Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 Thursday, April 13, 2023 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MS. WARD: I'd like to call to order the April 13, 8 2023, meeting of the Falls Church Board of Zoning Appeals. 9 10 2. ROLL CALL 11 MS. WARD: Roll call please. 12 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 13 MR. KIEN: Here. 14 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 15 Mr. Misleh is not present. 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 17 MS. WARD: Here. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 19 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 21 MR. GRESKO: Here. 22 23 3. PETITIONS 24 25 4. OLD BUSINESS 26 a. Variance 27 i. Variance application V1637-23 by Andra Popa, 28 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-238(4)c. to 29 allow a detached garage with a height of 13.8 feet instead of 12 30 feet maximum at premises known as 806 Ridge Place, RPC 31 #53-215-004 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 32 R-1A, Low Density Residential. 33 MS. WARD: Variance application V1637-23 by Andra 34 Popa, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-238(4)c. 35 to allow a detached garage with a height of 13.8 feet instead of 36 12 feet maximum at premises known as 806 Ridge Place, RPC 37 #53-215-004 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 38 R-1A, Low Density Residential. 39 Can we have the applicant step up and sign in. 40 And can you raise your right hand to be sworn. 41 (Witnesses sworn.) 42 MS. WARD: Staff. 43 MS. ROUZI: Sure. This is a R-1A property. The 44 applicant is requesting to allow a height of 13.8 feet for a 45 detached garage which is about 1.8 feet above the maximum 46 permitted in the zoning district for an accessory building. 47 Prior to letting the applicant present her 48 application, I do want to provide some background as to why 49 she's here today. 50 For a new house construction like this, our process 51 requires a grading plan submission and approval and then 52 building plan submission and approval which can take up to years 53 until a building permit is issued to allow building. 54 In this case the grading plan was first submitted in 55 early 2021 showing the proposed garage and non-conforming 56 height. And while staff identified the issue to the applicant 57 in an email during that time, that communication was not 58 entirely clear in my opinion and the grading plan was ultimately 59 approved with that height. 60 There were internal staff notes citing the issue and 61 that the applicant needed to address the height issue during 62 building permits but I don't think that was made clear to the 63 applicant during the grading plan process. 64 So the applicant thought this height was okay and 65 would be approved and she continued to invest time and finances 66 designing and engineering the same plan for the past two years. 67 It wasn't until this January when I took the office of 68 the Zoning Administrator that I rejected her plans for the 69 proposed height and was very clear with her that the height 70 could not be approved administratively and that's why she's here 71 today. 72 MS. WARD: Thank you, Akida. 73 Now can we please have the applicant share your 74 project, speak on your need for a variance and the Board will 75 have a discussion with you, after that discussion to determine 76 if it's appropriate to issue a variance request. 77 Yes, if you don't mind to present a summary. 78 MS. POPA: Thank you for hearing my variance. 79 Essentially when years ago, we bought the property we 80 had (audio distortion). It was clear that it was (audio 81 distortion), the front of the garage. 82 So I had hoped at some point that it would be -- the 83 condition and I had looked at the Code and saw that there was 84 the possibility of requesting a variance if the topographic 85 conditions is allowed to be a consideration. 86 And I had over the course of many years initially even 87 before the planning phase or even before the conceptual design 88 phase of this process, I had spoken to the previous Zoning 89 Administrator and kind of raised all of the concerns that I had 90 and asked what the possibilities were at the time. 91 And I had an email from him -- I think I included it. 92 I haven't looked at the package since the last month but I think 93 I included where he said it could be able to request the height 94 based on the topographic kind of a slope. You know, he did say 95 that it was measured from the -- up to 12 feet beyond the 96 average grade of the structure. 97 So, you know, in that email he did indicate that it 98 had be confirmed with a survey of the property, like essentially 99 all the specifics of the measurements of the property. And so 100 since that time I had submitted the survey, had submitted the 101 building plan. I had three submissions actually and on each of 102 the three submissions, every department and the front office has 103 to sign off on it. 104 And I had not gotten -- I assume that I had properly 105 satisfied the conditions that you wanted to see because with 106 every iteration of letters that I got and the form letters that 107 I'd gotten from the front office, the zoning department 108 regarding permit. And then on November 29 I had gotten a formal 109 letter saying that it had passed all departments. 110 So essentially I've been following the required steps 111 to kind of proceed with the process. 112 And then in January, when Akida got in she said that 113 the best way to proceed was really to come before you and 114 request a variance to allow the height. 