Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 Thursday, March 16, 2023 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. MISLEH: I'd like to call the Board of Zoning 8 Appeals meeting for Thursday, March 16, 2023, to order. 9 Akida, will you please make the roll call. 10 11 2. ROLL CALL 12 MS. ROUZI: Sure. 13 Mr. Misleh. 14 MR. MISLEH: Here. 15 MS. ROUZI: Ms. Ward. 16 MS. WARD: Here. 17 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Kien. 18 Mr. Kien is absent. 19 Mr. Eppler. 20 MR. EPPLER: Here. 21 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Bartlett. 22 Mr. Bartlett is absent. 23 Thank you. 24 25 3. PETITIONS 26 MR. MISLEH: Do we have any Petitions this evening? 27 MS. ROUZI: No, sir, we do not. 28 29 4. OLD BUSINESS 30 MR. MISLEH: Any Old Business? 31 MS. ROUZI: No Old Business. 32 33 5. NEW BUSINESS 34 a. Cases 35 i. Variance application V1637-23 by Andra Popa, 36 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-238(4)c. to 37 allow a detached garage with a height of 13.8 feet instead of 12 38 feet maximum at premises known as 806 Ridge Place, RPC 39 #53-215-004 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 40 R-1A, Low Density Residential. 41 MR. MISLEH: All right. Well, then let's move on to 42 the New Business. 43 The first case this evening is variance application 44 V1637-23 by Andra Popa, applicant and owner, for a variance to 45 Section 48-238(4)c. to allow a detached garage with a height of 46 13.8 feet instead of 12 feet maximum at premises known as 806 47 Ridge Place. 48 If that applicant would like to come forward please. 49 The applicant would like to ask for a continuation. 50 Do we need to take a vote on that? 51 MS. ROUZI: No, you do not. 52 MR. MISLEH: All right. We'll look forward to seeing 53 you next month. Thank you. 54 55 ii. Variance application V1638-23 by Steve Deering, 56 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-238(3) a. To 57 allow a rear setback of 18.25 feet instead of 40 feet for the 58 purpose of constructing a covered porch at premises known as 104 59 Lawton Street, RPC #53-116-007 of the Falls Church Real Property 60 Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 61 62 MR. MISLEH: The next application is variance 63 application V1638-23 by Steve Deering, applicant and owner, for 64 a variance to Section 48-238(3)a. to allow a rear setback of 65 18.25 feet instead of 40 feet for the purpose of constructing a 66 covered porch at premises known as 104 Lawton Street. 67 MS. ROUZI: Good evening. Just a quick background on 68 this. 69 This property is zoned R-1A and it is substantially 70 substandard for lot area. For such lots our Code allows a 71 reduction in the rear setback requirement of 30 percent of the 72 lot depth; that yields approximately 29 feet instead of the 73 standard 40 feet. 74 Another challenge for this property is the existing 75 front yard of approximately 50 feet which is significantly more 76  77 severe than the standard front setback of 30 feet required by 78 Code and this has pushed the house close to the rear property 79 line leaving very limited space to work with in the back yard. 80 They have an existing deck in the back that's about 18 81 feet from the rear property line so it's within the required 82 setback. They're requesting to put a roof over a central 83 portion of that deck which is considered a building by Code 84 definition. So the requested rear setback encroachment requires 85 a variance. 86 I will also add a similar porch would have been 87 allowed by right to encroach up to 8 feet in the front yard but 88 that flexibility is not afforded for the back yard. It is a 89 Code amendment staff is working on to get through to City 90 Council, so hopefully in the future when that Code amendment is 91 approved, this will be an administrative approval. 92 That's all I have to say on the application. The 93 applicants are here to present. 94 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Akida. 95 If the applicant would like to come forward please. 96 If you would please sign in. 97 MR. DEERING: Sure. 98 MR. DEERING: While you're standing, I'll ask you to 99 raise your right hand. 100 (Witnesses sworn.) 101 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much. 102 MR. DEERING: We are the owners of the property at 104 103 Lawton. We are undergoing a major renovation of the house, 104 plans that were approved some time ago. When we took the house 105 it was single story rambler down to foundation and have built a 106 two story building there now. We are now actually in the final 107 throes of it. We are on the 8th month of living above a 108 (inaudible) and hopefully we'll get back out of our two bedroom 109 apartment and back to our house. 110 As part of the plans we have this deck on the back. 111 Our builder suggested that the deck might be more useable if we 112 added some shade and covered space and that's why we're here 113 before you, we'd like to ask for a variance on the setback to 114 allow for a covering over the deck portion, as I say, and that's 115 already been approved. 