you please comment to that. 796 MR. BOYLE: Akida, was this sent for 797 readvertisement? I don't think we're required to. 798 MS. ROUZI: No, we did not because the changes 799 were lesser of a request compared to what was advertised 800 so we did not readvertise. 801 MR. BOYLE: Right. So anyone that was present 802 at the earlier hearing heard a greater request than what 803 is being present tonight and an opportunity to appear 804 tonight because they heard the case continued. 805 MR. MISLEH: Correct, but I think when we read 806 the minutes and approve the minutes tonight it will 807 reflect that that amended variance was what was 808 presented prior to those neighbors speaking. 809 MS. ROUZI: You're on mute. I think you're 810 talking but you're on mute. 811 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: I'm really bad at this 812 stuff. 813 MR. BARTLETT: Who is this? 814 MS. PRIYA KRISHNAN: This is Priya. I'm the 815 original -- Anna's mom. 816 MR. BARTLETT: I need to swear you in. 817 (Witness sworn.) 818 MR. PRIYA KRISHNAN: What I was trying to say 819 was in the past the neighbors that did object last time 820 did say that they didn't have time to review this 821 proposal. And so they've had time to review it and 822 we've also sent them all the updates and attempted to 823 talk to them, give them the phone number and email and 824 say that we want to explain everything if they had any 825 questions. We haven't heard anything from them. 826 They did not have a chance to see the whole 827 picture last time, at least that's what they said, they 828 didn't have time to review it. 829 And I think I should add since someone 830 commented about me being the original owner, I just 831 wanted to say that first of all I don't know where that 832 matters in this conversation about my purchasing the 833 property six years ago or five years ago, however long 834 that was. At that time I honestly had no idea of the 835 setbacks and I thought it was a pretty lot and thought 836 that eventually we would do something to the property. 837 Because it was a very run down property even at that 838 time but liveable. 839 And so we just weren't able to do anything then 840 so the easy thing was to rent it and when we're able to 841 do something about it, we were going to come back and 842 see what we could do with the property, build on it or 843 renovate it or something. 844 And then I did try to sell it because we were 845 like, Okay, you know what, it's just something that we 846 didn't want to take on and then my daughter said, No, I 847 want to buy it from you and I want to build a house and 848 move there. 849 So that's how it all turned out. 850 And, in fact, I think it was Peter who made 851 that comment about having gotten it at some discount 852 rate. I went back because I was so shocked of that 853 because honestly I never thought it was a discount rate 854 at 500 and 50,000 or whatever I paid for it in the year 855 that I did buy it. And I went back and looked at as 856 many property records as I could find in Falls Church 857 City records and actually many properties of the same 858 three bedroom, one bath ranches sold for less, equal or 859 less price in the next three years, between the time I 860 bought it in 2018. 861 So I started to think well, I clearly overpaid 862 for the lot. So I don't understand where that's coming 863 from. Whether it's relevant or not is another issue. 864 But I wanted to make that point. 865 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 866 I think from my perspective and I'm not trying 867 to pick sides at all about who is valuing property 868 appropriately or reasonably or anything. But there are 869 properties that people buy that are lower cost than 870 other easily buildable lots and they think that they can 871 build what they want instead of what they're able to. 872 And this lot has concerns and this Board does 873 issue variances when there are true hardships to make it 874 to the point where the property can't be used for its 875 intended purpose. 876 The size of the lot is one factor for us to 877 consider in granting a variance to the building code. 878 What I see in front of me is not sufficient 879 information. I'm concerned that there was a request to 880 take a pre-designed home that you would like and build a 881 home on this lot that demands a variance instead of 882 trying to figure out what is truly best for this 883 property. 884 We have issued variance, we have denied 885 variance requests in the past as well where on awkward 886 and what might be considered difficult to build lots. 887 In some of those circumstances what we've done is we've 888 allowed structures to be extended up that are 889 non-conforming and those are technically a variance but 890 we do not allow extensions of those non-conforming 891 spaces to build new homes. 892 So I'm sort of torn at this point as to 893 whether or not you have demonstrated hardship to build 894 this home on this property. 895 And I'm going to stop talking right there and 896 let other people speak. 