115 We can scroll through the pictures but at the very 116 back of the property, at the back of the garage, some of these 117 pictures show the existing structure, the back of the garage. 118 You'll see me standing at the very edge of that garage. You can 119 see the back edge. That's the back corner. So you literally 120 can kind of step up on to there. 121 While we were living there before we started this 122 renovation process, the children played up there. Like I think 123 I have a picture at the very end of the first set of pictures 124 here that shows my dog's been up there, neighbors' dogs have 125 been up there. There's been a fox up there. There it is, right 126 at the roof there, that's like the 14 foot drop that I'm trying 127 to show. 128 Essentially what I'm trying to do lift it enough so 129 that no animal can step up there. There's been deer that comes 130 from the adjoining cemetery that jump over the fence and jumps 131 over this roof. 132 What this picture shows also is when first buying this 133 property, you can see that the cinder block line, this entire 134 area was built up behind like -- it's like a retaining wall 135 essentially. When we first bought it, it's like a three wall 136 retaining wall, three sided retaining wall. 137 We tried to mitigate some of the lateral pressure that 138 this garage was experiencing by removing the dirt on this one 139 side. Obviously I couldn't from the back of the property, 140 because that encroaches on the neighboring property. 141 But on the inside you'll see that the previous owners 142 had also tried to mitigate some of the lateral pressure that 143 this garage was experiencing, by digging all the way around the 144 perimeter of the wall. It just kind of leans towards that 145 support. 146 The problem is it's still taking on water. It's not 147 up to building standards. It's a non-functional garage. I just 148 parked my car for about just over a month while I was away on a 149 business trip and I came back and the entire wall was molding on 150 the inside just because of the wet condition. 151 And I think I have a picture of that. 152 I can address any questions with respect to the 153 concerns that the neighbors have expressed. 154 I actually reached out to the immediate neighbors on 155 the little island of houses that are built. 156 So, essentially to the left of the house that you see, 157 the forefront of this image, that's under construction, you can 158 kind of see a little bit of the white, I came to this a couple 159 years ago, and that's where the garage fits right now. One of 160 the pictures basically shows that it's below eye level of the 161 adjoining property. Both pictures show the street. 162 This picture actually shows the house that's right 163 behind me. You can kind of make out, because of the glare it's 164 hard to see, but you can see where the deck is. The deck of 165 that property is if you're standing above at this point of my 166 property and so essentially like all of the focus is at eye 167 level as it stands now. 168 I think one of her concerns was this privacy interest 169 stated in her letter. Even with the approval of the 1.8 foot 170 variance, it's still going to be below eye level from her deck. 171 My neighbor to the left, it's going to be about 3 feet 172 above the existing level, because essentially that retaining 173 wall that this is built into is at 5 foot, so the first level is 174 -- the first level for the section I think this area is just 175 about grade, the house to the left. 176 So essentially everything I want is below our 177 adjoining neighbors' view. 178 MS. WARD: Thank you. Anything else at the moment? 179 You'll have a chance to speak again. 180 Next we will have a discussion and questions. 181 MS. POPA: Absolutely. 182 MR. KIEN: I have a question in regards to the 183 existing structure height, just so that I'm clear, is not the 184 same height as what you're looking to build, it is at the same 185 height that is required by the City, is that correct? 186 MS. POPA: I didn't have the existing structure 187 measured with respect to what is required by the City. I think 188 it's actually slightly below it because if you're looking at the 189 existing grade, so basically that's the top of the roof of this 190 structure is 14 feet. 191 Yes, I don't have that. 192 But you can see the retaining wall to the left of it 193 is actually one and the same wall. It's part of the same 194 structure but that section that the retaining wall is just five 195 feet. I mean, it is five feet. What you see up to the peak of 196 the gable, that's 14. If I'm allowed to build 1.8 foot variance 197 for the clearance, the difference is going to be about 5 feet 198 above what that peak is, so it's going to be about 19 feet. 199 Even with that increase, it's still going to be below 200 eye level. 201 So essentially, and I'm not an engineer but -- and I'm 202 not sure what the motivation behind that specific measurement 203 cap is but in most situations where you have a detached 204 structure there is enough space for a garage, it exists on a 205 flat plane generally speaking. Most of these properties are not 206 built into a wall or into a hill where they have to retain 207 adjoining property, like the lateral structural. 208 If you were to stand on either of those two 209 properties, the height, the impediment from a visual standpoint 210 wouldn't be beyond -- it would actually be below what would be 211 -- if all the vertical for all three lots were on the same 212 level, it would still be below the existing height. I don't 213 know if that makes sense. 