116 We're not asking for any change in the footprint of 117 the approved plans. We'd just like to just put a covering. 118 And I have some conceptual drawings here as part of 119 the documents that I provided. The red up there is the piece 120 that we're talking about providing coverage. 121 I do also have letters as part of the package from my 122 immediate neighbors on the left and right of the house who both 123 have provided their approval for concurrence on the front of the 124 deck. 125 We have to answer any questions? This is my first 126 time in front of you. 127 MS. WARD: I think you guys may have already mentioned 128 it, I just want to double check. So the deck was an existing 129 structure? 130 MR. DEERING: The deck is not an existing structure. 131 If you look at the pictures of the back yard, actually scroll 132 back down. This is the back of the house. 133 MS. WARD: Okay. 134 MR. DEERING: The deck does not exist at this point 135 but was part of the plans that were approved. 136 MS. ROUZI: I apologize for that. I think I got that 137 wrong. 138 MR. DEERING: No problem. 139 MR. MISLEH: Is the proposed deck permitted? 140 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, the deck is permitted. It's just 141 the enclosure over. The roof triggers the definition for a 142 building. It's like an addition in some ways. 143 MR. DEERING: If you scroll back up just a little bit, 144 a little bit higher up into the conceptual piece, you can see 145 that covered piece there that's over the deck and if you go up a 146 little higher, you can see that's the piece that we're talking 147 about, asking the variance for, the covering. 148 As I understand it we had to come ask for a variance 149 because it would attach the house as opposed to simply free 150 standing. 151 We talked about doing some other things but it 152 required structural engineers and we also likely provide the 153 level of shade that we were hoping to get in making that space. 154 You can see there are some pretty big glass doors there that 155 would open up to that piece where it would be a nice space to 156 extend the house up. 157 MR. EPPLER: I'm assuming since it's southern 158 exposure. 159 MR. DEERING: So this space is the Presbyterian 160 Church. So Broad is -- so that's actually facing -- we back 161 right up to the parking lot of the church. If you're heading 162 out towards Seven Corners, right, on Broad, we're the first 163 street after 7 and 10 Lee Highway and so our property backs to 164 the Presbyterian Church on Broad Street. 165 MS. WARD: The house in the rear was always been in 166 construction, you guys went down to the foundation, and then you 167 rebuilt the first story, rebuilt the second story. 168 MR. DEERING: Yeah, that's right. The only -- right. 169 So we went all the way down to the foundation. They kept some 170 of the exterior walls on the first level. They're not really 171 structural. We added some square footage on the front of the 172 house where we were allowed to, but we didn't have any room to 173 build back which is one of the reasons we went up. 174 MS. WARD: And just so I understand, the 50 foot, I'm 175 not familiar with, is that a Lawton Street thing? 176 MS. ROUZI: It is. I think it's the original 177 subdivision building restriction line, which by the way the 178 Zoning Office does not enforce. We enforce the standard or yard 179 averaging requirement that's in the Code. 180 MR. MISLEH: Just to be clear, it's 40 feet or 30 181 percent, what you explained. 182 MS. ROUZI: Oh, so the rear yard requirement is 183 reduced to 30 percent of the lot depth so you end up with about 184 29 feet. 185 MR. EPPLER: The back of the house is at 25 feet? 186 MS. ROUZI: 29 feet. Or some fraction of. 187 MR. DEERING: If you look at this from a satellite, 188 it's pretty clear that the church purchased part of our back 189 yard at some point. It's a cutout in their parking lot. 190 MR. MISLEH: How long have you owned this property? 191 MR. DEERING: We moved in in July of 2012. 192 MR. EPPLER: Did you by any chance contact the church 193 to find out if they had any objection? I know, it's on the 194 other side of the property. 195 MR. DEERING: Actually I did not. It's a fair 196 question. I will tell you, the existing house before we went 197 down had a second study. There was an exit out of the back of 198 the house, I assume about the same level as this would be so we 199 could oversee into the church parking lot. 200 To be honest, when we bought the house I tried to have 201 some communication with them around some of their lights and 202 that sort of thing. I didn't get a lot of feedback from them. 203 So to answer your question, no, I didn't. On the 204 other hand, I don't think that we've had any communications from 205 them whatsoever. 206 MR. EPPLER: I don't know what the property looks 207 like, your back yard or the details of the property, you've got 208 some curved buildings on the other side. You want to comment. 