897 MR. MISLEH: Chairman Bartlett, before we get 898 too far, it looks like we have a hand up. Are we 899 closing the public comment at this point? 900 MR. BARTLETT: No, John. I didn't see that. 901 It looks like Peter has his hand raised, is that 902 correct, Peter? 903 MR. DOLPH: Yes. I just wanted to respond to 904 two things. 905 I wanted to emphasize, as Mr. Misleh said 906 earlier, that the two neighbors on Poplar who objected 907 to this build were present for the entire duration of 908 the meeting last time so they were fully aware of the 909 exact design that was being proposed. So there hasn't 910 been any updates since then. So they're opposed and 911 they remain opposed. 912 And it's somewhat cumbersome to have to keep 913 coming to these meetings when nothing has changed. 914 Number two, the home was purchased in December 915 of 2016 for $553,000. The 2016 Falls Church tax 916 assessment was $595,000. So it was bought at a discount 917 and if my memory is correct it was listed for about 595 918 or 600 K. So it definitely was purchased for a 919 discount. 920 Thank you. 921 MR. BARTLETT: One other hand. 922 MS. REID: Yeah, it's Jean Reid again, at 604 923 Laura Drive. 924 I feel like I'd like some clarification 925 because I am a property that adjoins this home and I am 926 concerned about the runoff and the power lines that run 927 between our two homes and it concerns me that we have 928 this proposal of this large house but there have been no 929 actual studies done to support this variance. 930 That's it. 931 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I think I can weigh in 932 on that. There are no studies required by Code. 933 There's a burden laid out for the applicant that has to 934 be met. There are Supreme Court records that define 935 what a threshold is for a variance and the Commonwealth 936 of Virginia sets that. 937 Falls Church under its charter respects those. 938 So it's a question of whether this request meets the 939 940 burden of our understanding of what the Supreme Court 941 and the Commonwealth defines as a satisfying the burden 942 for a variance. 943 And in its authority the Board of Zoning 944 Appeals is considered a quasi-judicial body. It's a 945 court for code items that are adopted under local code. 946 So there is no study that's required. It's a simple 947 application of what the understanding burden is on the 948 applicant. 949 And I think this Board's been very good at 950 applying past decisions and consistency in application 951 of the Code and I think that's where we are tonight. 952 MR. BARTLETT: And I'm just going to throw 953 something out there as well that but for the awkwardness 954 of this lot, they could build a house this size and 955 there would be no concern about storm water other than 956 developing it and instrumenting an appropriate grading 957 plan pursuant to state and local authorities and Code. 958 My concern is that we're trying to force this 959 house into this building lot, building space when there 960 are other potential options. 961 MS. WARD: I know I haven't spoken yet but I'm 962 kind of going to echo what Keith has already brought up. 963 When I think of hardship, this property was 964 purchased in 2016 after our Code has been in place. So 965 in my mind, it was well known that the property, you 966 know, restrictions were in place with the different 967 setbacks. 968 And then we also have only one direct neighbor 969 support that's been provided. So that's concerning to 970 me, that the neighbors still are not in support. And I 971 still think, like he said, that there may be some other 972 options within that shape. The house may not be 973 perfectly square but this was the lot, this was the 974 house that was purchased. And, yes, I am still 975 struggling with those things. 976 MR. BARTLETT: One of the other things I'd 977 like to discuss is the list of the other variances and 978 how we review and consider variances to new builds 979 relative to additions or second floor additions. And 980 when homes that are built, as I alluded to earlier, when 981 they are non-conforming, if you want to do anything to 982 that structure, whether it's up or left or anything to 983 move those basically cornerstones of the non-conforming 984 portions of the home or amend them, you have to get a 985 variance to do anything that would extend up or move it 986 a little bit. And that's where it's like, yeah, this 987 home is in an awkward space. 988 My consideration would be a little bit 989 different to you if you were popping the top and moving 990  991 it over a little bit, that it would be a little bit 992 non-conforming but you're maintaining the structure 993 that's been in existence, not disturbing the entire 994 property -- not that you're disturbing the property -- 995 but more of the property than necessary. 996 So that's where I pretty much stand at this 997 point. 998 MR. MISLEH: I think we can close the public 999 comment, Mr. Bartlett. 