214 So basically if we were all on one flat point 215 together, the 12 foot height above the existing grade would 216 still be below what this point, from their vantage. 217 MR. KIEN: In looking at the rear elevation, the 218 illustrations here, and there's going to be substantial 219 excavation behind when this is taken down, so it will allow for 220 that, you're saying 5 feet from the roof line to the grass at 221 that point, based on this rear elevation. 222 MS. POPA: Say that again. I'm sorry. 223 MR. KIEN: Looking at the rear elevation illustration, 224 as part of what you submitted. This one right here. And the 225 extension of the roof line to get five feet above ground will be 226 from where the existing ground is or will there be additional 227 excavation to allow for that 5 foot? You're saying you're 228 raising it by 5 feet to try to keep it off the ground, did I 229 understand that correctly? 230 MS. POPA: No, actually it's going to be lower than 5 231 feet on the back end because it slopes down. The front, if you 232 look at that elevation, that's what's going to be five feet 233 above. That's the peak of the roof. That's where it's going to 234 be five feet above. 235 MR. KIEN: What I'm trying to understand is the safety 236 concerns that the rear part of the building sits on the ground. 237 MS. POPA: Basically. 238 MR. KIEN: Your changes to this, that rear portion, 239 will it still sit on the ground or will it be substantially 240 higher? 241 MS. POPA: So it's going to be -- so if this is the 242 peak of the gable, it's going to be 5 feet above this. So 243 basically we won't have a condition where you could step up on 244 it. 245 MR. KIEN: Because it will be much higher. 246 MS. POPA: Not much, it will be -- 247 MR. KIEN: Yeah, that's what I was saying. 248 MS. POPA: If you can see, this isn't the best -- and 249 I invite anybody to go out -- I would be happy to allow anybody 250 to go out onto the property and just check it out. But 251 essentially like the roof of this, the top of this privacy fence 252 is very close to the line, to the top of this line. And this is 253 still lower, it's a lower grade than the hill, it needs to go 254 up, so the actual deck off the back of the property behind me is 255 still significantly elevated still. 256 Again, if you're standing on the deck and looking 257 forward, the top of the proposed garage is still going to be 258 above the roof line. 259 I understand the privacy concern, but really trying to 260 rectify what is and has been an ongoing safety issue and also 261 the functional space there. 262 The fact of the matter is I am going to build a two 263 story house. The house itself, even that doesn't seem as high 264 as allows height for the main structure but I'm going to have a 265 balcony off the second floor so as it is, I understand the 266 concern about privacy there but the fact of the matter is I do 267 have a (inaudible) during construction and so that privacy 268 inclusive is not compromised necessarily because they can -- 269 they can -- anybody that tells me that but this will be a 270 structure that cannot fake height. It will make it as if 271 they've all on the same level. 272 MR. KIEN: So if you were to lower the front of this, 273 the highest peak in front of the garage by 1.8 feet from said 274 peak of the pitch, wherever that is, so you have to lower the 275 back by the same amount, is that correct, roughly 3 feet off the 276 ground, not to build prohibitively higher than the ground. 277 MS. POPA: Yeah, and I don't have the pictures now and 278 I saw in the letter from the owner of the property behind me 279 that she, her camera never captured any children on the roof. 280 We've been in the process of trying to get this, 281 nobody has lived in that home during the full duration (audio 282 distortion). Nobody has gone up on that roof as far as I know. 283 But I have pictures of -- literally I had a birthday party for 284 my son, we had a couple of his friends over and I was out there 285 with them but I went in to get the cake and when I came out the 286 kids were on the roof. I mean it was so easy for them. And it 287 doesn't take much for a child, even at three feet. 288 The fourteen feet drop off on the front definitely 289 has made me look at the entire property because I felt that I 290 didn't have the condition and lack of experience and for all of 291 my conversations with the Zoning Administrator that I had prior 292 to, I thought I understood them and had formed an assumption. 293 And my situation, I didn't even close on the construction until 294 I had what I believed enough of an assurance that I could rely 295 upon to give them the proposed plan because the future value was 296 based upon that. 297 The bank at this point is wondering what's happening. 298 I mean, from my perspective and I could be wrong, but I think it 299 would be like a win-win-win situation if I am able to do this 300 because it would help the neighborhood in the sense that it 301 would take two cars off the street that would otherwise be 302 parked on the street, if I actually build a garage. 