Good evening, everyone. Go and call the order. The board of zoning appeals meeting for Thursday, April 10, 2025. Can I get a roll call please? Mr. Peter Keane. Here. Mr. John Missane. Mr. John Miss. Mrs. Christine Ward is absent. Mr. Keith Bartlett here. Mr. Dale Eppler is absent. Mr. Jean Griscoe. We have a quorum. All right, do we have any possessions? We do not. And any old business to cover? Yes, I apologize. There's a error with the agenda. The new item business should actually be under old as this is a continuation. All right. Noted. Okay, so our old business for this evening is variance application V1659-25 by Miguel Nagales. On behalf of Jillian and Mike, is it Economo? Owners for a variance to section 48, S263, 3, 1 to allow side yards setback of seven feet, 1 instance of the eight feet minimum allowable for screen porch, a 12, 0, 3, a Lincoln Avenue, RPC number five, 1-215-101 of the false charts, real property records. So, and R1B, medium density, residential district. Anyone who'd like to speak, please step forward. Hello again. Again, signing in again. I appreciate you coming out here for me. Sure. All right, and we'll swear you and again raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth to the best of your ability to do so? Yes. Thank you. Please say a truthful name. Michael Nicholas, you can't. Right. Mr. Connolly, the floor is yours. Okay. Well, thank you for for me. So I did submit more materials for review this for this continuation, but I'll go ahead and if you don't mind me kind of talking through it. I'll largely follow the cover letter, just as prepared remarks. But so when I came here the first time originally petitions that we built a screen porch in line with the existing structure of the house. And that's where I got clarification while the what's been plotted as a Bay window didn't count. It was a permissible protrusion into the setback. And so that's where I went back. And I also got some clarification on how we're supposed to measure footprint and those kinds of things was able to revise the measurements and revise the percentages of coverage and all those things based on my understanding of the measurements. So the issue that was troubling me I guess is what's going on right now is my dining room wall essentially was called a bay window so I've got part of my dining room that sticks one and a half feet into the side setback. And then on the other side of the setback, I have a garage that sticks three feet into the other side of the setback. So trying to go through the zoning code, I'm trying to figure out what I can do to kind of correctly judge the screen porch because what's confusing confusing me is how the dining room is allowed and the garage is allowed to screen porch wasn't. And so that really seems to stem from the issue that screen porch is not a term in zoning. It doesn't exist. And so what does exist is all sorts of other things, right? There's terraces,, terraces, balconies, porches, eavestax, terraces, greenhouses, strange buildings, canopies. There's all sorts of things listed. And the crux, my argument is kind of no matter what, you say a screen porch is most like, it is still within the allowed protrusion into the side yard setback. So if it's an accessory building, it's allowed what, three feet. If it's, if it's more like, if it's an architectural element, it's allowed two and a half feet. And we're looking for 11 inches. So that's where I was trying to figure out why is the screen porch not allowed the 11 inches, but if it was a greenhouse, I'm allowed three feet, garage three feet, balcony three feet. So that's kind of some of the clarification I was hoping to get from the board is if we can say what screen porch belongs in so we can judge that appropriately. For comparison, so I did include a picture of the, this is the dining room. So the purple arrow is pointing to where the setback technically starts. So you can see that whole wall was called a bay window, but that's a foot and a half kind of just sticking out there, like past that little corner of the wall. There is an existing deck off the back, but again, decks are allowed any part of the setback. So, it's tricky for purposes of taxes. The other thing I want to point out is that that what's called a bay window for zoning purposes. When it comes time for taxes that's considered livable space, it's part of the dwelling, So it's actually part of the assessment and part of my property tax as a livable square footage. So I'm kind of putting this spot where false church is saying it's part of your dwelling for taxes but not part of your dwelling for zoning. So open to get relief from the board to try to build and utilize the space that's consistent with the current plot where I've got again, you know, dining room going in a foot and a half on one side garage going three to the other side, I'm trying to stay within existing boundaries of what I think most people would call part of the house. Okay, so Where will we like to start here? So the original request was to go to sit. So the original request we set a foot and a half because that's what we measured the bump out to be for the dining room. But then when we got clarification, we're supposed to only measure to the footprint. That's what brought it back in to say, oh, we'll take it by that standard. We only need 11 inches And you have something that shows that I'm trying to picture this I remember the original Illustration showed it in line with the bump out right and so the new It's yeah, so the new porch. It's kind of hard to see with you zoom in a little bit on that left side of