209 MR. DEERING: Right, so we have a fence. Directly on 210 the other side of the fence is their parking lot, the church's. 211 So if we're looking out the back of the house, looking at the 212 east side, across the parking lot, to Fairfax Street I guess it 213 is, it's not unlike our neighbor to our -- that's closer to 214 Broad Street. It's got a second level balcony that is 215 overlooking. 216 MS. WARD: Isn't this represented by in front of the 217 property? 218 MS. ROUZI: That's correct, within 150 feet of the 219 subject property, so they would have to proceed left. 220 MS. WARD: Okay. 221 MR. MISLEH: I have a question about the impervious 222 lot coverage. What's the requirement for this lot? 223 MS. ROUZI: It's 35 percent maximum. The Zoning Code 224 also limits the authority of the Zoning Office to review 225 226 impervious lot coverage at grading plan. So if a project 227 proposal does not trigger a grading plan, the Zoning 228 Administrator does not have the ability to not waive impervious 229 lot coverage. 230 MR. DEERING: So I will tell you that we did actually, 231 Akida asked a question earlier this week about that and I did 232 have my builder go through sort of a -- and I don't want to call 233 it formal because I don't know exactly how he did it, but still 234 below that 35 percent that Akida just mentioned, impervious 235 surface. 236 MS. ROUZI: That's correct. Actually, yeah, Mr. 237 Deering was courteous enough to actually provide that number. I 238 think it is in your packet, both the lot coverage and the 239 impervious coverage right below the maximum permitted by Code. 240 We're looking for that numbers now, unless it's in front of you. 241 MR. MISLEH: In that proposed condition it's within 242 the variance request. Thank you. 243 Just for the record, that document shows 34.9 percent 244 coverage. 245 Do you have any additional comments for the Board this 246 evening? 247 MR. DEERING: It would be lovely to have a covered 248 porch. 249 MR. MISLEH: Okay. So I must tell you, I'm sure 250 staff's already told you, because there are only three members 251 252 this evening, it would require a unanimous approval in order to 253 pass this variance request. So you have the option to request a 254 continuance this evening to wait for a full Board which you 255 would only need a majority. 256 MR. DEERING: Can I poll the council, the members 257 first? 258 MR. MISLEH: No helping. 259 MR. DEERING: I mean, here's the thing: I guess 260 there's no reason for me to continue because it's not going to 261 change, right? If we can't do this, I don't know if we would 262 have to do something different. So I don't think there's any 263 reason for a continuance. 264 MS. DEERING: How many more people would be here? 265 MR. MISLEH: It would be five potentially. 266 MS. DEERING: Okay. 267 MR. MISLEH: You have up until the time when we call 268 the vote. 269 MR. DEERING: Yes, certainly. Maybe I should have 270 done some homework and research. 271 MS. DEERING: Did we know before coming here tonight 272 that we wouldn't have a full panel to assess? 273 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, we would have. Laura would have 274 them, the members attending. 275 MS. DEERING: I guess we weren't informed of that. 276 MR. MISLEH: You have up until we call for a vote. 277 We're going to deliberate openly. 278 MR. DEERING: Okay. 279 MR. MISLEH: We'll poll you before we -- 280 MR. DEERING: Fair enough. Thank you. 281 MR. MISLEH: At this time if the applicant has no 282 additional comments, I'd like to open it up for the Board. 283 MR. EPPLER: Okay. So I'll start. 284 So, given the shape of the lot and the fact that they 285 built the existing foundation, this does not seen to be an 286 unreasonable request. Shade would be, as he said, quite useful. 287 And there does not appear to be neighbor opposition. The Church 288 did not respond. (Audio distortion) 289 MS. WARD: Yeah, I tend to agree about all the 290 comments. I initially wasn't sure about the deck, building 291 existing, you know, permit in place, but that's been addressed 292 tonight. And I think that the proposed structure is 293 minimalistic with this kind of how much space it takes up for 294 the neighbors and I'm supportive of it. 295 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 296 Akida, a quick question. You commented about if this 297 were to be a covered porch on the front it would encroach on the 298 setback there. It would be approvable at staff level; is that 299 correct? 300 MS. ROUZI: Correct. 301 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 302 MS. WARD: Yes, I guess just one question on that. Is 303 it 12 feet, the deck? 304 MS. ROUZI: Yes. 305 MS. WARD: Because I thought 8 feet was the -- 306 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, encroachment in the front up to 8 307 feet, yeah. 308 MS. WARD: Okay. In the back. 309 MS. ROUZI: It's further. 