303 If this doesn't pass, I honestly am not sure what I'm 304 going to do. I'm going to probably have to talk to the bank. 305 It may -- I don't know if it will jeopardize -- I don't know 306 honestly if it will jeopardize. If I'm required to build 307 something, I may not want to put any money towards building 308 something that maintains an existing, dangerous condition. I 309 may not be able to do that. 310 If they require that I build something, it wouldn't be 311 a garage. I would have to build a space similar to what the 312 plan is now just for that. As close as possible financially, 313 because again the future value is based on that is they're going 314 to want the most for potential return. 315 My goal is to own this house and I want to raise my 316 kids here, like high school here. I also don't want to find 317 myself in a position that I raised before the possibility of 318 losing, that is what makes me most nervous. I really thought 319 that this (audio distortion). 320 MR. GRESKO: I think worth keeping in mind that is, 321 (audio distortion) but I think it's really important to find, I 322 don't pity being in this sort of situation, is that it really is 323 strange. Essentially there's a structure that supports property 324 behind it. If you remove what we do consider to be in fact a 325 nuisance, you do jeopardize the structure behind the grade 326 against this side. 327 MS. POPA: But the lateral structural stability is my 328 point. 329 MR. GRESKO: Exactly. But if you need to follow sort 330 of a limited, if you will, concurrence of zoning, you're 331 essentially keeping in place something that, as I said before, 332 still attracts accidents, right? We don't want that. 333 So I think, we think in an effort to sort of make sure 334 it's the win-win-win that was mentioned, to basically preserve 335 the soil and structure, the land behind the garage, that also 336 able to alleviate what we think is an attractive nuisance 337 essentially. 338 MS. POPA: I think -- 339 MR. BARTLETT: Can I just ask a question? 340 MS. POPA: Yes. 341 MR. BARTLETT: Can I ask a question of the City? Does 342 the City differentiate between the garage, an accessory 343 structure, not attached to the primary structure? 344 MS. ROUZI: You can have a detached accessory 345 structure and its use can be storage of vehicles, which is a 346 garage in a sense, or it can be home office suite, a rec room 347 for a family. What it cannot be is an accessory dwelling unit. 348 And the floor plan in the grading permit and the 349 building permit shows living space, bathrooms, a kitchenette, 350 which is also a wet bar which is acceptable by the City 351 requirements and standards. It's similar to other jurisdictions 352 nearby in Fairfax County. As soon as we see a full kitchen with 353 permanent cooktop, that's when it triggers the definition of 354 accessory dwelling which is not permitted. 355 MR. BARTLETT: If this property, the structure, what 356 is the actual height? 357 MS. ROUZI: That would be 12 feet. 358 MR. BARTLETT: So this structure at its front is how 359 high? So if it's was on flat (audio distortion) -- but you're 360 benefitting from contour to increase the actual height of the 361 structure adding it into the structure from the ground floor. 362 So that's a couple of points to make. 363 MS. POPA: It benefits in several ways. So the 19 364 minus this part of the five foot elevation, still gets us like a 365 difference of about -- higher than -- 366 MR. BARTLETT: You're saying the front -- 367 MS. POPA: Oh, I see what they're saying. The back 368 elevation is on here. Essentially 16 feet. 369 MR. BARTLETT: I think I'm just trying to, this is on 370 flat (audio distortion). 371 Can I just ask a question to clarify the purpose, that 372 purpose is to try to rectify an issue of safety but also the lot 373 there includes a retaining structure to retain soil. Your 374 neighbor -- 375 MS. POPA: These are failing walls. Actually they 376 need to give us (audio distortion). For moving this structure 377 the main issue that we have (audio distortion). 378 MR. BARTLETT: So have you considered the other 379 alternatives to insuring the compaction of soil, like a brick 380 wall? 381 MS. POPA: Retaining wall, yes, but again it's 382 disproportionately burdensome because irrespective of everything 383 I just talked about, we would be devaluing our property for the 384 benefit of others because we would be removing a structure that 385 otherwise could be a structure. 386 The policy on the wall, the possibility of actually 387 having that structure there is -- it doesn't make sense. I can 388 barely comprehend that things would not be okay with this that 389 would otherwise be non- functional. 390 MS. WARD: So I guess talking about other options, I 391 know right now the garage is (audio distortion). How about 392 moving that structure? When I look at your property it's very 393 flat. It goes up in the back. 394 MS. POPA: The lot itself is actually on a grade, the 395 front property line. The back is on a 20 foot distance. So the 396 survey shows that. So it was leveled I guess from the back of 397 the property. 398 MS. WARD: Laid out the back of the house to the 399 garage door. 400 MS. POPA: Yes, we were. We were essentially going to 401 extend like the existing kind of like parking spot like. 402 Essentially it already exists but we were going to remove that 403 fence. As you can see. We kind of have it here. 404 MR. POPA: I see what you're saying. 