Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 Thursday, November 17, 2022 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. MISLEH: Good evening. I'd like to call 8 the Thursday, November 17th, 2022, Board of Zoning 9 Appeals meeting to order. 10 Akida, would you like to do a roll call 11 please. 12 MS. ROUZI: Sure. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 16 MR. BARTLETT: I am here. 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 18 MR. MISLEH: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 20 MR. KIEN: Here. 21 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 22 MR. EPPLER: Here. 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 24 MS. WARD: Here. 25 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 26 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Akida. 27 28 3. PETITIONS 29 30 4. OLD BUSINESS 31 32 5. NEW BUSINESS 33 a. Variance Application V1634-22 by Nisha and Pradeep 34 Sensharma, applicants and owners, for a variance to 35 Section 48-238(3)a. to allow a rear setback of 28.12 36 feet instead of 40 feet for the purpose of constructing 37 a screened porch on an existing deck at premises known 38 as 621 Laura Drive, RPC# 52-604-009 of the Falls Church 39 Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density 40 Residential. 41 MR. MISLEH: John, would you like to tell us 42 about the petition this evening. 43 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. And thank you to 44 everyone for our return to in-person meetings. It's 45 been an interesting couple of years for sure. Thank you 46 for your diligence over this period and making 47 yourselves available from your homes or wherever you 48 join remotely. 49 Tonight we have a variance application for a 50 setback and it's in one of our neighborhoods that seems 51 52 to have this peculiar issue where lots that would 53 otherwise meet the dimension requirements of width and 54 square footage are rotated 90 degrees. So the front and 55 rear setbacks for the R-1A zoning district really 56 complicate the use of the lots. 57 And the applicants here are looking to improve 58 an existing deck at the rear and you should have a 59 packet from them and a letter from one of the abutting 60 neighbors. 61 I always like to explain whether or not staff 62 has the authority to approve something like this, why is 63 this in front of the Board. This is not one of the 64 setback improvements or relaxations that the Code gives 65 to staff. So in order to seek relief from the position 66 of the setbacks as it relates to their house, they have 67 no choice but to come to the Board for relief. 68 So they're here tonight for -- if you'd like 69 I'll read the variance into the record. 70 This is Variance Application V1634-22 by Nisha 71 and Pradeep Sensharma, applicants and owners, for a 72 variance to Section 48-238(3)a. to allow a rear setback 73 of 28.12 feet instead of 40 feet for the purpose of 74 constructing a screened porch on an existing deck at 75 premises known as 621 Laura Drive, RPC# 52-604-009 of 76 the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low 77 Density Residential. 78 With that, I'll defer to the applicants for 79 their presentation. 80 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, John. 81 If you wouldn't mind, would you please have 82 all those that are going to be speaking tonight, sworn 83 in. 84 (Witnesses sworn.) 85 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much and welcome. 86 Please if you'd like to go ahead and share 87 your application with the Board. 88 MS. SENSHARMA: So we are requesting a 89 variance for the purpose of enclosing our existing deck 90 and converting it to a screened porch. 91 The reason we have to come to the Board is 92 because as Mr. Boyle just said, our lot is unusually 93 narrow and therefore the need for this setback variance. 94 The screened porch is something really 95 important for us just to be able to enjoy our backyard. 96 I am severely allergic to bee stings and we have a lot 97 of pollen in the backyard. So we are really looking 98 forward to having the screened porch. 99 Now, we will not be adding any impervious 100 surface to our property because we're building on an 101 102 existing deck and as it is our footprint is really much 103 smaller than other properties on our street, new 104 developments especially. 105 We don't expect to add to the storm water or 106 anything like that. 107 And so that is, the hatched portion is the 108 existing deck that we'd like to convert. So I think the 109 next stage is a picture of the deck, the photo of the 110 backyard. So that is kind of the deck when it is done. 111 And then we can go to the next one please. 112 So that's the plan and then just a sketch of 113 what it would look like. We're working with the design. 114 But then we thought it would be useful to have 115 views from the -- so this is looking out from the deck 116 all around so from left to clockwise is just going to 117 the whole back yard. 118 And then the next page would be from the two 119 corners of our property. So as you can see from this 120 side, you see the tent. So that's what we're using 121 right now. It's like a screened-in on the deck. We are 122 hoping to have a screened porch there instead. 123 And the next two pages are letters of support, 124 one from Linda Chandler, who lives at 623 Laura Drive. 125 And then on the other side an email from Marian and Tim 126 Skully, 619 Laura. We shared the plan with them. 127 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much. 128 John, do you have any staff comments to share 129 with the Board? 