310 MS. WARD: It's further in the back? 311 MS. ROUZI: Yeah. 312 MS. WARD: Okay. 313 MR. MISLEH: Any additional comments? 314 (No response.) 315 MR. MISLEH: Would you like to continue forward? 316 MR. DEERING: Yes. 317 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 318 Would someone like to make a motion? 319 MS. WARD: I'd like to make a motion to approve 320 variance application V1638-23 by Steve Deering, applicant and 321 owner, for a variance to Section 48-238(3) a. to allow a rear 322 setback of 18.25 feet instead of 40 feet for the purpose of 323 constructing a covered porch at the premises known as 104 Lawton 324 Street, RPC -- hold on. One thing. Do we need to specify how 325 large we're allowing, width? 326 MR. MISLEH: Go ahead and continue the motion and then 327 we'll -- 328 MS. WARD: Okay. 329 -- instead of 40 feet for the purpose of constructing 330 a covered porch at premises known as 104 Lawton Street, RPC 331 #53-116-007 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 332 R-1A, Low Density Residential. 333 MR. MISLEH: Akida, can you give us the specific 334 dimensions of the covering for the motion? I see 12 feet on 335 the plat provided but there's no width. 336 MS. ROUZI: I don't know. I wonder if the applicant 337 has that information, the width of the -- I don't see it on the 338 plat either. 339 Was the Board thinking to approve the setback but 340 control the width of the deck I think. 341 MR. MISLEH: It's important that it's limited to 342 what's been calculated as impervious and what's been presented. 343 MR. DEERING: I don't have it with me. 344 MS. ROUZI: I wonder if you can say as shown on this 345 plat and we can make sure they submit the dimensions that are 346 more or less similar to the footprint that's provided on the 347 plat; does the Board feel comfortable with that? 348 MR. MISLEH: That's fine. If you're okay with that, I 349 think we could amend the motion to limit the size of the 350 covering, of the proposed covered porch to the length and width 351 or the depth and width as shown on the plat and as considered by 352 the impervious lot coverage calculation provided by the 353 applicant's drawing. 354 Does someone need to restate that in its entirety for 355 the record? 356 MS. ROUZI: I think we've got it. We've got it in the 357 recording so we'll make sure it's written well. 358 MR. EPPLER: I will second the motion. 359 MS. ROUZI: Okay. For roll call. 360 Ms. Ward. 361 MS. WARD: Yes. 362 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Misleh. 363 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 364 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Eppler. 365 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 366 MS. ROUZI: Thank you. 367 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much for coming this 368 evening and good luck with your project. 369 MR. DEERING: Thank you for your consideration. We 370 appreciate it very much. 371 What happens from here? 372 MS. ROUZI: We will send you an official resolution, 373 approval resolution. But we'll connect with you. 374 MR. DEERING: Thank you very much. 375 376 b. Approval of 2023 BZA Rules of Procedures (Revised) 377 MR. MISLEH: Next on the Agenda is the Approval of the 378 2023 BZA Rules of Procedures, revised. 379 Will staff please point out what's changed. 380 MS. ROUZI: Yes. It was a typo I believe. There was 381 a typo. I can't remember exactly what it was but our Deputy 382 Zoning Administrator Laura Arseneau corrected that typo. That's 383 why it's coming back for approval. 384 MR. MISLEH: Would someone like to make a motion? 385 MR. EPPLER: I will move to approve the 2023 Rules of 386 Procedure of the Board of Zoning Appeals, adopted and revised. 387 MS. WARD: I'll second. 388 MS. ROUZI: Ms. Ward. 389 MS. WARD: Yes. 390 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Misleh. 391 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 392 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Eppler. 393 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 394 MS. ROUZI: Thank you. 395 MR. MISLEH: Can we please have Laura circulate this 396 updated copy to the Board through email? 397 MS. ROUZI: Yes, sir. 398 399 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 400 a. Approval of the January 12, 2023, Meeting Minutes 401 MR. MISLEH: So the next item on the Agenda is the 402 Approval of the Minutes from January 12, 2023. 403 Were you at that meeting? If not, then there's no 404 point in reviewing. 405 MS. ROUZI: That's correct, you would have to abstain 406 since you weren't there and two members can't vote to approve 407 something so we'd have to continue the minutes. 408 MR. MISLEH: Okay. We will continue the Approval of 409 the Minutes until the next meeting. 410 411 7. OTHER BUSINESS 412 MR. MISLEH: There's no Other Business. 413 414 8. ADJOURNMENT 415 MR. MISLEH: We'll go ahead and move to adjourn. 416 MS. ROUZI: All those agree? 417 (A chorus of "ayes.") 418 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 419 420 421 422 423 424 425