405 MS. WARD: I know you guys are concerned about the 406 back. 407 MR. POPA: Yeah. Still we would have to make 408 significant changes to just like the landscape upgrade, a part 409 of our property. There is such significant building involved, 410 if we moved up, I'd still have the same thing. I just wonder if 411 that's possible. So we're not really alleviating that like 412 incline. Just moving it up to support the soil. 413 MS. POPA: So basically in the sense you would be 414 instead of just building one retaining wall that is like the 415 structural kind of reinforcement, everything that goes into the 416 structural stability, you'd have to build an additional 417 retaining wall. Again, it's disproportionate on the one owner 418 to support the lateral structure of the other adjoining 419 properties when it could be done in a way that essentially just 420 fixes what's there. 421 It also creates -- you still have a different problem. 422 You don't have the problem with the roof, but you have the 423 problem still at the back end, even more than a five foot drop 424 off. 425 So if we move this structure forward, you still have a 426 gap. You still have kids that can play up there. The retaining 427 wall that's there, it's right behind the property, that property 428 line. That's not on my property but kids can get up there, 429 animals can get up there and then you have an even greater 430 thrust up, not from the peak of the gable but certainly 431 essentially from the back of that roof line. So you create 432 another problem and then you have whatever else that could be 433 between those two spaces. 434 And just to go back to address a previous point about, 435 if we're talking about average grade, the average roof height, 436 the back of that garage is going to be at most 16 feet, the 437 front of it is going to be 19 feet. The average between those 438 two is 3 feet. That's one and a half foot average, right? So 439 if you're looking at 3 feet down from 16, remove the five foot 440 kind of buffer, you know, you're still under the 12 foot. 441 That's like 11 feet, right? 442 MR. BARTLETT: I see a structure, the average of 17 443 and a half feet. 444 MS. POPA: 17 and a half feet tall and then minus the 445 5 feet. 446 MR. BARTLETT: Your new structure is actually 447 completely different than that version, the garage and so on. 448 MS. POPA: Right. Essentially it's just moved over. 449 MR. BARTLETT: Right, what we can't see is like what 450 that actually is. You're going to put a 17 and a half foot 451 structure potentially average grade of 5 feet, not the top 452 grade, average grade. 453 MS. POPA: Right. 454 MR. BARTLETT: So 17 and a half feet tall, I'm not 455 sure, the average grade of that is still beyond five feet. 456 Looks to me from back of this picture maybe five feet tall. I'm 457 not sure of the 5 feet on that grading. 458 MS. POPA: Yes. Again, I'm just what I -- (audio 459 distortion). 460 MR. GRESKO: Thanks. 461 Ms. Popa, again I'm struggling in that you keep 462 indicating you want to rectify the current safety issues. 463 MS. POPA: Right. 464 MR. GRESKO: Understandably. 465 But obviously you're not just taking away one part of 466 the garage and making a new one car garage, not even making a 467 two car garage, right? 468 MS. POPA: Right. 469 MR. GRESKO: You're making a two car garage plus space 470 which if it wasn't for the space above, we probably wouldn't be 471 talking here, right? So what I get, I want to focus on the one 472 person objecting that's convinced me behind you, okay? And 473 she's indicating that because of that extra structure above, 474 someone standing at the window would look into her property and 475 her hot tub and her deck and you're saying that that wouldn't 476 happen. 477 However, there's two things: One, this new bigger 478 structure seems like it's closer to the wall than just the 479 current one is. 480 The documents I see say one end is 3 feet and the 481 other end is 6 feet to her boundary line. That's what I'm 482 seeing in this document, okay, which seems a lot closer than 483 that current one garage structure is to the line. 484 So here's where I'm going in that I'm trying hard to 485 reconcile her saying that we look into her property and you 486 saying you won't, because again, this is a bigger building that 487 seems to be closer, higher, and the only side view of this 488 structure is on Slide 24 but there's no reference of that versus 489 the fence. 490 So I'm struggling in terms of will or will you not be 491 able to look into her property, her deck, her hot tub, etcetera, 492 which is one of the crux of Ms. Kaminski's objection. 493 MS. POPA: I understand her objections of privacy 494 interests. Again, the existing structure right now, I believe 495 that we have the survey submitted to the City, the existing and 496 proposed, but -- so I personally don't have the measurements 497 right now on me of the existing condition is but I do know that 498 the orientation of the pivot point I guess of closeness, that 3 499 feet, is still within your required legal limit. 500 MR. GRESKO: I think it's closer than what you 501 currently have, higher, and I'm just struggling with 502 Ms. Kaminski's concern and looking out those back windows could, 503 because you're closer and higher, could look into her property 504 which is the crux of her issue. 505 And I don't see anything here in the documentation 506 that would say yea or nay, that's true. 507 MS. POPA: I mean I guess what we would have to have 508 is some measurement of her side of the property. 509 It's still again, like the whole structure is still below, below 510 her eye level of her property. I think that's a factor. I can 511 attest to that, her house. 512 MR. GRESKO: The current structure? 