the board is zoning appeals for March 13th to order. We please have roll call. Mr. Keith Bartlett. I'm here. Mr. Dale Ebbler. Here. Mr. Jean Gresco. Here. Mr. Peter Keane. Here. Mr. John Ebbler here Mr. Jean Gresco here Mr. Peter Keane here Mr. John Mizla here and Mrs. Christine Ward here we have a quorum Thank you very much Do we have any petitions this evening? We do not thank you any old business we do not thank you very you very much. See we have a number of new business items this evening. Like to ask that would be okay if we moved. Items A through D. To the end of the new business and go ahead and I hear the applications first this evening. Are there any procedural challenges with that? There are none other than just a quick reminder with a new system. If you don't turn your microphone on, the recording will not pick up what you spoke and Ms. Ann needs that for the transcribing of the minutes. So please use your microphones tonight. Great, thank you very much. Thank you. So with that said, I'd like to go ahead and call variance application V1659-25 by Miguel Nogales applicant on behalf of Gillian and Mike Connem owners for a variance to section 48-1102 B2A to allow Sideyard setback of 6.5 feet instead of the 8 feet minimum allowed for screen porch at 1203 a Lincoln Avenue Good evening if you'd please come forward to the table. Yes, we have a sign-in sheet here on the table. And if you please fill out that sheet, anyone who intends to speak this evening. to do intense speak this evening. Well, you do that. I'll ask that anybody that plans to speak on this matter raised their right hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. So I hope you got. Thank you. Well you fill out that form. I'll ask staff to cut't give us a quick rundown on this, um, application. Thank you. For 1203A Lincoln Avenue, the applicants are requesting a variance for side setback and lot coverage to construct a screened and porch measured 11 feet, four inches by 15 feet, 11, five, eight inches, six feet, five inches from the property line. The property is owned as R1B medium density residential with a lot area of 6,000 square feet and lot with the 40 feet. Neither complies with minimum code requirements making this property substandard. With the proposed green and porch the properties lot coverage will be at 25.20%. Section 48-1102E allows certain projections into the required minimum side yard. However, screen porch is not an allowed projection. Additionally, Section 48-1102A allows a by-right reduction of a side yard to 20% of the lot width, which is 40 feet for a substandard lot. This makes a required minimum yard for this property 8 feet. The board approved six out of six requests from minimum setback requirements and one out of one request for lot coverage requirements in 2024. We did not receive any public or neighbor comments for this application. Thank you, Ms. Wells. Is it possible to turn up the volume? Thank you. Thank you. We want to push any of these things. Last time there was a beeping noise because we messed with this. One more technical question. Do we need to do If staff would go ahead pull up the application, we can follow along with your presentation. Just let me know what page you want to be on. Your application. Yep. to look into the right side of the house. And you'll come from the right side as a safe window. Big window extend, rotate up to 2 feet from the house. And right side of the house. And we'll kind of come to the right side as a statement. They window extended broken up to the house. Right side. And we'll look for the standard four-door, four-door drive-through car. We're going to be closed to the deck. It's a pretty black braille on the deck center. From the first floor, it's all over the house, and that they can go that we have that house that is really requesting to do much. So, that's that back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a? I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go screen. For wall. Why not. Right. That. They went. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead and open up for the board to ask any questions. Could we go back to the picture just for a second place? I'm sorry because There's two there's two things sticking out there. There's one I think towards the front of the house Which has got the two small windows in it and then there's another one closer to the to the picture, which is the white Which one are you moving out to the white or the one with the two windows? Okay Yeah, okay, all right Got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So the house, the house step back is eight feet. And then the allowable bay window. I guess by right there allowed to protr protrude an additional three feet into it. But just for bay windows, chimneys, things of that nature. Yeah, there's a list of things that can projectly into that's a minimum required yard and bay window is one of them. Chimneys, architectural futures, landings, also on that list. But the Bay windows are limited to one third of the wall links in width. So what you guys are asking for is to have the screen in porch, it wouldn't be extending by right of your house edition. It would be, you want it based on the B window, which is not actually the permissible. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. It's a fine foot. Have you considered instead of having it go further into the side yard setback, having it project further under your rear yard, which you have 64 feet? So extending it that wise versus yeah, it was awesome. They actually they probably have a patio that is not. Is really inside and you have a pretty survey. So patio is, I feel it's going to be very few not one. Right now, right away. Where the. of the website that is called the payment value of the payment. So look at the verify again from that and confirm you have a patent to be approved. So just to consider where we are at the moment, and what you're asking to do on your pamphlet here, it says existing conditions, and you have a picture of the rear of your house. So that is not your existing condition. That is your position right now. And this actually this photograph I took from realpredact on. That's an over portal. That's another portal. It does not fill the highest. We know that I don't know if that direct that demands in the concrete pattern. Oh, so it's not the existing condition. And staff just for staff, I'm curious just to clarify that this patio that they have is not has nothing to do with lot coverage or impervious surface coverage or any other limitations. If it's at grade patio and it is impervious, then that will count towards impervious coverage. But we don't collect that information unless there's a grading plan required. In fact, we were not authorized to collect that calculation unless they pull a grading plan and I don't think the size of this screen porch is gonna reach that threshold. I can ask a question on the zoning ordinance section 48 142 limitations. So it says that existing, extension of existing residential structure can be approved, provided that no portion of the additional would be closer to a fronterside lot than the existing structure, which would seem to be the case here. So I'm curious as to why it's becoming before us. Is it saying that it fits into that exception? Can you repeat that code citation code section? I'm guessing you're not performing 48-142 limitations. And then subsection 3a. 142 limitations. But I don't know if this qualifies as an extension of a residential. Oh, OK. Yeah, this doesn't qualify because the existing wall or that elevation in the side yard is not non-conforming. That only applies if that line was non-conforming. They could expand towards the rear up to 15 feet. But they're not non-conforming because they're required set back is 8 feet and they're at eight feet. Let's stay with that picture. So first of all, so as the staff in the kid, we weren't able to get any neighbor written inputs to this request. Okay. At the lower part of this picture, go down. If you, if you will. More. Okay, right there. Are you putting in a fireplace? Is that a fireplace that is in the corner there? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. If. And I think you're you're hinging on this it. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Because again, we look for what's the rationale to do this given the state code that allows us to make variances. Of some issue or disability or. hardship or etc. I think you're hinging this on saying that this number three you're utilizing the existence area and it says relocating the porch to another spot would requires and if get more disruption. So I think everything in design really that request of why do this. So again, what other thoughts have you did you look at that said, how could we satisfy this without asking for a variance? Did you look at other scenarios? I can't really see from this vantage point, but is there anything stopping you from going over those stairs? I'm going to give you a full structure for all those low points. You can be left side or right side. If I want to be further passed out retaining, what you're currently seeing. I have some full votes. I'm going to be right behind that door. So that was the initial idea. I'm going to try to go as far as possible. Because the steps are in contact with the end of the program. The left side. You can go on the complete opposite side by the driveway. So the poll means, it's like clean outs inside of this point. Is how many, how many footers do you need for? Four footers? I'm just, I'm just sharing because I'm trying to, I'm trying to grapple with the idea of, of allowing. I'm going to go there. We'll see you on the right side. of allowing. I'm not sure what side you're referring to. I'm talking about the driveway side. I mean, how many footers are you required to put in for this? Four. Eight. I'm trying to reconcile this idea. Can you go back to the live actual picture? Actually allowing a Mr. Bartlett are you asking can they go over the stairs? So I'm asking, I asked if they could go over the down the stairs to the the base been access. Yes. I just don't I don't I can't tell from this picture