130 MR. BOYLE: Only that the Board has seen I'd 131 say identical applications from this same neighborhood 132 before. All the houses that front on the street on that 133 side have this odd 90 degree rotation to them. The 134 subdivider, the builder, whoever subdivided the lots, 135 must have tried to make one more row of houses out of 136 the available land. Perhaps it predates the Code at 137 that time. 138 But this is something the Board has seen 139 before and I think generally it's viewed as not a 140 self-imposed hardship. 141 MR. MISLEH: For the purpose of kicking off 142 the conversation, trying to just bring everybody up to 143 speed on what the setback should be for that. 144 I notice on the picture that the Sensharmas 145 are proposing, it didn't look like there is a roof on 146 this screened porch. 147 MS. SENSHARMA: No, there isn't one. There's 148 a deck. 149 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, it's just a deck and they're 150 using it with a tent essentially now. 151 MR. MISLEH: On the picture that was shown on 152 one of the slides, it appeared that what's being 153 proposed does not even have a roof. 154 MS. SENSHARMA: Yeah, it doesn't. This is 155 just what I drew. 156 MR. BOYLE: Oh, I see. 157 Would the finished screened room have a roof? 158 MS. SENSHARMA: Yes, the screened -- 159 MR. BOYLE: You wouldn't just have screens, 160 you'd have a roof over your deck. 161 MS. SENSHARMA: Oh, yeah. 162 MR. MISLEH: It's not just going to be just a 163 screen on top. 164 MS. SENSHARMA: No, no. 165 MR. MISLEH: Okay. So, John, can you tell us 166 what are the setbacks. 167 MR. BOYLE: It's 40 -- the rear setback is 40 168 and on the plat in their presentation they're showing 169 the house sits at 28 feet point 12, so that's the 170 variance they're asking for. They're asking to make the 171 location of the house good as far as the setback. 172 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 173 Any other staff comments? 174 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 175 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 176 At this time I'd like to open it up to members 177 of the Board for discussion. 178 MR. EPPLER: Good evening. I just wanted to 179 make sure because in the picture, the porch looks much 180 larger than the existing porch. You're actually only 181 talking about building on the existing porch. 182 MS. SENSHARMA: Yeah. Not at all. Yeah, not 183 at all. 184 MR. KIEN: John, the existing deck is not 185 considered impervious, correct, for the City? 186 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 187 MR. KIEN: So we would be increasing the 188 impervious, right, by putting the roof over the top, 189 just to be clear. 190 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, a roof supported by columns 191 or walls is defined as a building in our Code so it 192 would be as substantial as a room addition. So it would 193 increase the impervious and the building coverage. I 194 haven't computed that but I'd say they're nowhere near 195 exceeding that. 196 MR. KIEN: No, and I was going to say that as 197 well. Just based on the square footage of the house 198 itself the proposed looks like there's a deck and even 199 estimating the design involved as far as that. 200 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 201 MR. MISLEH: Do we have dimensions of the 202 proposed room? 203 MS. SENSHARMA: The dimensions, yeah, they're 204 on the fourth page, on the plat. 205 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 206 MS. WARD: It shows the deck, just so I'm 207 clear, that's already existing, right? 208 MS. SENSHARMA: Yes. This is one deck. 209 MR. MISLEH: So was the deck existing when you 210 purchased the home? 211 MS. SENSHARMA: Yes. 212 MR. MISLEH: So it was an existing deck. 213 MS. SENSHARMA: Yes, it was existing. 214 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 215 Any other questions from the Board for the 216 applicant? 217 (No response.) 218 MR. MISLEH: Do you have any additional 219 comments to the Board before we close out the 220 discussion? 221 MS. SENSHARMA: No, not really. I mean you 222 mentioned the impervious surface, I'd just like to point 223 out that we have been reducing the grass area. We have 224 very little grass area. Other than that redesigned 225 stretch. We have a rain garden in front. We have a 226 butterfly garden all the way down in the front and as 227 you saw there's lots of trees as well. 228 MR. SENSHARMA: I mean we have planted a lot 229 of native -- 230 MS. SENSHARMA: Native plants, a lot of native 231 plants. 232 MR. SENSHARMA: -- native plants, right. So 233 we see a lot of bees. They're good for native plants 234 and we want that. But unfortunately she has been 235 several times stung by bees. So I mean that's why we 236 have the tent right now because that's the only way to 237 enjoy the backyard. (Inaudible.) 238 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much. 239 At this time I'd like to open it up for Board 240 discussion. 241 MR. EPPLER: So given the size of the lot and 242 the house itself, it doesn't seem like this is much of a 243 significant issue. The issue is the impervious surface 244 and it doesn't seem (inaudible). 245 MR. KIEN: Yes, I agree with that. Just in 246 view of the rough estimates I think the physical 247 condition is essentially a hardship in this case. The 248 standards probably would be in conflict. I'm going to 249 approve this request. 