513 MS. POPA: No, I'm talking about if you're standing 514 from her property, yes, you can see out as well but even with a 515 five foot increase which it wouldn't be five feet. 516 MR. GRESKO: But that is what allows -- 517 MS. POPA: Yes, but the way the roof is, there will be 518 three windows, you can see them here. I'm not sure that those 519 three windows are actually going to be looking over onto her 520 property. 521 But I guess it's possible but it's still going to be 522 below like and if the issue is really like visibility, I'm happy 523 to put some kind of like special kind of window that nobody can 524 see in or out of but still allow light. 525 It's just that privacy really is like a -- unless 526 someone -- 527 MR. GRESKO: I think seeing in but seeing you or you 528 seeing her. 529 MS. POPA: Right, I understand but if we have a 530 certain kind of special window that secures that view, 531 ultimately I'm still going to be able to see in to her back yard 532 because my (audio distortion) the ability to do that. 533 MR. GRESKO: But we're talking about this structure, 534 okay. 535 MS. POPA: Right. So I mean is that something that 536 could be rectified by the type of glass that we choose? 537 MR. GRESKO: Would it be rectified by not having 538 windows back there? 539 MS. POPA: I think it could be, yeah. 540 MR. GRESKO: Yeah. 541 MS. POPA: Yeah, it's not necessary, right. I just 542 put them on my side. Essentially what I was thinking from a 543 design perspective is the angle of the light is greater. 544 MR. GRESKO: Okay. So we talked about Ms. Kaminski's 545 issue and concern. Now I'd like to talk about Linda and Bill 546 Garvelink's concern. In this one, I just look at in that 547 document there, that it was a conditional approval assuming 548 under no circumstance would be supportive of the structure if it 549 would set up a living structure. So that's what that concern 550 was. 551 MS. POPA: So I am not trying to live there, I'm not 552 trying to rent it. I'm not trying to submit anything but use it 553 as an office space. We both work remotely. I work remotely the 554 vast majority of the time. I'm in the office once a week. He 555 works remotely. The sole purpose of that space is meant to be 556 an office space. We're not living there. That was never the 557 intent. 558 MR. BARTLETT: Will there be a full driveway from the 559 street, these garage spaces? 560 MS. POPA: It's going to be storage for the two cars 561 that I was planning to have. I have a car, a gift from my 562 grandfather that is not drivable and I have one car that 563 essentially is (inaudible). 564 MR. BARTLETT: So no driveway? 565 MS. POPA: No driveway. Just storage. But it removes 566 two cars that would otherwise be on the street. 567 MR. BARTLETT: I just want to share that I understand 568 your concerns but I would characterize it as potential 569 frustration over the process for the last two years and 570 potential miscommunication and I sympathize with that, truly. 571 And if I was in your situation I would think that this was quite 572 appropriate or potentially appropriate. 573 But my concern is that you don't need it. Not 574 necessary for the property, not necessary to satisfy your 575 concern about safety, not necessary to solve your problem, the 576 retention wall (audio distortion). 577 So I'm getting to the point where I'm thinking that 578 this is more of a want than a need and when we deal with 579 variances we don't deal with needs. Is this necessary for you 580 to utilize your property. And I don't think this structure 581 necessary. 582 To me there are a myriad of alternatives: Two car 583 garage that doesn't have a use as a garage and then add 584 additional space. To get a variance for that entire structure, 585 I'm just struggling with how we apply our standards to this 586 situation. It just makes me feel -- (audio distortion). 587 MR. GRESKO: Again, back to the other issue of Linda 588 and Bill, back to your comment in terms of zoning regulations, 589 I'm looking at definitions in our Zoning. I'm looking at 590 Section 48-2, okay, where it defines. 48-2 is the definition 591 section of everything that then follows in Zoning. In that 48-2 592 it says: Accessory dwelling unit means a dwelling unit which is 593 in the same structure as, under the same ownership and 594 subordinate to a one family dwelling. 595 And then it goes into that structure as defined in the 596 first sentence, which means in the same structure as the main, 597 it says, then it asks to be called that, sleeping, eating, 598 cooking, sanitation, living. But again, only addressing 599 accessory dwelling unit when it's attached to the main 600 structure. 601 In looking through all the Zoning, I've seen nothing 602 for detached structures, and the whole issue of eating, cooking, 603 sanitation, etcetera, so you've just made a statement that the 604 City has applied this attached standard to a detached standard; 605 am I correct in my interpretation of what you're saying? 606 MS. ROUZI: In some ways. So you are correct. A 607 detached, accessory dwelling unit is not permitted under the 608 Code. An attached accessory dwelling unit is permitted by 609 Special Use Permit, that's correct. But we use this definition 610 to identify whether a detached accessory structure has a 611 dwelling unit or not in it. 612 If they don't have a cooktop, our interpretation and 613 practice is that it is not considered an accessory dwelling 614 unit. 615 MR. GRESKO: So this is more of a case of extending 616 this, which is directly to an attached accessory dwelling unit 617 by special permit a City interpretation to extend it to a 618 detached unit, am I correct? 