Planning Commission - public_hearing

Have up to five minutes to present their case, after which the applicant and their representatives will also have up to five minutes to present their position. And then finally, the case will be open to public comments with each speaker also limited to five minutes. Members of the public must fill out a speaker form for the record and you can find those forms outside the room. The board may ask questions during any of these presentations, and the response to board questions do not count against your five minutes. However, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from elaborating, restating their position, or asking questions of the board.

Once public comment is closed, the board will deliberate on the case, during which the board may ask additional questions of either the staff or the applicant. And as always, during this process, are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from discussion. The BZA is a seven member board with a four member quorum requirement. All motions must have four affirmative votes to pass regardless of the number of board members in attendance. So with that being said, Ms. Christensen, please call the roll.

Mr. Liu? Here. Ms. Eveland?

Present.

Mr. Burke? Here. Mr. Foley?

Here.

Mr. Justice? Here. Mr. Patel?

Here.

We have a quorum. Ms. Bowman has indicated that she would be here, so we'll see if she shows up late.

Okay. Sounds good. So first order of business.

The first item is a legal training for the BZA members.

Good evening. My name is Christina Zeckman Brown. I'm with the Alexandria City Attorney's Office, and I'm here to give you a legal procedures and processes briefing. I'll go over a little bit about the specific functions of the BZA and then the general rules that apply to all boards and board members. So what we'll discuss this is sort of a bit about an outline.

We'll talk about the specific types of decisions that you all make, your variances, special exception decisions, appeals of director determinations, talk a little about as well the process for appeal when something's appealed to court. We'll also look at FOIA meeting and documents rules, conflicts of interest, some rules that apply to all boards and commissions, and touch on Robert's rules and your bylaws. So just to lay a little bit of the groundwork for us all here, Virginia is a Dillon rule state. And so that means when we seek to do something as a city, we have to be authorized to do it either through the Virginia code or the city charter. The Dillon rule is basically the opposite if you think of it as from home rule.

Home rule means that you can create and generate any rules that you would like to govern the conduct of the locality. We instead have a charter, and the charter and the Virginia code are both granted to us by the general assembly. And those are specifically speak in more recent years, they've been speaking more specifically to the function of the BZA and its rules and the role that it plays. This is just a list of and links to the different provisions of the zoning ordinance, the city code, and the other rules and laws that apply to the BZA. So to start off, the BZA serves several distinct and important land use functions.

Through the special exception process, you all grant property rights. This allows a particular use to be made of a property if specific zoning ordinance criteria are met. You also grant variances, which is a mechanism a relief mechanism when someone seeks to do something that's not allowed under the zoning ordinance. This has a high bar for relief. You have to find that not granting the relief would lead to an unreasonable restriction on the use of a property, and all the variance criteria have to be met.

The thing you will see least frequently are appeals of directors' decisions. And these are when the planning and zoning director makes a decision or a determination and someone appeals that decision or interpretation. You all are the first deciding body on that. Generally, the responsibilities of members of the BZA are that decisions have to be based on the application and consideration of the zoning ordinance. This means looking at the particular facts of the situation and looking at the particular criteria and factors under the law and applying them to those specific circumstances.

Uniquely for the BZA, your decisions are appealed directly to the circuit court. The standard of review for the court is if the court finds that a decision is contrary to law or arbitrary and it constitutes an abuse of discretion, a decision would be overturned. And this basically boils down to when there's been a failure to follow legal standards, misapplication or misinterpretation of the law, or not making reference to facts or law in the case specifically. And so some general best practices in light of that is to know and understand the applicable law. Like I said, the variance criteria is very specific and very strict, and you have the special exception criteria, which you're granting uses, and those have a different set of criteria.

And also, when you're making a decision, you support your decision by stating it on the record like in, you know, I move to approve based on the discussion at the hearing and the information set out in the staff report. Or if it's a different decision, it would be something that you would be stating your basis and the reasons under the criteria and the zoning ordinance that you don't agree with the decision or with the recommendation of staff. Again, this is the list of the general powers and duties provision of the zoning ordinance. Generally, you all, again, are doing appeals, variances, special exceptions. You all don't have the power to legislate.

That rests with the council. Also, the BZA doesn't rezone properties. And again, restating it doesn't legislate, so you can't make decisions based on the purpose of intent. But you're making an interpretation of the law as it exists. And these are what the next two slides do is they lay out a little bit of the variant standards.