that that's accurate. So I do like the basic steps. We're taking out right so halfway up the stairs. That arrow is pointing to the proposed deck. Is the proposed deck not the existing deck. I'm trying to reconcile my concerns with allowing an extension into the side yard setback for a deck that is in a screen reports that's a want and not a need to allow you to properly use your property and looking for appropriate alternatives because I know there are a bunch of houses in that area. If we start allowing everyone to have a, or allow you to have another addition to your house and approaching into the setback, then we're gonna be issuing variances a lot. So I'm just trying to try to figure this out. So, good. If you were to not go past the existing end of the deck off of the back of the house, how wide would the screen porch be if you were reduced to stay within the frame of the existing home as opposed to going out. I have a question on the letter that you submitted. Number one on that letter, it says requested setback matches the existing setback for the substandard lot. Can you elaborate on that? Thank you. Do we have any other questions from the board and one other question back to the page 10 Which we are down to the bottom so in addition in that more, the hand drawn one or the below that. Yes. No. Right there. Thank you. So in addition to the Bay window being in that very small side set back, we also have two AC units there in front of the Bay Streetside. Is that true? That's true. Okay, so we have the AC, we have the Bay, and now we're proposing to also go into that space, extension of this screen in porch. I got it. Do you know if it was the Bay Window original or was that added? How did we go in? President, I know that was a different subject. Thanks. I guess can we also touch on the portion about lot coverage. So there's a calculation. If we go to that calculation. Okay, thank you. So it looks like this is kind of the other part of it. Do overhangs count towards that they did not count towards what coverages are do they know that lots of coverages are measured around the foundation. So roof eaves overhangs do not count towards love lot coverage building lot coverage. Okay, so we're. Let's screened in porches do. Yeah. For screen in porches, yes. But again, it doesn't have a foundation. So we would measure around the footprint of the screen in porch. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. So I was just trying to figure out. I guess the other part of this is we're at 25.2%. So this was measured from foundation and not because I noticed. I guess the. We have the building. First floor area 924 out building open mason open masonry porch. I am but my numbers weren't quite matching up. I don't know was the calculation maybe was not done based on the the foot okay so you measured it yourself. Okay. Okay. Just to clarify the code does not spell out the method to measure coverage. And so practice and interpretations always been the footprint of the foundation. So do we have any additional questions for the applicant? Sir, do you have anything else that you'd like to share this evening before we close the public comment? Do we have anyone in the audience that plans to speak on this matter this evening? before I close it, I just like to share with you that while we recognize that this is a substandard lot, the board generally weighs favorably on neighbor support letters and being that there's a lack there of, I'm not sure how the board will consider that, but you do have the opportunity to continue this evening before the board votes. So I'd like to just let you know that before we go ahead and close the public comment. Right. It's totally your choice. But I just wanted to give you that option before we close the public comments. So we can go ahead and deliberate. You have up until the vote to choose to continue. Is that correct staff? Yes, that is. Thank you. So at this point, we're going to close public comment and we're going to open it up for board deliberation. Where we're ready can speak first. I'll start and ask, um, so I'm really honestly not sure whether this falls within our powers because I don't not sure if it's an unreasonable restriction on the the utilization of the property. And anyone else has thoughts on that, but I'm struggling with that right now. Even though it is an extension only up to what is already in an encroachment onto the side setback. But my question is, is this really an unreasonable restriction on the use of the property? I think given that it's a substandard lot that does grant the board a little more flexibility and considering and I believe that the Bay window does set somewhat of a slain standard. Yes, standard. Even though it's that's by right. So I'd like to hear what the rest of the board thinks. I'll share my discomfort my my discomfort actually with utilizing the bay window as a new standard for allowing further encroachment into a side yard setback. And I'm uncomfortable. the idea of exceeding lot coverage even though it's so minimal. And I share my, my, my empathy with buyers of houses in this town who have bought houses from builders who have maximized every square inch of their lot coverage. you aren't the first to have come to this board asking for a screened in porch on a lot that has been built in for a house that's been built that way and I will share my experience in that one that we have not approved a screened porch in the past. And I just share my concern about allowing this in this neighborhood and setting precedent for others. If it was two feet narrower, we wouldn't be here. narrower, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here asking for a variant. So I see your, some of your limitations, but I'm also sharing my concerns with proving this. Yeah, can we get it from if it was built not to the the bay window, but to the just structure itself. There would be no variance. Is that correct? That's correct. It would comply with minimum setback requirement of a. And so the and as you said, then the lot coverage and or impervious area measurements would not come into play due to the lack of grading plan. In pervious, yes, lot coverage would still be calculated and provided and have to meet 25 maximum 25% maximum. I shared a key concern in regards. So we've dealt with some of the things that can, by right, be built into the setback and by allowing the permanent structures to then marry up with those. That kind of opens up a pretty broad spectrum of potential variances that we traditionally have never allowed. I'll agree with that. And I'd like to point out that the eight foot setback does recognize the fact that it's a substandard lot and already has has already provided that additional relief. First of all, I should state for make it clear I'm a non voting member tonight. So just but again, I can make comments according to what I see and I'm struggling again with the hardship that we're creating by saying you can't do it. I understand the issue of trying to reasonably accommodate folks, but again, this has already been accommodated by giving eight feet versus the 10, given that it's a substandard lot. So I have a definite concern on continuing this even further into the eight that we already have. Any other comments? No. At this time, we're going to go ahead and close the for deliberation and call for a motion. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'd like to remind you that you still have the opportunity to request a continuance. Okay, thank you very much for coming this evening and we'll look forward to seeing you back again. So at this time, this application has been continued. We're going to go ahead and call the next variance application B1661-25 by 618 Laura Drive LLC. for a variance to section 48-238-3A to allow rear yard setback of 26 feet instead of the 40 feet minimum allowed for a second story edition at 618 lower drive. Please come forward and and and sign in and while you do that anyone that plans to speak on this matter this evening please raise your right hand and Swear to tell the truth nothing but the truth. So I hope you got Thank you All right. Well, you do that and we'll ask staff to go ahead and give the presentation on this application. The applicants of 618 lower drive is requesting a variance to section 48238383a to So the 40 minute, the 40 feet minimum to construct a new two story house. Property is owned as R1A, low density residential. The existing house is not conforming for front and rear setbacks and has a lot area of 11,300 and three feet and a lot width of 131 feet, both complying with minimum requirements. The property has a lot depth of 86.29 and with the code requirement for setbacks, only allows a maximum lot depth of 16.29 feet. Staff agrees with the applicant statement of justification that constructing a house with a depth of 16 feet is impractical. As such, the strict enforcement of zoning regulation significantly limits the property's reasonable development. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to reduce the rear yard setback to 26 feet to allow a reasonably sized building depth of 29.7 feet. This is one of the very few new construction variances the BZA has seen over the years. We did receive three neighbor comments. Mr. I'm sorry M. Callahan at 614 Laura Drive, Betty and Stephen Finley at 617 Laura Drive, and Linda Chandler at 623 Laura Drive all in favor of the application. Thank you. Please introduce yourself. and we'll put it back. Be sure to get current. You share with the current depth of the houses? Yes. You can share with the depth of the current houses. You said that you can't build a 16 foot wide house, but I'm or deep house. I'm asking what the. I'm asking what the current house is. I'm asking you because I'm hearing that you can't build a house on this well a new house on this lot But there is an existing house on this lot And I'm curious just curious what the existing footprint of this house how deep that current house is I'll do them out 26 feet Existing houses 26 feet. Okay. Thank you. Mr. So we're saying the current house. Is. I'm asking staff now, the current house is closer to the street than what R1A would typically allow is that true. That's correct. rather than having the, uh, now the new house we're saying we're going to make it the 30 that the requirements for an R1A are, but shortening the back. So we're sort of flipping of where the crunch is. Is that a true statement? Yes, sir. Pretty much something is up. Correct. I don't know if Mr. Black, did we get any, I don't think we got any, did we try to get written comments from the people in the back, which I think is popular, because that's who you're encroaching, not your sides, right? Okay. Thank you. I think what you're looting to is that the letters that we have in this application are not any of the actual impacted neighbors. It looks like 705 and 703 popular would be the two lots potentially directly affected. That's what we received comments from anyone surrounding the property based on notice. So the only comments received for the three spoken. Is anyone here this evening representing the houses that immediately but the this property. Thank you. The question for staff is do we have we looked at to any of the new homes on this street that are in a similar dimension lot? Is there any precedent for this variance? I don't think we've seen a variance similar to this. We have seen we do. Variance is on Laura Drive as a Laura Street or Laura Drive is common for porch or amenity spaces in the rear yard because of the lot depth and adequate lot depth. We've seen those those are pretty common but not for new construction. Yeah, if I recall the last the last matter that we heard on Laura Drive, there was a list of variances that were that was included and it seemed to be there seemed to be several. Yeah. Thank you. Staff, I have one quick question. Um, regarding Laura Drive. Do you know if six, 22 Laura Drive is in the City of Falls Church and that house is on the one that's on the corner of West and Laura. And I bring this up because this is a house that was recently built on this similar size lot. And it's a very large new home, but I'm just curious. I don't know where that line and the other side of the area is the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of new home but I'm just curious I don't know where that that line separating Fairfax County from the City of False Churches. It looks like in its entirety is in the City of False Church. Yeah it's in the City of False Church from our real sick database. Okay thank you. Just curious, a lot of times when we have situations where we have existing encroachments, we'll see folks build upwards on the existing structure. Did you consider that option? Do you know if is the applicant planning on living in this home? Oh, okay. Thank you. Mr. Boyk, sorry, because you were asked about the building up from the existing footprint and he said, no, I was a tear down. I mean And you can tear down to the foundation and build straight up. But it sounds like you've decided you take out the foundation and redo it. I'm just curious, why do you need to do that as opposed to simply building straight up from the foundation? We have any other questions for you. I just want to check staff. There's no with the proposed new structure. There's no issue on the front. There's no issue on the side. It's only an encroachment on the back. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. I know we have a part of the code where depending on where structures are built and plain, there's like a certain amount that they can vary from each other or the other structures on lower drive all at this 20 foot or we know, and I forget how much they can vary backwards and forwards. I think you're referencing the yard averaging requirements. That provision and the code has been found in valid, so we don't we don't do that. We don't do that. OK. I have a question about this slide that's up now. The rear yard setback on the current bump out. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the non-conforming on the front yard. Thank you. Oh, it's 40 for this slot. So it's non-conforming on both sides as it stands. as it stands. Oh, that's what that was wondering. Understood. Thank you. Okay. Maybe just a pointer curiosity, Mr. Black. Do you have any knowledge of, we have a section of town, I think it's high street and various streets that at this point? Yeah, okay. If we're done asking questions, the applicant, I would. Thanks. Is to live in any other questions for the applicant? No? All right. I'd like to go ahead and invite members of the public. Whoever would like to speak on this matter, if you'd like to stand up at the at the podium, whoever'd like to go first, please come forward and introduce introduce yourself and do we have the podium wired up with microphone. Hi, I'm Kathy Washa. I live at 701 popular drive. You can probably you can see 701 popular drive right there. You may not, I've lived there for 20 years, love the City of Falls Church. You may not be aware, but several years ago, there was huge flooding, huge flooding. I have a video if you'd like to see it, from Laura Drive into RER to the extent that it caused the City of Falls Church to put a huge pipe in our yard. I am so concerned that the setback will cause water runoff. I don't know if there's any water mitigation plan. I don't know. What's the plan to like prevent flooding to the neighbors? That's like S. My major question. Thank you. That would be a staff. Question. Well, and why would you allow this when you know that the topography of Laura Drive is a couple at least a few feet above popular drive and that water flows down hill. And if there's not anything to prevent the water from flooding the adjacent properties that it will in fact flood the adjacent properties causing damage to the adjacent property. So why would you approve that? Thank you for your comments. If staff would like to comment on the water mitigation for new construction. Sure, Mr. Chair. Flood and storm waters outside of our expertise, but we have a process for grading plan. It goes through REST staff review. And most grading plans go through multiple iterations and are expected to meet the minimum requirements of the storm water code. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Please come forward. Thank you, ma'am. Please step forward. Hi, my name is Mabel Chu, and I live at 620 more dry. Is the microphone on? There's a button on the mic. Is it on? It light on it's on okay. You're good. You know you hear me though. Closer to okay. Hi, my name is Mabel to and I live at six 20 Lord Drive, which is right next to the proposed development at six 18. If it were up to me, I wish they would just build a little cottage in the woods, but you know, I have to live in reality that we live in right now Which is basically there a huge construction of houses cropping up all around us and and I agree with with the with the Last speaker that It creates a number of problems And I will address the stormwater problem in a little bit. But you know, it's a little unclear to me what the limits are on the side. It looks like it's about 19 feet. Can you clarify how much the structure is from to the boundary of our house with the 620 Lord Drive. It's a little unclear from looking at the drawings. I think we have to go to the next slide down to see what the new structure would look like. Looks like 19.5 B. That right. And what is. Yeah, we are also set back to requirements. 19 and what's the existing right now? It's. Right now. It's 30 or right. So it's quite a bit. Yeah. That does, you know, cause it was concerned for me because these new houses, a lot of times just go right up to the boundaries of the adjacent properties. And you not only have sort of the loss of privacy for the adjacent property owner, but also send a loss of sense of aesthetics because what I understand is that a lot of the trees are going to be cut down to accommodate the large footprint. So obviously going to affect the stormwater runoff. So I have a letter which is prepared by another neighbor which lives directly across from the 618 house. It's the San Chamas and they live at 621, Laura Drive and they have asked me to read a letter that they prepare into the record if I may be allowed to do that. Please. Okay. We're writing to express our concerns about the proposed development at 618-Lor drive and the application for variants to allow a rear your setback of 26 feet. They basically attached a picture onto this, which you could probably see better because I'm going to submit this. This image was taken from our house, our front door on July 29, 2023. As per the plan provided to us by the new owners of 618-loro drive, the proposed impervious area is 3,279 square feet. Based on the information provided in the city property website, the footprint of the existing building on the property is around 1,832 square feet. This would the mean that there will be an increase of 1,447 square feet of impervious surface area. Additionally, it would appear that the lot would lose many if not all of the existing mature trees and shrubs, unless significant actions are taken to keep the runoff from this new development, from making its way to the storm drain, we can only expect the flooding problem to get worse. The storm drain for lower drive is directly at the entrance of our house that is 621 lower drive and the runoff from the properties on the street find their way to this drain. We also get runoff from properties on an avid lane. To remedy this vulnerability, we have continually improve our property to reduce runoff from our property into the drains. We have rain garden plants at critical locations and drastically reduce the area covered by lawn. Over the years, we have observed that these measures significantly reduce the flooding. However, we have noticed that the intensity of flooding has, again, increased over the past few years. This increase appeared to coincide with the addition of two large homes, 622 and 625 on lower dry. Water levels rise to the second step landing to our home and our cars have been flooded several times. We have the same narrow lot configuration and understand that the constraints that this configuration place on any plan for development. We also know that building homes with