1000 MR. BARTLETT: Yeah, if there are no further 1001 comments, we can do just that, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank 1002 you. 1003 And does the applicant have any further 1004 information or comments they would like to make before 1005 we close consideration for Board consideration? 1006 MS. ANNA KRISHNAN: No, nothing further. 1007 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you, Anna. I 1008 appreciate it. 1009 At this point I'm going to close comment from 1010 the applicant and the public and open it up for Board 1011 member consideration and discussion. 1012 There are a couple of things I'd like to point 1013 out. I would have liked to have seen a full application 1014 that addresses not just the fact that this home is 1015 trying to be built on an awkward lot. There are three 1016 other elements to the consideration as to what is a 1017 variance. And I would have liked to have seen the 1018 entire proposed build as to what you plan to do to the 1019 property, including if you have seen or have heard 1020 concerns about storm water or other types of 1021 information, what you plan to do to address that. 1022 And I don't see a demonstrated statement that 1023 this is the only thing that you can build on your 1024 property. I don't want to characterize it simply as a 1025 "want" but I don't see that this as the only option to 1026 better enjoy your property. And I'm not trying to stop 1027 you from trying to enjoy your property but I don't think 1028 that this proposed build is the way to do it. 1029 MR. EPPLER: So I've heard lots of and 1030 listened to the discussion back and forth. My problem 1031 is with the October 16, 2008, Falls Church Board of 1032 Zoning Appeals approval which appears to be -- to allow 1033 a structure to be built into the back yard to the 1034 distance of an existing deck structure, which appears to 1035 me to be pretty much what we're looking at here. 1036 So I'm having a hard time distinguishing what 1037 we did back in 2008 from what they're proposing to do 1038 here. 1039 Now that was an addition, it wasn't new 1040 construction but I'd like to have some sense of whether 1041 1042 we have a precedent here that kind of binds us a little 1043 bit or what the precedent is going forward because I 1044 would have a hard time distinguishing what was done 1045 there from what we're proposing here. 1046 MR. BARTLETT: I would just provide some 1047 feedback to that, Mr. Eppler. 1048 We are not bound by any prior decisions. All 1049 of our decisions, while we attempt to be consistent in 1050 our application, are judged and determined on a 1051 case-by-case basis and I don't know also what the 1052 scenario was for this particular addition to their 1053 property and how it relates to a deck. And this 1054 application is also different. It's not trying to go to 1055 the deck, it's trying to deal with it different. 1056 MR. EPPLER: No, I understand. But again, as 1057 stated here is that, The BZA finds that the proposed 1058 addition will not extend further into the rear yard than 1059 the existing deck structure. 1060 Now, admittedly we don't have a number on it, 1061 but if it's 10 feet, we're within one foot or very close 1062 to the same thing. So that's where I was looking at 1063 that, okay, how do we make -- and this again was on 1064 Laura Drive and also citing that the peculiar shape and 1065 shallowness of the lot, etcetera. 1066 So again, I would like to have some thought 1067 given to what is our rule going forward because we are 1068 trying to have some consistency here and I'm struggling 1069 with that, frankly. 1070 MR. MISLEH: I think, Mr. Eppler and Mr. 1071 Bartlett, that the issue at hand and something that the 1072 Board has struggled with is that the precedent that's 1073 set going forward for new homes being built on irregular 1074 lots, if you start granting variances so that the 1075 builders and developers can build what they want rather 1076 than what conforms, it opens up the door going forward. 1077 So I think this Board has consistently tried 1078 to manage that in the best interest of the property 1079 owners and the City so I think it's important that you 1080 consider that as well. 1081 MR. EPPLER: So are we making then a 1082 distinguishing between basically going straight up from 1083 existing structures as opposed to new design which would 1084 have to meet the requirements or would be assessed from 1085 the beginning of an issue as opposed to an existing 1086 building where we've generally speaking have allowed 1087 people to go up? 1088 MR. BARTLETT: I think that's a fair 1089 characterization of how this BZA has resolved various 1090 obligations in the past and I too, am -- to meet -- 1091 MR. EPPLER: You froze up there, sorry. 1092 MR. BARTLETT: -- is without demonstrated 1093 hardship. Whereas building up on an existing property 1094 that's already non-conforming is completely 1095 distinguishable. 1096 I have a question. Mr. Misleh, are you at 1097 this point still considered abstaining in this 1098 application? 1099 MR. MISLEH: Yes, Mr. Bartlett. I will not be 1100 voting this evening. 1101 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Thank you very much. 1102 Are there any further comments from the Board 1103 at this time? 1104 (No response.) 