the picture. You can see what's called a window on the plot bumps out. And then the porch was meant to come along close to closer to in line with that. So it sits in that same space. Right. I think what you're trying to do originally is you saw you had this bay window calling it a bay window. Right. It's a bay window. It's a it's a it's part of the dining room, right? So that's the survey that's drawn with that that is allowable into the side yard setback per code. Right. And you wanted to extend and build a new porch that followed that line. And the original variance was a request was to allow that new porch to be in the side yard set back. That's what you did require a variance for. Well, that's where I was trying to figure out which you do require a variance for. So that's where I was trying to decide. So if it was just a deck, I would not require a variance, right? That's where we need staff to. Yeah, no, the determining factor here is the fact that it is covered. If it's an open deck, it can encroach three feet into the side yard. So then I also have a covered garage that encroaches three feet on the other side. Is that a detached garage? Detached accessory structures can be as close as three feet from the side and rear property lines. It is not subject to the same set back as the house itself. Right, and so that's where in order to really say that this you have to count the screen porch as part of the house. Yes, the screen porch is an extension of the house. Yeah, it's a rather the structure. That's where I was looking at the definitions here and it was saying it's yet if it's structural like a garage, that's an attached accessory building, but if it's not structural, it's not. And then we've also got all these other things that are allowed to protrude off the house again, Polknees terraces. I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out. It doesn't say the word screen porch anywhere. So now we're saying, this is most like, screen porches are most like an attached structural garage. Is that the very use of the basket? A mask in right there is that. what the board says is that it's the the the the the the, the attached accessory building that part of the code says, if it's a structural part of the house or connected by what is it at least 10 feet wide path between the structures, which I don't think either applies. This is built on posts. It's really standing like a deck. So how does that account? So the attached accessory building F is that what you're talking about under the supplementary regulations that is referring to attaching a garage to the house. That gives you the ability to exceed the accessory structure attached accessory structure height by attaching the garage to the house. But then you are subject, that garage is then subject to the same setbacks as the house. So that's the difference. That is not referring to a screen porch or a covered porch. Perfect. Because that's the only part that says we're not allowed to use the side setback. All of the other sections give feet of setback that we can use. Which other sections? So sections E, right, cornices, two feet, six inches, uncovered stairs fire escapes four feet, six inches. Right. Right. So the problem is, is that list under E does not include a covered porch. So staff kind of the crux and argument, it's not defined. So okay, because it's not defined. But then if you go below three, see, I normally staff doesn't take a position on a variance application, but if you do this, I'm gonna, okay, so I'm gonna, before I defer to the board, if you go to four under E, there's one which is projections allowed in the minimum front and minimum rear. Two, same projections are allowed on the side, but up to three feet, right? Three feet. Three is minimum rear yard only, but then you go down to four. In the front yard, in addition to the projections, as sets forth in subsection, E1 of the section, eddac, or un-enclosed porch, may project up the eight feet into the required front yard. And then it says, an enclosed portico or a porch, not more than eight feet in width may not project more than eight feet into the required front yard. So I know. So the fact that it specifically allows a enclosed and covered porch to project into the front, but the code is silent when it comes to the side yard. We mean that to take your porch on the side yard. That's kind of my point. But the front yard specifically mentions an enclosed porch, but not in side which means that in the silent that you do whatever you want. I'm not saying I can do whatever I want. I'm saying the side yard spells out lots of examples. I think that you can encroach and it's pretty it's a long list. It's a pretty long-sleeved list contemplated list by those that wrote the code right? No, I think it's a pretty long contemplated list, contemplated list by those that wrote the code, right? No, I think it's a non-exhaustive list as many lists aren't, but that's where there's even language like other architectural elements. Right, so I think it was written knowing it's not like trim. Yeah. Well, no, because it also includes, um, what's like a utility usage, right? Like, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. to allow you to build an attachment to your home into the side yard setback. And that's what the variance request is to us and that's what we'll discuss. So the for you that I'm saying that false searches imposed on me is they were saying that the existing foot like the existing structure of my house again is taxed as dwelling living space, which would normally give me extension by right along the same