larger footprints is a trend in the city. We assume that the city is also concerned about stormwater runoff from properties. Given that homeowners are charged a stormwater utility fee attached to our real estate bill. At the very least, we ask that some of the existing trees be preserved in that the approval of this request for variance be contingent on the use of soil, de-compaction and amendment procedures is apparently Arlington County requirement for new home construction. Establishment of rain garden areas, swales, cisterns, and permeable paving materials in proportion to the additional runoff estimator from the development. It's Sinesha and Pradeep Sanchama. Again, they live at 621, Lord Drive. So I was residents of the adjacent property 620. We fully endorse this letter. Thank you very much. But anyone else like to speak? Yeah, I'm sorry sir. You have one other person. Okay. All right. Thank you. Hi, I'm also live at 620 or a drive on there. And I've just got a couple of more environmental points. Yeah, I'm sorry, sir. So please stay. Please stay. When our lives and neighbors built their huge house on the corner of West and Laura, we did experience a very significant increase in flooding at the back of our law. It didn't affect the house because we're on a slope. But nevertheless, there were times when we have pretty much a river running along the side of our house. And some of it may well go down to you, I think. So rain runoff is a significant problem where we are. The other one is a more of an aesthetic point if you like, an environmental point. Neighbors in this property at the moment have an extremely beautiful cherry tree, which blossoms gorgeous color every spring. It will be very soon now. And I personally think we've lived there nearly 40 years. It is one of the great attributes if you like of our street. And so the tree is located in the, looking at it from the street and the left hand corner. So my inexper, in expert guess would be, it probably wouldn't have back construction on my feeling. It would be a very nice thing for all the rest of us if that tree could be preserved. Thank you. Just one moment. Could you state your name for the record? Oh, Martin. Sure. SHW. Thank you very much. Good evening. Please state your name for the record. Matthew Mollard. I live at 703 popular drive directly behind this property. I have only been living at that property for about a year now. So I can't speak to some of the flooding issues that I've heard. But my primary concern was the privacy that it is elevated behind our house and encroaching on the property line just raises some privacy concerns. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter this evening? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No. I'm sorry. I have my video. You. You. And anyone. These are the non-stinal nervous. So. I don't. You're welcome to send that to staff and they'll share it with the city engineer. Thank you. So at this time we're going to close the public comment and do we have any further questions for the applicant before we. I just have one question. Um, where is the, um, the owner? Is he, is he from this area? Does he live in the area or is that? I just been wonderful if he was here to share his rationale for needing a variance for this property. Could you share the size, the proposed square footage of this and number of bedrooms and you have a little louder because I may have a real trouble hearing you. So back to Mr. Bartlett's question, how may square feet of condition spaces are? Thank you. Okay. I think they're asking about the first floor footprint. I was asking about toll square footage of the house and size of the house. Certainly impacts my interpretation of the need for a variance if we're just really, truly maximizing everything. So. So do we have any further questions for the applicant? No. All right, hearing none. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and close the portion of the hearing and we're going to go ahead and open it up for board deliberation. Thank you. So the board has seen similar applications in the past where we've had a depth of lot issue to be able to build a home for reasonable size and usage. The difference between those applications and this application is those for to be occupied by the owner. I don't know, aren't spec homes and they had support by all the neighbors to be able to make those exceptions. We don't have any of those here. So, may I have very real concerns about what I've heard from all the neighbors as well as what Mr. Bartlett was referring to and to the size of the home and the need to create potentially unnecessary harm to the surrounding community for the purpose of this build. Yeah, I can go. Yes, very similar. We have seen and I've been part of some of those meetings where we've seen some new build applications, but. It was with a builder that worked closely with the neighbors, addressed their concerns. And we have allowed some, we have given some allowance in some loosening of restrictions on some of the setbacks, depending on things that everyone kind of was comfortable with. But in this case, we're not seeing the neighbor support. And I think there are some more options that could get you there, but right now, I'm also not comfortable with this current proposal. I'd like to point out that the front yard, current front yard setback is encroaching on the front and the builder seems to be just trading front for rear. And so the existing setbacks on that lot are so restrictive that it's impossible to build a new home. And whether or not they kept the existing structure, they'd still require our variants to go up. So in any case, this lot is such that it's restricted to where the applicant would require a variance. And I'd like to clear the record as well that adding up the first floor square footage plus the garage square footage equals 2,333 square feet. It is nowhere near the 3,000 square referenced in the the public comment. So it's important to have that differentiation for the board as they deliberate. Thank you. So I agree that that I mean even if they were just to build straight up they're going to require a variance. But in the past of course we've had if not by if not by a right, almost uniformly approved anyone who's building straight up on a non-existing, non-conforming structure. So then the question is, if we depart from that, then in what way is it an unreasonable restriction on their use of the property, since they could build, essentially, straight up up within the residence that we set on the board. And there are a number of other issues. I don't know that we're really the ones who can deal with flooding issues, but as noted, we've rarely been approved any of these variances when we've had strong neighbor opposition. I think it's important to point out that the new homes have a number of water mitigation requirements that come with permitting new construction that go far and above what's existing. So if anything, one would assume that this should help. Yeah, maybe a communication thing that explaining exactly what the new build will entail to neighbors to gain support might be helpful. So I think it's important to point out, Mr. Black, that you do have the opportunity to continue this evening if at any point prior to our vote. If you'd like more time to work with with the applicant and your neighbors. Thank you. And I'd like to reiterate what was just said. to definitely concern of folks on popular that unlike just an addition new homes do for the city require that water mitigation analysis. I understand that what was apparently done on west and laurel results have been less than what you would have expected. And hopefully the city engineers can take that into account and make it a, I understand, but I'm just saying this new home would require and staff correct me that mitigation study. Okay, so I definitely respect that, but at the same time, I also respect the city's staff and engineers would do a thorough study. Mr. Guzzar, I think it's important before we to point out that it's very hard for anyone to assert that the water floods that were caused at any one person's property were a result of a property several lots down. who knows if we had a hundred year flood over the last years we've had certain storm situations. So it's important that we allow the engineers and city staff to determine that. We shouldn't speculate. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. I I I said. In light of that I mean I would I would then say that with this this variance request is very premature without any of the relevant information about any of the information. And additionally, lots of issues to resolve with neighbors as well. There's another procedural issue. It sounds like this owner bought this property, either not knowing the limitations on this type of lot, which is unlike normal lots here, deeper than it is white. On Laurel, it's the opposite. It's wider than it is deep. And it's unfortunate that they didn't determine that before coming forward. So now they're like in a structure of, oh, now I got to have a variance. And one aspect, I try to think, well, maybe they didn't fully review zoning. But on their hand, I say, well, they should have. Right. They should have, because this, if I'm correct, they just bought this like over a year ago. With I assume they're not here to state for themselves with the expectation of leveling and putting up this. What was the word modest home? So I just struggle with, you know, now giving I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. I don't know if you can do that. board has said this evening, but I do think it's important to point out that the setbacks as they're written on this particular lot are very... Board has said this evening, but I do think it's important to point out that the setbacks as they're written on this particular lot are very restrictive and do restrict, unreasonably restrict the owners ability to build a new home, which if that's what they choose to build, they are within their right to build a new home. Thank you. I'm just gonna counter that. They're buying, they bought this lot for the sole purpose of building