And so the variant standards, there's basically seven factors. There's five parts of the variance definition and six other variance criteria. So staff and their staff reports go through and lay out each criteria and an evaluation of each and how the application for variance does or does not meet each of those. And it's a very specific look at each factor related to the case specifically. Here are the I don't know if you want me to go over them or if you have specific questions about the variance criteria, but I know that you all are familiar with these.

You work with these every session. Do you all have any questions right now that I can

I I I have a question? In an appeal situation at the circuit court, what level of documentation, if the if the board goes and decides against staff and the criteria laid out, staff has decided that, they see it one way and the board wants to see something a different way. What level of documentation or explanation would you expect in a circuit court process in that appeal, for the the for those ideas to be understood and why the board went in one direction versus another?

I think generally the advice I would give is the more specific the better. If there's a specific factor that you disagree with the interpretation of or multiple factors, the best advice I can give is to be as thorough as possible when you're explaining it because in certain situations, you all do produce a written record. But most of the time, what your position is taken on is your motions and your discussion. And so any explanation, especially if you're in a position of differing, is best to lay out specifically so that there's an understanding of the rationale and the basis for that different decision.

I was wondering if often you could talk us through people will come to us and say one of the reasons they should have a variance is a reason that's rooted in the people who live there. They have a family or they have like multiple pets or something. Just confirming that that is not a reason to grant a variance, that it needs to be related to the property and like the inherent

quirks. Correct. Standards base it on an observation of the property and how that property can and can't be utilized and how they acquired the property, not generally the reason for the request, if that makes any sense. At a high level, it's looking at the application of the law and whether, because of the specific circumstances, there should be relief granted from what would otherwise be the application of the zoning ordinance, for instance, something related to a height or a setback of that nature. So it would be looking at these criteria and saying, is that a consideration within that?

Most often, it's not. But staff have laid out the reasons and explanation and argument for, or evaluation of, the criteria in the staff report?

Yep. May I? There's a case that really bothers me. It was a number of years ago, and I really liked it. Since we're kind of asking about those questions, I really like to ask about it.

There was somebody that came in and asked for a FAR exemption. They had a historic property. It was the house was kinda weirdly built to begin with, and they really just wanted, like, it was a just a small amount increase to the FAR, and the board decided against them. But I'm I'm kinda wondering, in a situation where you have a very odd architecture, and it's it they're just trying to work with those sort of just some oddity that is not normal in most properties, would granting like a FAR exception, a floor area ratio exception and to to, like, a small percentage increase, would that be a reasonable thing for the board to decide? Because at the time, the city staff had decided against them, and the board went along with staff.

But it's always bothered me, and it's something that I'd if I could go back on, I'd want to argue much harder for the applicant in that situation.

So I don't I can't speak to specific circumstances. But again, a variance is, like I said, it has quite a list of factors that have to be met. So an examination of those needs to be done. And if an argument could be made to support it because the criteria are met or complied with, then that's certainly something that the BZA could have an opinion about. But again, it's relying on those criteria and not knowing all of the facts of the situation.

I can't really provide you an evaluation or a sort of after the fact analysis. It's based on a very fact specific specific analysis analysis of of the the particular particular request. Request. Thank you. Sorry.

To confirm for the record, approval of the variance requires the meeting of all six criteria. So even if one is not met, then the board should not approve that variance.

Correct. There does need to be compliance with all of it. And the factors, it's sort of hard to say there's a large list of criteria, but it includes both the definition of the variance and the specific variance criteria. So there are multiple parts to the variance definition as well, so it gets a little bit complicated. But yes, every one of the criteria needs to be complied with in order for a should be complied with for a variance approval.

So then just a few things about the variants generally. The burden is on the applicant to make the case and the argument for the granting of the variants. The BZA and I think this goes to the earlier question

needs

needs

to

support its findings by the facts and conclusions based on the variant standard. So again, if there's just a desire to go in a different direction than what staff recommends, it's definitely something you want to put on the record to explain what the conclusions are that you've looked at and the facts that you've looked at and believe are pertinent. And so the decision that you all make on a variance is approve, deny, or approve with conditions. You need an affirmative vote of four members to decide in favor of the applicant. This is just another provision where certain conditions and restrictions can be imposed to mitigate impacts.

You can also make specific references if you're granting one for persons with disabilities that once it's no longer needed, then the variance can go away. But generally, variances run with the land. So once it's a decision, it's basically making it a legal change to the zoning for the property. Special exceptions I hate to have this many words on a page, but this was also meant to serve as a bit of a reference for you all. This is a list of pretty much all it's a list of all of on over I think it's two pages about the different types of special exceptions that you all see.