619 MS. ROUZI: That is correct. 620 MR. GRESKO: Okay. So I'm clear on that. We're in a 621 little gray zone there. The way I look at it, I like to be, 622 here's what is stated literally and this is not stated other 623 than practice. 624 MS. ROUZI: That's correct. And not all aspects of 625 the Code is stated so clearly that there is gray areas where 626 staff has to exercise some discretion and this is actually one 627 of those cases. 628 MR. GRESKO: I understand. Which is, just like my 629 neighbor here, concerning, okay? I'm trying to be respectful of 630 the applicant but also to people who have concerns. But I fear 631 that absolutely this won't be used as a living structure but 632 then I see every aspect except a stove, even though when I go to 633 hotels and I see a microwave or a hotplate or a coffee maker, 634 you can do a lot of cooking in this space as presented and it's 635 concerning. And it's also concerning given this gray area that 636 we've identified. So I just present that concern. 637 MR. KIEN: So what happens if the structure is 1.8 638 feet short? 639 MS. POPA: It wouldn't be. I think that that is 640 average. I'm not sure. 641 MR. KIEN: If you decreased it to the average, 1.8 642 feet shorter in that Code, what would happen to the structure? 643 Would it make it unusable? 644 MS. POPA: Essentially it would make the second story 645 -- I would have to -- and I haven't really had to contemplate 646 that far. I would probably have to choose between any other 647 option. It really honestly is going to be dependant on what the 648 bank says for that, definitely. It's really what I agreed with 649 the bank when I thought I had what I did, a construction loan 650 that is not referred to as additional work not done. But right 651 now it is conditioned. And there are things that I did not 652 want. 653 I feel like I'm -- and granted, I fully acknowledge, 654 that for my part too, I could have misunderstood. I really as 655 just as a reasonable person looking at those letters I really 656 thought that I had the equipment I needed versus other 657 considerations. But I feel that I might be potentially 658 detrimental to your item from a staff's understanding. My 659 understanding is that essentially I feel as to what the bank is 660 concerned that I'm (audio distortion). 661 I don't know what the outcome is, their concerns. I 662 kind of have, when I think about it I have one of three options: 663 Build a garage and hope that's okay for them; don't build 664 anything and like remove whatever money out of that aspect of 665 the build, if they're okay with that because the future value is 666 affected. It could potentially like change the terms of the 667 loan. It might be complicated and obviously at the time I 668 secured that loan the interest rates were much lower. I don't 669 know. I don't know about the future. 670 And then the other option is, is this building 671 absolutely safe without the build. And again, I have nothing 672 else to go on for this but I think if the bank is going to 673 require me to build something, it will not be (audio 674 distortion). Because that's how they think. 675 My goal is to build on this property and just raise my 676 kids here. 677 That's kind of the situation. 678 MR. BARTLETT: I just want to reiterate, I certainly 679 understand that perspective and that goal and objective and our 680 job is to be like arbiters of equality across the City in how 681 things are allowed to be built in the City. And just to clarify 682 that we are not real estate agents, we are not appraisers, we 683 are not lenders. All we do is determine whether or not an 684 application for a variance is appropriate considering the 685 circumstances. 686 I just wanted to put that out there, that those 687 considerations are not part of our deliberations unfortunately. 688 And I'm just going to stop there. 689 MS. WARD: Yes, to kind of get where I am, he said 690 some things around hardship which is one of the main criteria. 691 And I know you guys do have this slope and the retaining wall 692 issues to deal with but I do see that there are options 693 available to the enclosed structure. 694 This is a structure that is 4.8 feet lower. Whether 695 that is exactly what was you wanted, sounds like it's not the 696 case. But I do think that placing that existing garage with 697 something that (audio distortion) -- will still get you from a 698 purchase standpoint but at the back of it and there's other 699 space for construction, on top. 700 But, yeah, that's where I am. I'm fully supportive of 701 the project to replace the garage but just given what we've 702 heard, I don't think it meets the (audio distortion). 703 All right. Any other questions? 704 Anything else the applicant would like to bring up? 705 MR. POPA: I am struggling to see how other options 706 given obviously the limits, other options to avoid the hazard 707 that we've seen. To me, the easiest would be, just to sort of, 708 less burdensome, the arrangement would be to increase. There 709 are a bunch of different -- to completely alleviate this concern 710 to preserve the (audio distortion) -- you had mentioned I think 711 the whole drop still exists, right, but it's just closer to the 712 house. 713 MR. BARTLETT: But we are not structural engineers, we 714 are not landscape engineers, we are not builders. But just 715 colloquially, it seems there are many different options to 716 preserve that slope or retain that soil rather than building a 717 two story space above it as your only solution. Again, the bank 718 is not part of our consideration. 