a house that they knew needed a variance. It's not that the existing owner was being unreasonably restricted. They bought this knowing that this burden was, and that burden is on them to know that there was this restriction on their ability to use it as they wanted. But all builders do their due diligence and know what they can build. And they only bought this with the idea that they knew. Any reasonable person would know that they needed a variance. To build this type of home or any home. Any addition. In the in the setbacks. Mr. Black, I just want to remind you that you have the opportunity to request a Continuence before we vote. So the applicant has requested a continuance. Thank you for coming this evening and thank you to all who have come to speak on this matter. We're going to go ahead and move on to the next. Have a good night. Go ahead and move on to the next application variance application V1662-25 by M Quinn Holdings LLC and Matthew Quinn owners to section 48-238-3A for a front-sap back of 26.5 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum along Parker Avenue. and for a front sat back of 20.2 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum along Irving Street for an upper story edition and a variance to section 48-238-4c for a building height of 14.6 feet instead of the 12 feet for a detached garage at 712 parker having you. Good evening. Thank you for coming and while you fill that out, I'm going to ask staff to go and give us the report. The applicant is requesting a variance for a front setback of 26.5 feet instead of a 30 feet minimum along Parker Avenue and for a front setback of 20.2 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum along Irving Street for an upper story addition over an existing non-conforming footprint. They're also requesting a variance for a building height of 14.6 feet instead of the 12 feet maximum for a detached garage in the rear of the property. The request stem from the existing city sanitary sewer line in easement, which is prohibiting the applicant from a by-right build for a second story and attach a rush. The property is zoned as RC cluster residential, though following the code section 48-295, which requires principal uses in the RC district to follow those regulations stated in the R1A district code sections. This property has a lot area of 11,914 square feet, complying with code requirements and a lot width of 60 feet, making a lot width substandard. We did receive one neighbor comment submitted by Sean Moffitt at 714 Parker Avenue in support of the application. Thank you. If you would please raise your right hand, sort it out the truth, nothing but the truth. So I hope you got it. Thank you. Good evening. So I'll, the floor is yours. I don't know. I don't know. I survived. Thank you. I'm going to do a lot of things that you can do. I will do a whole lot of things that you can do. So, I'm going to go to the other side. Did I hear you say you wanted to a building height of 20 feet for the garage. Yes. The rules were all back. Do we have to call it? Okay. Yeah, I just see it in the, yeah, here it is. Yeah, I just was concerned by what you said. Yes. Thank you. You might have to say that again for me. Yes. Okay. But the actual roof is 20. But we don't worry about that number. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's making sure I Just wanted to make sure because I saw 14.6 and I just I just didn't want to make sure that we were on the same page. Yeah, okay. It's late All right, so The the hardship is that please please share with us one more time. If the state of Georgia was in the East and the city, the actual part, you know, the city. In the case, they, whatever happens, whatever happens, that's the real life. But across the country. So I wouldn't normally be able to add to to the house and I would be like, and I would be like, oh, I'm actually like there. I feel a little good. In this case, you're looking at these assets. Further, when we look at it, if we want to make sure that, even though it's not a fair group of different groups, and it's more kind of they allow a structure that goes up to that height. We said, look, we just want a little bit more, let's make, just a little bit more, looks like last week in a month. But it is lower for the one in the middle of the box. Thank you. Clarify what this letter E is next to your steps. And this little box that identifies your proposed front yard setback of 22.6. I have to go further down. There we go. What's that little box E? That looks like a porch. I think it's a good idea. In the sense of maybe I can get a better future. I mean, over and I think I think I think I think I don't see it. It would be the basement window. I don't see it. It would be the basement window. Well, maybe that would encounter towards projection. All right. Elements underground so that includes areaways for basements. They are not subject to setbacks so they can encroach. So. Yeah right there. So whether it's a stairs or a window doesn't it doesn't matter. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Oh yeah, there it is. New egress window well. Okay, so it's both. Okay, so you have an existing structure foundation that's encroaching already that's on the left side of the screen here, right? And then your new addition is off to the right, is that correct? The corner of the box. But the existing structure is the portion on the left in this image, right? Okay. The new addition does not improve. Okay. So, Mr. Gwynn, we've seen a number of implications regarding building second stories on garages in the city. And it is a particular area. It's been a particular area of concern for this board. The use of that space and being miss. being potentially used as an accessory dwelling unit or apartment, so would you be opposed to, to a condition set on that space, not to be used for that purpose. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Other. I was going to say it might be prudent to hold hold off on that. And wait for because the as I'm sure you know the city is going through that right now. Knowing that. Understood. Thank you. Um. For staff. Is this a historic property? By definition of the city. It is not. It is not. It is not. Okay. The only other. And this were Mr. Quinn, you have to have to. Tell me how you found this issue. Do I have other historic issues that I know of are the the historic district on Washington. I know what's called the historic and cultural district of Tenerill, which this is obviously in Tenerill. So you're alluding to some historic city code, which I've been using for a long time. you're alluding to some historic city code, which I've not seen anywhere. So, what are housing, but it's not a city. I'm not asking for a district out that the store code does allow. I should decide to adjust it. But your words are to store code. What is to our code? I don't see an historic code in the zoning that calls for this. Your architect is obviously talking about their view of aesthetics versus a code. I can't explain your justification letter but I can't help but I did call that out too. Yeah so there so the if the property is historic or the structure is historic and accessory structure that's permitted on that lot can go up to 20 feet. But you've just structure is historic. And accessory structure that's permitted on that lot can go up to 20 feet. But you've just said it's not historic. It's not historic, but I think they're using it as a reference point. Now I'll let Mr. Quinn explain that. That it wouldn't be any taller than 20 feet, which is permitted on a historic property somewhere in the city. But again, this property isn't historic. Right, that's correct. So you're talking to your architects aesthetics, not a code as this is saying. But that's what this is saying, a code, city code, and it's not. I think what they're saying is at one point in history, the code supported this. Or at one point in the history, there was no code, and these were built. And they're there. And all I'm saying, guys, is there's no code currently for this property. Okay sensitive versus code is two different things. were asking for the variance will there be a hardship facing that? That's the reason why I didn't. The first is the draw is going to pass the bill. I can have substantial money. And then we're saying it's going to be a huge set of greater sources of high level of money. I understand. And back to what Ms. Ward said. I've said in a previous instance, we don't look at what future code may be like with accessory dwellings. We view it on what code is now. And you may wish to look at what might come down the road in terms of this. It's your choice, but again, we're going to view this as to what is currently now, which is this is higher than what is currently allowed now. Or are the requests maybe more prohibitive in six months. Right. And it really doesn't have a fair question. Can we talk about the orientation of this garage? And why are you having a garage that faces your house instead of the street? The primary reason that it's going to come down to the existing driveway and the driveway portion of the shade of the house will allow for more landscaping and fighting to find the site side of the lot. So if we do have a existing curve cut on curve and stream and could come in that way and turn it. That could be the curve where the rate of energy is additional height. But we would prefer to leave that space for plantings and programs in some portion of the yard and the less municipal part of the yard being the driveway down behind the house. I would be trying to understand. So you plan to extend the driveway from Parker to all the way back to the garage. So there's two driveways. Is that what I'm saying? There are two drive drivers. Okay. Oh, I don't see the I see a gravel drive. There's one just to the right of the garage and then one on the left hand side of the lot. Yeah, I still see the curb cut on Irving. You can see the two diagonal lines there. Oh, there you go. Thank you. There's a lot of stuff on that little picture. There is a lot of stuff on that picture. And I'm like, what am I looking at? And this is there is more. Mr. Quinn, does