line of where it's built. But for zoning purposes, we're saying it's a bay window. Let's pause and can you just bring us, let us look at the existing condition so that we can fully understand. It's my understanding based on what we've been provided that there is an existing variance already on this property allowing you to build to seven foot one inch rather than the eight foot minimum required for this substandard law. Is that correct? No, Mr. Miss Lodz, there's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So that's the same measure. So the deck. So right now you're you've built to eight foot. I'm looking at the this plat. That's correct. Okay. And the Bay Wind Foundation. And you're saying the Bay Window protrudes how far into that eight foot. One and a half feet into the. Okay. And Mr. Ms. Love, you know, I might add that, you know, if I saw a way to administratively approve this encroachment, I would. But because it's not listed on the allow projections, and then the same flexibility that we allow for covered porches in the front and the rear is not mentioned for side yards. That's why we refer this to the board as variance. And in the past we have I think considered the board has considered porches in the rear yard that encroached. I don't want to argue with Mr. Econno-Mob, if that's your interpretation, I mean, the other way to look at this is, can we call your porch? I thought about this this morning, a bay window, then it's not less than one-third of the wall, so you wouldn qualify for that flexibility either. And then could we call it a balcony, just Googling images of balconies and porches and bay windows. It's clearly a porch. It's very hard to put it in any other category. If I could, I would. And I just, I apologize. I know we had that discussion. That's fine. I mean, that's kind of point though. Yeah, it comes down to the code because it lists the long lists. It comes down to like the semantic like we'll call the dining room a bay window. We'll call the orange and green house. Our what I think we're met you're we're talking past each other. Actually, um, you're your foundation is at eight feet. The Bay window has nothing to do with this variance request. Has nothing to do with it. You're asking to attach a screen porch at the rear of your home into the side yard setback. That is all we are considering. And so you have to demonstrate to us that there's a reason why if you don't get that porch into the side yard setback, the code is unreasonably restricting your use to the property. So let's focus on the porch. The Bay window has nothing to do with this. You originally wanted to use the existing side yard setback of the Bay window to have a linear dimension to your screen ports have it continuous. But that's not what the variance that you're asking for. So we're here tonight being asked for an 11 inch variance. Okay. That's correct. For a covered screened in porch. That's correct. Understood. Did we get letters from the Jason neighbors? Yes. Okay. The neighbor couldn't make it tonight, but he did send in, this was he signed this tonight. This was on the side that it's encouraging, but he did send in as I've reviewed the projected measurements and plans and support. Okay. So I read this into the record. Yes, please. All right. The statement support by James. Is it phone? Booy. Yes. Residing a 1201 link in Avenue. I reviewed the proposed placement measurements on the reverse side of this sheet and have no objections to the proposed placement of a screen porch of 1203A Lincoln Avenue signed James Bui on 410 25 and the illustrations on the other side of the illustrations that had been submitted as part of the proposal showing the plot of the property as well as the dimensions of the porch. To be clear, this is, is this the property that's on the same side as the request bearing on the same side as the porch. Okay, thank you. I have a structural question to ask you. So where you have revised the project back to, you'll be building over the existing deck that's already there. Correct. All right. So I'm limited by, on the one side, I can't shift it much further over because there's a retaining wall and then a staircase. So we're limited on how far to the left we can go. And I believe we may have touched on this last time. Is there a reason why the porch can't be at eight feet or why the screen porch can't be at eight feet versus seven feet one. Yeah, it's just, it's a function of when it's already kind of a narrow space, you start to lose function of like, can I even fit it couch? Can I fit like there starts to become real restrictions on the use of the space once you make it to narrow up? So just to go on that, if you went to the eight, I'm measuring that rather than 11 feet, four inches, you'd be correct me if I'm wrong, 10 feet, five. Right. 10 feet, five. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I have seen rooms that of that ilk and you have not gone thought of going further back into the property. Let me just make one clear. Your actual screened in portion of the porch goes back 10, 12 feet as I see it. Right. That sounds right. Okay. Goes back 12 feet. That's correct. And then there's the actual screened in portion, not rest steps and all that. Yeah. And then the right. Put the stairs behind that to try to take more of of the okay space going deeper into the yard to put the stairs back. So back to the question of if you had it. 10 feet 5. Site to side, but further back on what the Well, part of the comedy of the code is if I took those same stairs and I flipped the whole thing around so that the stairs are actually protruding three feet into the setback to have the stairs on the side instead of going into the back I would encroach more into the setback but I would be compliant with zoning. I mean why why are you going into the setback versus just pushing everything into the backyard and keeping your stairs? Well, as you projected, there is a patio back there that does limit how far back we can go. So before we start going into our own patio. So, okay, so there's, so you're not going to put in your mouth, but it sounds like you have two issues. Right. One, you can't go further towards the driveway because of the stairwell from the basement. That's correct. Okay. Three issues. You're concerned on, if you stay with the eight on the side, that the size of the room withwise, because you're confined on both sides, right, is 10 and five, 10 feet five. And you can't go further back because you're saying that there's a patio that if you want to interrupt. And this is what my builder insuminid, but that's years old. You got that off before we bought the house. That was the best thing. So there's a patio where that landing is now. So you're saying this would not, but by doing what you want, you're not impacting that current patio, not digging it up or what have you. Yes. So again, I'm track. I want to put words in your mouth. Absolutely right. But I'm just saying, you're searching for the issue of use of your property and the hardship that you're looking at that in terms of a amount of usable with not wanting to impact the patio, etc. Correct. Okay. And Mr. Grasco to add, it's also a substandard for width, so it's a relatively narrow lot. in which they have gotten a reduction of the 10 normally to the 8. So there's already been a reduction when the builder built. Okay, so I'm not. You are correct, but a reduction has already been taken on this R1B. To have built this house this close originally. Based on this picture, building over the existing footers on the right side, those looked to be in a line with the foundation and the property wall there. Am I missing something with the new structure hang over those certain number of inches? The deck posts go past the wall a little bit. I mean, we're down to a couple of inches now, but that's, it's based on where the posts are, right? My question was is that will the the structure you're proposing hang over that existing by that's and that's what you're asking for that kind of 11 inches Because it's going to hang over that on some level. Yeah, the 11 inches is where the actual posts will sit. There will be overhanging elements that we originally part of our foot and a half request. But then we're told, hey, that doesn't really count because like part of the overhanging roof, if you will, isn't part of those are allowed projections. How wide is that staircase from the basement from the basement? I'm not sure. I don't know that I have that measurement. I would be estimating I don't have that I have that measurement. I would be estimating I don't have that measurement on hand. All right. Are there any other questions from the board or any other items you want to bring to our attention before we close the open discussion? I think the applicant asked or stated that if, if you were to move the stair, the proposed stairs, um, to the side of the proposed, um, enclosed porch that they would be allowed into that setback. And I think that just to clarify that, I think as long as that meets the code that's totally within you right. Yeah, that's what I was just using as a point of comparison. So that would be an allowed use of this set because it's an unenclosed staircase. But I was actually that would, if for all practical purposes, eat up more of the side yard and put me closer to my neighbor. So that's where it seems the better compromise is actually keep the stairs going further back and instead have the screen didn't part a little wider. Thank you. So back to my previous statement. Is there anything else in regards to the width of the porch or the width of the screen porch that's proposed the applicable hardship or any other information you'd like to share with us. I think that covers it. I mean, so the previous discussions on total footprint coverage and stuff have been resolved now that we've gotten better measurements. It really is just downs of the side yard setback issue. Any questions? I don't have any further questions. All right, then we will close the open discussion and the board will discuss. I'll start by saying, the covered or screened in porches or screened in decks, outdoor living rooms, whatever we want to call them, are frequent requests of this board and oftentimes they're encroaching into the rear yard setback and we've seen these requests multiple times, especially on lots that were subdivided at some point in time and had two homes built. And we have in the past a shy to weigh from granting this type of variance because of the precedent it would set if the code is not clear or the code needs to be amended it's really an issue that needs to be taken up with city staff and the planning commission. It's not, I don't think it's this board some place to reinterpret or rewrite the code. to elaborate or to expand on that, If the hardship that you're bringing to the board is what you feel is a vigness of the code, then we are not the appropriate panel to judge that. Right. If the hardship is something else, you feel as a reasonable use of your space or reasonable use of your lot. That's right within our wheelhouse. But to provide a variance into a step back that's already seen relief based on the existing