So it's everything from fences on corner lots, yard and setback requirements for enlargements of dwellings, front porches, maximum heights for dwellings, attached private garages, and bulk and setback requirements for accessory buildings. So all of these, as you can see underneath of them, have specific criteria like, for instance, the attached private garages. There's a block face analysis. There's width of vehicle analysis. If it's more of a calculation, that's an easier thing for staff to do.

But these are also criteria that have to be met in order to grant it. But also, in addition to the specific criteria for that type of special exception, you all are making a finding that there's an unreasonable burden on the use and enjoyment of the property that outweighs the zoning purpose. And the following issues are also things that you look at as applicable to the case, whether it's detrimental to the public welfare, the neighborhood, or the adjacent owners, whether it increases traffic, impairs adequate light and air, whether it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, whether it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, if it's the only means reasonable in the location. So these are where a variance is an exception from the application of the zoning ordinance. A special exception is to allow them to do something else under the ordinance under specific criteria.

This is akin to more of what application a special is that council decides, these are specifically delegated to the BZA to allow you all to grant specific zoning permissions to owners. Again, the burden's on the applicant to establish that they've met all of the standards. Your decision is to approve or deny or approve with conditions. And you state the reasons based on the standards in the zoning ordinance for the decision. And again, you need a concurring vote of four members.

And again, you can have conditions and restrictions to mitigate impacts on others. I can pause for questions or I can keep moving along. Okay. And this is the category of things that you will see the least, but is another area where you all have authority. It's to hear appeals from determinations made by the director of planning and zoning.

This sets out who can make the appeal. That's generally something that's decided by planning and zoning before it comes to you. It does stay a proceeding. But you all, administrative appeals, appeals of administrative decisions, are acting in a quasi judicial capacity because you are taking interpretation and seeing if you are in agreement with the director's interpretation of the zoning ordinance itself. That involves a public hearing, like you all do with variances and special exceptions.

Typically, the order of procedure is the director explains the basis for the determination. The appellant has a burden of proof to rebut such presumption. There's generally a presumption of correctness applied to a zoning director's decisions because of consistency reasons. You all are deciding whether the director was correct in making the decision. His decision is presumed to be correct.

You all look at ordinances, laws, and regulations. And you don't make your decision on equitable considerations but based on what the law is. And again, this is another one where you need an affirmative vote of four members. So generally, like I said earlier, your appeals of BZA decisions go directly to the court. They can be filed by aggrieved persons.

Courts review the records, documents, and actions taken by the board and may receive evidence. And to the earlier point, that can be in the form of most likely when you all are making a decision, you're speaking and your justifications and discussion at the hearing about your decision. And again, I stated what the court is reviewing for. It's reviewing if the decision of the board was contrary to law or arbitrary and abusive discretion. And there's no stay on any of the proceedings unless requested.

I do know that some of these things are there's sort of some clarifications coming down from the General Assembly from this session. So this will change a little bit. We'll be most likely having to update our zoning ordinance. But right now, we're looking at 53 bills we have to figure out. So we'll be getting to this one along with those. I think Mr. Patel might have a question.

Yes. In terms of interpreting the six factors, my question is on just the factor two where hardship is not self created. Is that in reference to, you know, the structure itself being a hardship and then a landowner saying that, you know, a lot of variance to maintain that structure or is that interpreted as the hardship was the topography of the property or some other factors and then if they've built a structure, you know, that's not the hardship per se. That was self created, you know, the land came as it was and the hardship was the topography or

the drainage? I'll go back to that slide. It was slide nine on the variance criteria. So I think there's two different factors here that come into play. You have, in strict application of the zoning ordinance, that first bullet point, granting the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements.

You can look to the zoning ordinance to the variance process to get alleviation of a hardship from the physical condition of the property. So that's if it's a very unique shape, it's got rugged topography, things of that nature. But when you're talking about the next factor, which says it was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance, I think maybe those are two concepts that you were talking a little bit about in concert there. And generally, the courts have looked at for a hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance is typically a case where the person who is coming to you asking for a variance didn't actually do something that created the need for the variance in the first place. In other words, they didn't do the thing under the zoning ordinance they should not have done and then are seeking relief from you all.

So does that help explain the difference between those criteria?

Yes. And just for clarification, when the abuse of discretion standard was kind of mentioned, what does that exactly mean with respect to when it gets appealed to Alexander's Circuit?

Well, I think the court will look to whether you all have, as the BZA, applied the standards that are set out in the code and that you have based your decision on those and the interpretation of zoning ordinance.

Okay, understood.