you said an office for your wife to shoot work from home. Lucky. Um. A key to are they going to be able to. I see a gravel drive is that why you're having it as a gravel because you can go over this sanitary sewer. Like, the city is going to allow them to build a driveway over this sanitary sewer line. Travel. Drive away. Drive away. And I think you can do three gas hole drivers. Well, I had to and I built a house in the city and that 10 foot line on either side that you have to abide by was getting too personal here was a cause for me to obtain a variance as well. And I was told at the time that anything that's on that sewer line, 10 foot on one side, 10 foot on the other side, can be removed at any time by the city to provide repair and maintenance on that sewer line. So be aware. Okay, great. Thank you. Right. Do we have any further questions for the applicant? Did you, I guess, did you consider putting a office But they really got a lot of work. You know, or along that line, extending the garage. to have office versus above, thus not needing a stairway, which is gonna take your efforts and just having on the same plane as the garage level. We need a very short cover. That'd be really very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, I'm going to have to get a 100. I just want to get a 100. I'm going to have to get a 100. If we were to add and take that structure, the larger footprint, it's not as hard as the property. You're saying you'd need a variance for that. And it would take away your. And so I have one question. The the in support. Is that from the immediately adjacent neighbor? It is. Thank you. So the garage upper floor is just one big room. Okay, and there's no, okay, yeah, I'm just looking at the drawing here and there's no bathroom. There's no plumbing going in. is this something there? I have to try to get electric air working. I have to tie it to the deep plumbing with this things in here. They both get across that. So, I'm a little worse to do. I'm going to let you prove it. I'm going to let you be equal. So, I'm going to let you prove it. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? All right. So at this time, if you don't have anything else to add, we're going to go ahead and close the portion of the hearing and we're going to open it up for board deliberation. Thank you. Yeah, I can start. I have no issue with the house as it stands building over the existing nonconforming structure. We see these often and we're always appreciative of keeping the old housing stock. So I have no issue with this portion of it. I do have an issue with the office over the garage. I have not supported any of those for other people that have come and asked for it. I, I think there is though some allowances that will be coming from council potentially, and they may have additional things they're considering like not allowing windows on the second story that face that face the neighbor, not sure what the setbacks are going to be. It may allow you to go higher, but I wouldn't be comfortable supporting the garage. Second story at this point personally. So the house itself I think is fine. I have no issue with that. I do think the illustrated hardship of that sewer line, because you could have by right, like you said, built the same garage with a much larger building structure over it if that sewer line was not there. I'd have concern over that second story addition for the office if the neighbors are not weighed in in regards to the high that sewer line was not there. I'd have concern over that second story addition for the office if the neighbors are not weighed in in regards to the height and had you not taken the consideration of precedent with other structures within the city. So I do differ from Christina that where I say that you could have built this and more if there was a sewer line running through your property. That sewer line is to the benefit, not of you, but to the city itself. And so I would not have issue with providing some consideration to you because of that fact. I agree with Mr. Keane. In sense of the existing hardship due to the sanitary sewer line easement and believe it or not, I do remember Mr. Bartlett's hearing there many moons ago regarding that same topic. But, you know, I did share my concern earlier that I'm concerned with this board setting a precedent for use of that structure prior to council and the other bodies that govern that ADU topic. I have similar to concern to this as I did with the T approving construction in the T zones prior to the T zone final decision. And so I do support this, but I would want to condition it on its use on the future council and city regulation. I think, again, we've long, I don't think anybody has any issue with raising your house going straight up, which we've long approved here. Similar concerns with a city council, a accessory dwelling unit, ordinance pending, I think it's coming up for a final hearing next month or whatever, so I would really have difficulty approving a variance that could turn out to be at variance without the city council's about to approve. So I have shared some of the same concerns, even though I fully understand, if it would not put the fact that the sewer line was there, you could build this thing in a two or three stories now. And much bigger than you're planning on doing. So I understand the hardship. My concern is just about what we can do in terms of a video of a second floor, when we don't know where the city is going at this point. I agree with Ms. Ward that while here I've yet to see a approval of beyond what that accessory structure 12 feet at midpoint any approval of that. And I do like to be consistent, but I do also like to look at, you know, are there other alternatives? Am I being unreasonable in the use of this land by the applicant? I really don't think I'm being unreasonable to say we should stick with that 12 foot space. But as everyone else says, everything else is fine in terms of building above the existing structure. Would it make sense to vote on the house part of it and delay the second part pending with saying what the city decides to do? I don't that's a question for staff. Can you could you separate the application? I think is the question. Yes, you can. So we could allow the applicant to continue a portion. And... question. Yes. You can. So we would we could allow the applicant to continue a portion and of the application. So you're asking to continue or defer the detached garage height, but you want to approve the addition over the existing. That's my question. Yes, you can do that. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, technically we're not supposed to, but if the board wants to see here the comment, I'll allow them to weigh in. Go ahead. Just a quick break. We'll start this process on the key plus. So that was one great fight. No, we know you guys like to hear all of us. That's a good guy. Find out first, the sling for your numbers. Or come on. Come on, pass. Go ahead and wait. Here. Top of the line. I mean, you know, you're done. I mean, I think we're good. That if we can address it. Okay. Okay. As Ms. Ward said, let me turn out that, for example, the windows have to be moved or there could be all sorts of things that come up and at this point, I don't feel like we should be voting on a variance for something that's likely to be changed. But I guess my question is can he simply continue that as opposed to having having voted down potentially and just we could just put it on hold until such time as council makes a decision. Yeah, we can continue indefinitely. Yep. Yeah, that's my question, because I don't want you to have to come back and pay another fee for a very answer request for, I mean, I, I, yeah, yeah, I guess a little, little steep, but I already, yeah. the . The only difference between continuing item to indefinitely versus a certain date is that when we deferred indefinitely we have to re advertise which we can there's no problem. but to a certain day because you said it on the record we do not have to read advertised but either is fine. Yeah, but is it also, depending on how the council comes out, they may not need a variance anymore. That's the possibility. Yeah. Do we know when that, when they plan to go? I believe April, early April is the scheduled public hearing. So I think we could allow the applicant to continue until May. Yeah. June or June. Okay. That's yeah. Yeah. So let's continue it for six months that way. We don't have to re-advertise. Okay. All right. Yeah. Yeah. It's already almost April. We appreciate that. I didn't want to unreasonably restrict your use prematurely. I'm sorry. It's already almost April. We appreciate that. I didn't want to unresinably restrict your use prematurely. So I think that's reasonable. So let's go ahead and we'll continue the variance request for the garage. And if someone would like to make a motion on the variance request for the. I will make a motion home. I move a resolution to approve. Whereas the board of zoning appeals has held a duly advertised public hearing. March 13, 2025 on case number V1662-25. A variance to section 48-238 per N3 per Na for a front setback of 26.5 feet instead of the 30 foot minimum along Parker Avenue and for a front setback of 20.2 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum along Irving Street for an upper-story addition. And whereas the BZA finds that the applicant has met all applicable standards for variances as set forth in sections 15.2-2201 and 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia and the City of Falls Church's zoning ordinance section 48-172 Bren 6 and now therefore be it resolved the BCA hereby approves variance application V1662-25 as amended. I'll second. Some point of clarification before your vote. Shouldn't you say at that last now, therefore, be it resolved at the BCA hereby approves. These portions of variance application. thus making it clear that Because the whole whole variance was all three and you're only approving two so by saying these portions referring back to the things you mentioned Dale would just further make it clear that The whole variance isn't approved just that portion We do need a specific motion for the resolution on file. So do we need to amend? Yeah, would you mind amending the sentence? The ladle have to read the whole thing over again. Let me have your language here. There's a. Okay. So amending the final sentence of my motion. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the VGA hereby approves those portions of variance application V1662-25 as stated. And you've missed word. Do we still have a second? Yep. Mr. Bartlett? Yes. Mrs. Ward. Yes. Mr. Keane. Yes. Mr. Misla. Yes. Mr. Ebbler. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Mr. Grant. Good luck with your project. We'll. We may not see you in six months, but we may see you in six months. All right, we're on to a election of the BZA chair and vice chair. Who is going to get the hot seat? We know it's not you. So, um, someone like to, uh, nominate the chair. You guys want to not do we want to nominate a chair? Uh, is anyone want to be does anybody want to be the chair? First important question. Peter, are you? I can do chair. Does anybody want to be the chair? I'd like to nominate Mr. Peter Keane. As chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the year 2025. I will second that nomination. Thank you. That's probably chair. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Mizzle. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Mizzle. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Mizzle. Yes. Mr. Mizzle. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Mr. Keane. Mr. Eppler. Motion passes. I'll take my turn. Yeah. Sure. All right. I'd like to nominate Mr. Griscoe. Vice chair. Oh, wait. Can you point a clarification? Why are you not voting this evening? Is that the. He's an alternate. Oh, and so I don't know by. No, saying now. Is it an alternate? He is not qualified for a chair or vice chair position. Sorry. Thank you for you sir. Okay. Looks like Dale's the look. Yeah. Is this like magic like musical chairs? That's right. All right. I'll take it. All right. We're going to nominate Mr. Eppler. I'll second that. Mr. Keane seconded. Yep. And who proposed the motion. I did. Thank you. Mrs. Ward. Yes. Mr. Eppler. Yes. Mr. Keane. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Yes. Mr. Keane. Yes. Mr. Mizzle. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Congratulations. Congratulations. All right. We're on to the next. Approval of the 2024 BZA annual report. There were two copies in the binder. This evening. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize were two copies in the binder. I apologize. There was a typo. I thought I had corrected it. In the second, I did not. And there was also a recommendation from Mr. Grasco for the annual report, and that would be the updated. Draft, which would be the top copy. I'll let him speak on his recommendation if you would like. Don't be. I added. I don't know where it is. Since we went around and around on signage. I thought putting this in since it's going to go to City Council and they'll hopefully read it that said you should look at looking at the code for signage so we don't stumble around as we have numbers times. So that's why I put that section in the board recommendation. Thank you Mr. Bresco. That's a good one. I think that's a great recommendation. Thank you. I did see one thing on here right above the 2024 meeting attendance. It says for the calendar year that John and I served a lot of log during calendar year 2024 the BZO had five eight regular meetings. That is my typo. Yes, thank you. Okay. That's one of the mistakes. Okay, I think it's We hope it was better be eight because we have, you know, our scores are based on eight minutes. Bunchy. but yes, thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I was thinking we'll go. It's going to hope it was it better be eight because we have, you know, our scores are based on eight minutes. But you're following out my attendance. I was going to have 120 percent attendance. That's how you all right. Room to improve. So with that change, do we have a motion to approve the report? I move to approve the updated annual report for 2024. With the noted change from 5 to 8. The updated version with the change submitted by Mr. Grisco.. Mind says updated version, but it still says 5. No mind to. That was asked. I'm so sorry. So the one that says updated annual report. Yes, I thought I had caught the mistake in that updated, which is why I said there is still a type of. So I will move to approve the updated annual report with Mr. Gresco's addition plus the with the correction of eight. I second. Is this accurate that we denied no variances? We didn't we didn't. We denied the. Yeah, it wasn't a variance, right? Oh, it was a variance. We denied the, um, the, yeah, they were, they were in a variance, right? This is a bash. Oh, it was a variance. We denied the, we definitely denied the T zone thing. Right? Was that, there was that figures? Yeah. The, the daycare center. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe that was two years ago. I think they withdrew. That was in 2023. Oh, they withdrew. No, no, no, no, no, we denied it. But it was when it was filed or when we voted. Damn it, it's if I when it was when it was filed or by when we voted. Yeah, the new variance. Let me look it up. And maybe that was there before because I might have been filed in 2023, but then we voted. I thought we said for the day care center that we were just the improper forum to even judge it based on the pending city council action. I mean, they're hosting it. Before they would. I think we could. Yeah, he was not happy. Yeah, I think they have pressed us to vote. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we voted. I wasn't the spank. I was the last time. I was an ear for that in this town. I don't care. I have no idea. I don't know. It probably was 20. What about the garage? That was a little bit as well. Yeah. It went up on like the hill. Oh yeah. Yeah, everything's on. It probably was 20. What about the garage? That was over as well. Yeah. The one up on like the hill. Oh, yeah, the really tall one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it was in 2013. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right, good. Thank you. Thank you for tracking. All right. We're going to think so. We give up all the time. Just blend. Was there something we needed to incorporate from that email? I know you guys had sent an email about changing some sort of protocol. I think that's for the rules of procedure. That far. The procedure. No, Mr. Miss La has already enacted the new rules. Oh, and that And that is closing the public section of the meeting. Okay. Okay. Yeah, so we received, yeah, were you received a friendly suggestion from a community member? And it's important that we open and close public hearings. And when they close, close. Yeah. Yeah. Oh my gosh. But Mr. Mizzle, you've been doing it today. I have a question. When I first joined this, when we deliberated, we turned off the microphones and we talked to each other. We didn't talk and make individual comments. When did that change? So that's never, that's everything you say has to be public. Yeah, okay. I thought you were. So it's a point back before itself. Right. And that was just me doing it wrong. You're being too casual. Yeah. That's a casual. I know, yeah. Except if we talk to the... All right. You know, that was just me doing it wrong. Yeah. Maybe you're being too casual. Yeah. Mr. casual. I know. Yeah. Except if we talk to the lawyer like we did once. I think at that point we did say stop with spring. Yes. We have to pick this up on the reporting. Yeah. Okay. That's maybe that's what it was. All right. So we have a motion. So approve the updated annual report with Mr. Grasco's addition and with a correction to eight. Mr. Mizzle is still second. Yep. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Mizzle. Yes. Mr. Keane. Yes. Mr. Eppler. Yes. Mrs. Ward. Yes. I wish in passes. All right. So next we have the little procedure. I'd like to make a motion to approve. 25 BZA rules of procedure. Staff is recommending changes. Can you please share the changes with the board. The staff is recommending the board change the word from shall to may and line one in section two line one to remove the need from having a mandatory quorum in January each year for annual documentation. So it would be as simple as that. And then. Did you say what Well, alternatively, we could say the first meeting like in the calendar year, except I know we haven't had everybody present, right? So it's posed issues. Yes, I. I'm so sorry. Can you say that one more time? The I know Jan saying January poses a problem because we may not meet in January. Yes. And then the, I guess the other part is if you want to have enough presence. Well, saying shall means that it's, it's a required meeting. So if you don't meet in January of every calendar year, you're technically a violation of your own adopted rules of procedures. So just changing it to may means. Well, if we don't have a quorum, then we're not in violation as well. So should we change it to what you want to say to May? It's supposed to shall so we may adopt it, but we don't have or you can change it to simply stating the first the first meeting in the year that you meet is when you will adopt the annual rules of procedures and etc. Now it says by a majority vote of the board which by some means that would still require us to have a majority here for our first meeting of the year. Yes you still need a quorum. Seems like we should have it say that at the first meeting of the year in which we have a majority the board president we will vote and we will. That sounds good. Can you have a meeting without a quorum? So that's just a quarrel. We don't have to, I thought we had to have like five four out of five of us or something. I'm sorry. Okay. Never mind. So I agree with the recommendation of changing that to to may, but I do agree that we should say the first meeting of the year. It's a good change. And then the second was. The report was. Part three. Part one. Yes, under section three meetings. The board has requested reverting the