substandard lock conditions without substantial hardship as to that reasonable use having been shown. I think it would be a challenge to get a variance or support of that variance by myself. That's fair. I think I'll put it this way, given the uniqueness of our lot. What we're trying to do is really respect both our use of the side yard and our neighbors' preference of the lot, to. So again, that's where it's instead of hanging a three-foot wide compliance staircase off the side that takes those three feet into the setback. Let's go a couple inches into the setback and put the staircase deep rinse of the yard. And so that's something that our neighbor supports as well. And it's really more of a unique constraint of the lot and what we're working with to try to make use of the space. Well, Mr. Keen, I don't want to correct you but I think they applicants could come forward like one recent one where they didn't want a variance but they were objecting to the interpretation of the code. I forget which property that was the whole driveway thing on a flower, was it? Yeah, so there is an aspect where they could come, which is not the case here of questioning the interpretation. But again, this now is asking for a variance to the interpretation that staff has put forward. I think on this site that interpretation could be considered if that Bay window was had already received a variance to protrude into that side setback, but it didn't. The relief that was given was to go from 10 feet to 8 feet and the bay windows conforming and a screened-in covered porch is non-conforming into that setback. Yeah, and then please correct me, Saffron, if I'm wrong, that relief that that previous applicant was looking forward to relief from a decision that staff had made in regards to an application. It was not a variance to the actual code itself. That's correct, Mr. Keane. It was I denied their application, citing the driveway with exceeded the maximum. They appeal that decision to the board of zoning appeals. That's correct. And there's been no such denial of this application. It's just been deemed that it is a variance that the board should see. And I think that's the difference. And are weighing in on whether that's considered the hardship or not. Does that make sense? I think so. Yeah. Again, I'm'm not steep in this. I'm trying to follow. I mean, I empathize with home buyers like yourself who come into this into fall church or wherever but in fall church buying a house that builders have built to the maximum extent possible to maximize their dollars. And I understand some of the frustration that you and others face. But I need to be as consistent as possible. This is to me more of a want than an unreasonable restriction on your UC your property. An aesthetic want an apparent perspective to be a better use of your property, but it's not restricting your UC your property. And because of another element of your use of your property restricts your use potential use of this part of property, because you have a patio there that apparently is restricting your use. And so I'm uncomfortable, I'm allowing this, not just inherently, but because there will be then future judgment decisions on what is an appropriate allowable setback into, to the park seating into setback. And all homes that have reached their footprint max or their setback max. That's what I that's where I struggle with these all the time. Well, I also struggle in terms of setting the precedent. And in the time I've been doing this, I think the closest I've seen is like seven and a half feet, not seven and one inch. So, but always cognizant of, you know, the type of lot and this, because no, no two issues are to say, That's the way I always view it. I say they're never 100% exact, exact, exact. My where I'm leaning is if I had not seen or we had not seen that letter, then I would have said, am I going to go this close? But if your neighbor has said, I'm okay given this unique situation. Then I'm leaning to say, okay, I can be head. All right. Any more comments? None at this time. I have a motion before the board. I'll make a motion. Whereas the board of zoning appeals has held a duly advertised public hearing on April 10, 2025 on case number V1659-24 for variances section 4826333A to allow a side yard setback of 7 feet 1 engines instead of the 8 feet minimum allowed for a screen porch at 1203a Lincoln Avenue. and whereas the BZCA fines that the applicant has not met all applicable standards or variances as the fourth and section 15 to 2201 and 15 to 2309, the COVID of Virginia and the City of Falls Church zoning ordinances section 48172 6. And now there for be it It was resolved that the BZA hereby denies variance application V1659-25. Second. Rikin. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Griscoe. No. Mr. Miss La. Yes. Motion passes. Before we didn't get to the conclusion,'m sure you wanted, I hope you can revise your plans and still be able to enjoy the space. I'm very familiar with Lincoln Avenue. I know those properties are very constrained, but unfortunately the board couldn't get to the hardship of the sizing. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Older green house instead. All right. We are on to the approval of the minutes of the March 13, 2025 meeting. Make motion to approve those minutes. Second that motion. Mr. Grasco? Yes. Mr. Mizlough? Yes. Mr. Keane? Yes. Mr. Bartlett? Yes. Motion passes. Do you have any other business? We do not. All right. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Hi. Hi. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. you Thank you.