Just quickly following up on Mr. Patel's question. If a owner purchases a new property, they're not really obligated to look for any major zoning violations before they purchase it. Because I'm thinking after they purchase it and they get called up to the BCA.

Sure. There is some case law that says that even if someone was aware that a variance was needed to do what they wanted to do, that's considered that they purchased it in good faith. That they knew they wanted to do something, but they would need to seek relief. That's still considered a good faith purchase. Does that answer your question?

I think so, yes.

Okay. Let me try to think of another way to explain it. Like if somebody who knows they want to put an addition on the house and they know what the setbacks are for the house, but they purchase it knowing with their plans that they would have to get a variance, that's still considered a good faith purchase.

Got it. But what about I was thinking more about having an obligation or responsibility to vet the property characteristics against a zoning ordinance.

Is that something normal

or expected?

Excuse me. This is or GREGORY I don't believe the court would put a requirement on somebody to affirmatively make sure that there are no zoning violations. Again, because they aren't the ones who created it when they purchased it, the criteria of that they didn't create the hardship wouldn't be applied against them.

So it's considered good faith? They're in good faith?

Yeah. I think they do kind of work together in that sense, yeah. Sorry, I'll skip back to where you were. Let's see. Just real briefly again, the appeals to court, they're not actions against the board.

The board's not a party. The board does have to provide a response to the court with forwarding the papers and all the other information that you all based your decision on. The parties to the action are the council, the landowner, and the applicant. And again, the link's there. So those are just the basic decisions that you all are making.

I'm going to go a little bit more into nuts and bolts about who you are and other laws of general application if you don't have any other questions. Or if other questions come up, feel free to interrupt me. So as you're all aware, it's your seven members who are qualified voters. You live in the city of Alexandria. You can't hold an office with the government. You're the city government. You're serving four year terms. You have a member who's a chair. The chair presides. If the chair is not here, there's another member designated.

And the BZA also appoints secretary. And other employees can be requested. So meetings are held at the call of the chair with the supportive staff who tell you what's on docket. You have to have a quorum here. You have your rules where you provide equal time to the different speakers.

You all have some ability to set rules and bylaws by which you operate. Under FOIA, meetings have to be kept and posted. You all generally approve those. And then, let's see, one specific thing about the BZA that's different than other bodies is these limitations on ex parte communication. And basically this means city non legal staff and the representatives of the applicants or the applicants can't have communication with individual members of the BZA on a specific case.

If you all want to meet together, everybody can talk about it all at once, having the city representatives, the applicant representatives, and the BZA member. Or the safest course is to just have that discussion at the hearing when everyone's present and you can have a full discussion of it. This doesn't apply to special exceptions though because those are similar to a special use permit. So this is more for the variances and for the appeals. So generally, here are some rules for all the boards and commissions.

You have ten year term limits. You have to attend or have excused absence for 75% of meetings in a calendar year. You all make an annual report to counsel about your activities during the year. And Robert's rules apply unless you have something specific in the bylaws or in the city code. Robert's rules, chair presides, members have to be recognized to speak, quorum is the majority of your members, a tie vote means a motion doesn't pass, so you have to continue to vote to get to a decision.

Motions and amendments require a second. You can amend. You can rescind. You can reconsider. These are all sort of laid out in here about what the different types of motions are.

On to FOIA and COIA. This is going to be the drier portion, but something that you all need to be familiar with. FOIA is the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. It has two parts, pertaining to public records and one to meetings of public bodies. So what are public records?

Those are any sort of writing that you all have in your possession as a member of a public body. And what that means is that when we have records that are created or received, we have to retain them for the Virginia Library's retention period. And we also have to make those records available to the public upon request. For meetings generally, the FOIA rules set up the requirement for the number days of notice you have to provide and for citizen access to meetings. So what are your obligations related to public records?

You have to retain all records related to the business of the board, specifically records that aren't maintained or provided to you by staff. If someone reaches out to you with a question as a member of the public or someone else, you need to hold those and maintain those. Staff have copies of the things they send out with the docket materials, so those you don't have to worry about as much. But what I do recommend, though, is if you want to keep things separate from your email addresses to set up a separate email account for your BZA business versus personal or other accounts. So generally, the restrictions public meetings, things that you all need to be aware of.

Staff handle the upfront, making sure the meetings are noticed within a specific period of time, that they're docketed and have the right content in them. But what you all need to be aware of is that there are rules that apply to you all because you could be in a situation where you're meeting with as many if you're meeting with three members, it doesn't apply to two members meeting. But if you have three or more members meeting without meeting the notice provisions, you could be in violation of FOIA. But that doesn't apply to meetings that aren't arranged to discuss public business. Those aren't social events.