719 MR. POPA: No. 720 MS. POPA: Can I make one comment? Really with my 721 structural engineer, and even with the City's civil engineer, we 722 have explored the options. This proposed option was the one 723 that stuck and the civil engineer was the one that actually 724 recommended that I contact you. We couldn't figure out a thing 725 on this issue. 726 MR. BARTLETT: I will clarify that. His intent was 727 that the only way you could build is to come to us. 728 MS. POPA: Yes. 729 MR. BARTLETT: So that's why he suggested you come. 730 MS. POPA: That's true. That's right. It's not that 731 I haven't already explored all the -- (audio distortion). 732 MR. BARTLETT: I'll start. I don't consider it 733 necessary to repeat all of my points. I'm concerned about the 734 fact that you presented the only option to provide a solution to 735 your problem. And while I sympathize and understand that this 736 would have been wonderful and important and you're stuck on a 737 solution, I do believe there are other alternatives that can 738 resolve your concerns without getting -- (audio distortion). 739 MR. KIEN: I echo what the other Board members have 740 said. It seems that there is the ability to build something 741 within Code that will either be a garage or a unit. I know a 742 lot of that is somewhat contingent on what I imagine the 743 finished square footage calculation that you're working through. 744 I certainly empathize with the presumption going into something 745 like that and now having to modify it after the fact. 746 Again, the hardship being created here doesn't seem to 747 be acceptable towards design. That is not something that we 748 would consider. 749 MS. WARD: On that last point, in my mind what I'm 750 debating, that second story, you need that height on the second 751 story, that to me is not a necessity, having an existing 752 required garage by replacing it with a two car garage. You'll 753 still be able to have a retaining wall structure at one point 754 1.8 feet lower but you still would have all those items that you 755 (audio distortion). 756 The only thing that you wouldn't get would be your 757 second story. It isn't something that I feel is necessary. 758 MR. GRESKO: I share the concerns of the other members 759 and I just focus on that one item of if this was on the flat, it 760 would still be 19 feet in the front, 16 feet in the back beyond 761 lines. And is that -- are we really solving just the hardship 762 or because of this larger structure we are hanging our hat on 763 the safety issues and retaining wall, etcetera. 764 Back to my Board members, I just see that as a -- and 765 I empathize that we got to this point before this is all sorted 766 out. Regardless, it just seems like the issues being created by 767 what you want to build as opposed to strictly that existing 768 structure. 769 MS. POPA: So the existing proposed structure is just 770 about 19. So is what you're saying is I have to build now going 771 to be 8 feet, would be like 17 -- (audio distortion). 772 MS. WARD: Based on your final grading plan and all 773 the requirements (audio distortion) the exact height that you 774 have to have. 775 MR. BARTLETT: Just to share a procedural perspective, 776 that again our job is to interpret the Code, make sure that it's 777 applied appropriately and consistently across the City. Some 778 variances we do not have a lot of options as well and we make 779 sure that we're consistent. 780 (Audio distortion.) 781 MS. WARD: If there's no other discussion, does anyone 782 have a motion? 783 MR. BARTLETT: I would make a motion. I will make a 784 motion to not approve application V1637-23 by Andra Popa, 785 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-238(4)c. to 786 allow a detached garage with a height of 13.8 feet instead of 12 787 feet maximum at premises known as 806 Ridge Place, RPC 788 #53-215-004 of the Falls Church Real Property Records. 789 MR. KIEN: I'll second that motion. 790 MS. WARD: Okay. Can we have a roll call. 791 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 792 MS. WARD: Yes, to deny. 793 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 794 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 795 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 796 MR. KIEN: Yes. 797 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 798 MR. GRESKO: Yes, to deny. 799 MS. WARD: Thank you for coming out. Really sorry for 800 all this trouble. 801 MS. POPA: Thank you. 802 803 5. NEW BUSINESS 804 MS. WARD: We're going to move into New Business, is 805 there any New Business? 806 MS. ROUZI: No. 807 808 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 809 a. Approval of the January 12, 2023, Meeting Minutes 810 811 MS. WARD: We'll move into Approval of Minutes. 812 (Minutes reviewed.) 813 MS. WARD: Would someone like to make a motion to 814 approve the January 12, 2023, Board of Zoning Appeal minutes. 815 MR. BARTLETT: I'll second that motion. 816 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 817 MR. WARD: Yes. 818 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 819 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 820 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 821 MR. KIEN: Yes. 822 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 823 MR. GRESKO: I'd like to abstain. 824 825 7. OTHER BUSINESS 826 MS. WARD: Is there any Other Business? 827 MS. ROUZI: No. 828 829 8. ADJOURNMENT 830 MS. WARD: Move to adjourn? All in favor? 831 (A chorus of “ayes”.) 832 833 834