250 MS. WARD: Yes, I agree. 251 MR. MISLEH: I'd like to also add that I think 252 the fact that the deck was an existing condition at the 253 time of purchase, it's fair to assume that they 254 understood that to be covered. I can appreciate that 255 their request to enclose it, to be adding any additional 256 lot coverage. 257 So I would agree with the other Board members 258 in this case. 259 MS. WARD: You know the only thing, I know you 260 have neighbors on your side, this was publicized also 261 with Fairfax County neighbors, that would be in the 262 rear. 263 MS. ROUZI: The notices go out to within 175 264 feet of the subject property so everyone around would 265 have gotten notices. 266 MS. WARD: Thank you. 267 MS. SENSHARMA: We had also sent notice of the 268 plan. 269 MR. BOYLE: Does Mr. Bartlett have any 270 comments? 271 MR. BARTLETT: No, I don't have any comments 272 or questions at this time. Thank you. 273 MR. MISLEH: So, at this time would anybody 274 like to make a motion? 275 MR. KIEN: I will make a motion to approve 276 variance application V1634-22 by Nisha and Pradeep 277 Sensharma for a variance to Section 48-238(3)a. to allow 278 a rear setback of 28.12 feet instead of 40 feet for the 279 purpose of constructing a screened porch on an existing 280 deck at premises known as 621 Laura Drive. 281 MR. MISLEH: If it's okay with the other Board 282 members, I'd like to qualify the dimensions of the 283 approved roof because I believe that the 28.12 would 284 stretch across the entire length of the property and 285 what's being asked for today is to build a deck on the 286 existing porch. So if someone would be okay with 287 amending that motion. 288 And I propose that the motion be amended to 289 include to build an enclosed screened porch with the 290 dimensions of 12 feet 2 inches by roughly 25 feet 6 291 inches. 292 MR. BOYLE: So basically the footprint of the 293 deck as it exists. 294 MR. MISLEH: Correct. 295 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 296 MR. MISLEH: Is that okay? 297 MS. SENSHARMA: Yes. 298 MR. EPPLER: No, I think we can just say 299 within the footprint of the existing deck. 300 MR. MISLEH: Existing deck, okay. 301 Akida, do you have that? 302 MS. ROUZI: Yes, I do. 303 MR. MISLEH: Can somebody second? 304 MR. BARTLETT: I'll second that motion. 305 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Bartlett. 306 MR. MISLEH: I think we're ready for a roll 307 call. 308 MS. ROUZI: Roll call. 309 310 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 311 MS. WARD: Yes. 312 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 313 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 314 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 315 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 316 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 317 MR. KIEN: Yes. 318 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 319 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 320 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 321 MR. MISLEH: Congratulations. 322 MS. SENSHARMA: Thank you. 323 324 325 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 326 a. Approval of the July 14, 2022, Meeting Minutes 327 MR. MISLEH: Our next order of business is the 328 approval of the minutes from July 14, 2022. 329 (Minutes reviewed.) 330 MS. ROUZI: I need to mention, we apologize 331 but this is a synopsis of the meeting instead of 332 verbatim because we did not record that meeting. So I 333 had to just go off of my notes to put this together. 334 Sorry. 335 MR. MISLEH: Would someone like to make a 336 motion to approve the minutes? 337 MR. EPPLER: I will make a motion to approve 338 the minutes of the virtual Board hearing of July 14th. 339 MS. WARD: I second. 340 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 341 Akida. 342 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 343 MS. WARD: Yes. 344 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 345 MR. BARTLETT: I'll abstain because I wasn't 346 present for that meeting. 347 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 348 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 349 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 350 MR. KIEN: Yes. 351 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 352 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 353 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 354 355 7. OTHER BUSINESS 356 MR. MISLEH: At this time do we have any Other 357 Business? 358 Certificate of appreciation for Mr. Calabrese. 359 MS. ROUZI: We might be doing that in January. 360 I don't think he's available for the December meeting 361 and we might have applications for December meeting. 362 We're still coordinating with Mr. Calabrese. He travels 363 a lot to Japan. 364 MR. MISLEH: Is John going to be with us for 365 the January meeting? 366 MR. BOYLE: As a civilian. 367 MR. MISLEH: We'll continue that until Mr. 368 Calabrese is available in person so we can recognize 369 him. 370 371 8. ADJOURNMENT 372 MR. MISLEH: So at this time if there's no 373 other business, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. 374 MR. BOYLE: Motion to adjourn. 375 MR. EPPLER: Move to adjourn. 376 MR. BOYLE: All in favor say "aye". 377 (Chorus of "ayes.") 378 MR. BOYLE: Any opposed? 379 (No response.) 380 MR. BOYLE: We're adjourned. 381 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399