meeting date back to the original wording the second Thursday following the first Monday of every month. We did coordinate with the city clerk's office. However, we did not receive an answer regarding scheduling and if that would be appropriate with the other board in commission that is meeting in here for ADA compliance. They are under staff right now, as I'm aware that somebody has left the office. And I'm not sure what they hold up is on getting that answer back. But as soon as I get an answer, I will inform the board by email and we can always put it on the next available agenda. If that is something you do want to change it in the future. So should should we defer this approval of these rules until the next meeting until we have more information? Again. That makes sense. What do you guys think? Do you want to go through the other ones first? Or should we go through the other ones too? We can go through them. Let's go through the other recommendations. Yeah, sure. I can do the next one. So reconsideration and rehearing. So right now, our zoning ordinance and we can't just change the rules of procedures without amending on zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance and then repeated in the rules of pursuit to say that the board has to reconsider if an applicant can submit additional new evidence. I don't think that is in line with the state code because the only remedy to a board's decision is going to appealing the board's decision to the circuit court. And so this allows an applicant to take advantage of that provision and come back to the board repeatedly if he or she wanted to. I know in Fairfax County, they change that to not allow re hearings or reconsiderations of a decision after a board makes a decision decision is final. I have to take the board to the appeal circuit court. And so this is a placeholder for future discussion. I will talk and consult with the city attorney to see if this recommendation from staff is in line with the state code and then we'll bring this one back to you for consideration. But right now I just wanted to put this on your radar in the future. We might be back to recommending that. I can see why we would not want to have people come back every month and try and berate us into, you know, reconsideration, but it seems like it would be easier to have at least one allowed one reconsideration. Yeah, maybe limit the number of times they can come back with new evidence because they can enter any evidence and call it new evidence and they have to come before you in a public hearing for you to determine that is new evidence. And so they could do that right now under our rules indefinitely and they can come back repetitively. So I think that is something we want to have from people who are not an idea we want to but out in the public. So yeah. Yeah. Yeah. but we'll come back with more information on this. It's not for now. I just highlighted it for some discussion. And then the next was the board has expressed adding more teeth type language to section five. We just need exact wording and the decision of the board to put that in place. I think it was mostly for applicant participation through virtual means, not exactly the board members participation through virtual means, but I do need an actual recommendation of what you would like. I'm confused, I'm sorry. So are we are we talking about this is about electronic participation on yes, yes This is for participation through electronic means but specifically the only language you have in here is for board participation not applicant participation I wouldn't want to change that I don't think we should change that Oh, like tonight we had the guy who was overseas and it's like well But I think the right thing we should see is that think we should change that. Yeah. Oh, like tonight we had the guy who was overseas. And it's like, well, we have to do with other ways to participate in those. We should perhaps state that they need to participate in person. They cannot participate remotely. Is that what we're getting at? Because the board has in the past allowed some two attend virtually. I believe it was. the applicant was here, but they allowed their architects or other people to speak on the application virtually. And that did confuse some of our future applicants about why they couldn't attend versus why they could. So just adding language of your specifications of what you will allow future applicants to do. Like one person would have to be here in person or just... I think anyone that's gonna speak on the record should be here. I should be. Because if we're gonna allow any applicant and or supporting person, then we would have to allow the public to do the same and give them the same consideration. Okay. And then my request is do you want that language under this section or under when under the procedures for hearing cases. Where it talks about what the applicant must do for the meetings. I could put it under failure to appear under. That's a good spot for it. It's dressing the same issue. Like. What are our failure to appear? Yeah. This is Dan now if you participate remotely are you able to vote? And now if you participate remotely are you able to vote? And now if you participate remotely, are you able to vote? Yes. You are. However, if we do not have a physical quorum of the board, the virtual member may not be allowed to vote virtually to make a count. So basically we only had two members and one could attend virtually. That would not be quorum of it. So we have to have a physical quorum, but if there's a physical quorum then other members can remotely vote. Yes. Okay. I guess I would just raise the question of whether we want to make it possible for someone, for example, you've got somebody in the military station to proceed to be able to attend if they are outside the country, you know, outside of their, you know, the role. I don't know. May I suggest then under nine when it says if the applicant or talent and or his or her agent is not appear, we can add physically at the scheduled meeting. And then at the bottom we could add some type of language saying the applicant, if not available to attend physically must write to the chairman vice chairman or to the board in total for their reasoning and let the board decide if they would allow that virtual presentation. I can imagine perfectly reasonable, you know, reasons why people are not able to attend a particular a particular hearing. But they, I mean, it would have been nice to be able to ask, for example, the owner of this property, the last, that second, the last one, to be able to ask him questions, and he wasn't here. But I think we have precedent that everyone sends representation, right? Even the folks doing all the signage and all the major developments, they don't send, you know, they send representatives. that That person's center representative, whether a person's prepared or not, is a totally separate conversation. I think someone who's gone consent a representative and to be here in person, no project's going to be done by one individual. It's definitely in the code. We can't require the owner to be present. It does say in the code that they are allowed to authorize their agent, whether that may be to appear for them. I agree with that. We would just have to do for nine just appear in person or something. Yes, I would probably just add appear physically physically. I agree. Yeah, that sounds good. Okay, so we'll review those revisions and we're going to get that additional information from the. Other department and the there was one item that's going to be followed up on with the city attorneys. I correct. Awesome. Right. on to the next item. If they approve the calendar, we can't really do that until we hear back from the other department. Is that correct. It is my opinion that it would be redundant because if it does change. If you approve it today, the first thing I have to do tomorrow is post that to the city's website so it is public. And applicants will use that to submit and the deadline is now a little bit further than it used to be so that may cause a little bit of confusion. However, I will state that we do not have an application before the board for April. So that does give us a little bit of time to go through the process. We're meeting two weeks. So, so what makes it easier on staff for us to approve it now and change it later or to defer to the next meeting. I think we approve it now that they don't change it. That's just approved. Yeah, I don't think they do change it. We crossed that bridge. Now, I don't think it would be a burden for the board as much as it would be for future applicants who may see the schedule on the website not knowing that it's going to change possibly in a month or two if that makes sense. But the lack of schedule. How would that also be a burden? Can I suggest that we just approve April and May. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. I'll second that motion. Mrs Ward. Yes, Mr Bartlett. Yes, Mr Keane. Yes, Mr. Miesla. Yes, Mr. Eppler. Yes, motion passes. Awesome. All right. So now we're on to approval of the November 14, 2024 meeting minutes. All right. Has anyone reviewed the minute and would like to make a motion to approve. Does anybody have any comments on the minutes? All right. So we make a motion to approve the Board of zoning appeals meeting minutes for Thursday November 14th 2024 I'll second Mr. Eppler yes, Mr. Keane yes, Mr. Mizzle yes, Mr. Bartlett yes, Mrs. Ward Ben scrolling down. I don't think I attended let me just see I Upstate I don't think I intended. Let me just see. I'll stay. All right, so the next item is the approval of the December 12, 2024 meeting minutes. It's Gresska, I've read these two. All right. Can we get a motion expressing extreme confidence in Mr. Gresska? I will move to it. All right. Second motion. I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr Ward. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Mr. Ke Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. This was the longest, this was my longest meeting as chair so far. Filling my jack along the board. Yeah. Always long if we have to say. Him to people.