1105 MR. BARTLETT: Hearing none, I'm going to make 1106 a motion to deny variance application V1630-22 by Priya 1107 Krishnan, it's actually not by Priya. 1108 I'm sorry. I'm going to have to start over. 1109 This is how it's advertised. 1110 I'm just going to actually pause and read it 1111 as it's advertised. 1112 I'm going to make a motion to deny the 1113 variance application V1630-22, by Priya Krishnan, 1114 applicant and owner, for a variance to Sections 1115 48-238(3)a to allow a rear setback of 19 feet instead of 1116 40 feet for the purpose of constructing a new single 1117 family dwelling on premises known as 608 Laura Drive, 1118 RPC #52-605-005 of the Falls Church Real Property 1119 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 1120 MS. WARD: I'll second. 1121 MR. BARTLETT: Akida, can we do a roll call 1122 vote on this motion. 1123 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1124 MR. BARTLETT: No. 1125 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1126 MR. MISLEH: I abstain. 1127 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1128 MR. EPPLER: No. 1129 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1130 MS. WARD: No. 1131 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1132 1133 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much for your 1134 time. I appreciate it. 1135 1136 5. NEW BUSINESS 1137 MR. BARTLETT: Moving on to New Business, John 1138 or Akida, is there any New Business not advertised? 1139 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. Not that I'm aware of. 1140 And, Akida, do we have any applications 1141 pending for next month? 1142 MS. ROUZI: No, we do not. 1143 MR. BOYLE: All right. Potential for no 1144 meeting next month. 1145 Offhand, what is the Board's preference for 1146 continuing remote meetings versus in council chambers? 1147 Anyone have any thoughts on that? 1148 MR. MISLEH: John, I was just going to ask 1149 that question, when and if we were going to return to 1150 the in-person meeting. 1151 MR. BARTLETT: I know City Council and School 1152 Board are meeting in person. How are the other Boards 1153 and Commissions doing? 1154 MS. ROUZI: Planning Commission is still 1155 virtual by the way. 1156 MR. BOYLE: I think it's at the discretion of 1157 the Board unless Council says otherwise. There are some 1158 obvious advantages to being in person but there's also 1159 some disadvantages. I think we've all learned how to do 1160 this remotely and I think we've been serving the public 1161 well remotely so the staff has no preference. 1162 The staff serves a number of Boards and will 1163 do whatever this Board prefers unless we hear otherwise 1164 from Council. 1165 So if I'm hearing Akida correctly, we do not 1166 have an agenda for next month. Maybe April or May the 1167 situation will change but for now we do not anticipate 1168 an April meeting and maybe we'll cross that bridge with 1169 more information at that time. 1170 MR. BARTLETT: And then we can be flexible. 1171 Do you know when we need to let you know or let City 1172 Clerk know that we would like to? I'd like to poll the 1173 members at some point before we make that recommendation 1174 to meet. 1175 MR. BOYLE: I think it hinges on the public 1176 notice so the public knows where the meeting is going to 1177 be. And we notify roughly three weeks out, it's like 1178 two and a half based on actually the newspaper 1179 publication date. But roughly two and a half weeks out. 1180 So if staff notified Board we had an agenda, I 1181 think as long as we were in advance of the newspaper 1182 public notice, we could discuss where that meeting was 1183 going to be. 1184 1185 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1186 a. Approval of the February 17, 2022 Meeting 1187 Minutes 1188 MR. BARTLETT: Then we just have to approve 1189 minutes from the February 17, 2022, meeting. If 1190 everyone could take some time to review those. 1191 (Minutes reviewed.) 1192 MR. BARTLETT: I'm going to abstain from 1193 making a motion to approve minutes because I wasn't at 1194 the February 17, 2022, meeting. 1195 MR. MISLEH: I'll make a motion to approve the 1196 meeting minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting 1197 on Thursday, February 17, 2022. 1198 MR. EPPLER: I will second. 1199 RECORDING SECRETARY: Roll call. 1200 Mr. Bartlett. 1201 MR. BARTLETT: I will abstain. 1202 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1203 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1204 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1205 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1206 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1207 MS. WARD: Yes. 1208 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1209 1210 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1211 1212 8. ADJOURNMENT 1213 MR. BARTLETT: And I will close the meeting of 1214 the Board of Zoning Appeals for March 17, 2022. 1215 Thank you very much and have a great evening. 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237