And if you all are at public events where there is something going on and you want to make sure that it doesn't appear that you all are there together to do BZA business, you can talk in groups of two or you can avoid each other, whichever works best. But what you need to also keep in mind is electronic communications can become a meeting under FOIA. And so that is largely it would be a finding if you're having conversations with, again, three or more members. And it deals with how close in time those communications are. The case law is these cases looked at email communication.

But now people are more reliant. Since those decisions, people are more reliant on chats, messages, and those sorts of things. And so the more quickly that larger groups of people are communicating, the more likely it is that you can be found to have a meeting. Again, you can have conversations one on one, and that's fine. But just be aware of communications with multiple members.

So some advice that we give is if you get an email, don't reply to everybody. Only respond to one other board member at a time or save the discussion for the next board meeting. And again, not only does this come into play because of the concern about creation of a meeting, but you're also creating public records. You have that obligation to maintain them and to turn them over if someone requests them. So there's sort of two layers of responsibilities that you all have under FOIA that come into play.

Generally, FOIA requires physical assembly of members and remote participation is prohibited. You all have adopted your remote participation participation policy for individual members to be able to participate remotely like you have tonight. The BZA is one of the boards in the state law that can't do an all virtual meeting. So you all do need to have your quorum assembled in person at one physical location. The next section is our conflicts of interest law.

You all have two bodies of law that apply. It's the state and local conflicts of interest act, and the zoning ordinance has provisions related to conflicts. Conflicts are the conflicts laws are not codes of ethics, but minimum standards of conduct related to your financial interests. This applies to all board members, so it's not just BZA. You all have to, when you have the basics of it are that you can't or you should not have a relationship with an applicant or related to a specific application that comes in front of you that would bring you a financial benefit or liability.

Those are the specific some of the wording used in the state conflicts of interest act law. The zoning ordinance speaks of it in terms of having relationship with someone within the last twelve months. This is all very high level. We can circulate this for you all to look at, but it has some basic parameters of what you should be aware of if an application comes to you and you know someone or you've worked with someone and you want to look to see if you have a concern about this. But also you can reach out to our office because we do these and these are very fact specific inquiries about whether conflict actually exists.

Oops. That seems to be telling me it's the end. I think it's the end, though. I think that's most of yep, Okay. I left off the last slide. So anyway, that is an overview of all of the laws. Again, all of this is covered and linked in this PowerPoint, so staff can certainly share that with you and you can have it as a reference. If you have any other questions, I'm glad to take them.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next item on the docket is BZA twenty twenty six-two, 1030 Cross Drive, public hearing and consideration of a request for a variance for an after the fact accessory structure in the required secondary front yard, zoned R8 residential.

Staff can begin your presentation whenever you're ready.

Good evening, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Sean Killian, and I am a planner with Planning and Zoning. And I have the pleasure to go over the variance request for 1030 Cross Drive. Just some background for the agenda. I'm just going to go over a general summary of the property with some background information.

Then we're going to go over the proposal and the variance request and then finish off with staff's recommendation. So the summary for this, this request is a variance to maintain an accessory structure within the required yard. Some key elements of the discussion we're going to go over tonight are the contextual block face reduction, structures within required yards, and then outdoor covered space alternatives to the proposed structure. Just some background information. The property is zoned R8 residential.

It is surrounded by one and two story single unit dwellings. And the accessory structure, as it is right now, sits atop an existing at grade patio. The proposed accessory structure, as you can see there, is 10 feet tall and extends a little bit over the property line. They've gone up a little bit up the roof overhang. There's some additional photos.

In terms of the contextual block face, this was a discussion we had when this came for the first hearing. As you can see, we highlighted the three properties in the contextual block face that if this variance request is approved would reduce the contextual block face for both 1030 Cross but the adjacent properties that are X to zero feet in terms of the secondary front yard for 1100 Cross 1334 Bayliss and 1329 Bayliss. Though the properties, they may not be able to build an addition within that reduced setback, they could do a full demolition or partial demolition to change their FAR in order to use that approved zero front yard setback. So the variance request, like we just said, the required setback is 25.2 feet for the secondary front yard Therefore, the requested setback they want is to maintain that zero foot setback. So the relief they're requesting is 25.2 feet.

That setback, like we just said, is determined by the contextual block face of the adjacent properties on both Bayless Avenue and in Cross Drive. Due to this property being a corner lot, as you can see from the plat, it has a primary and a secondary front yard. Like I stated earlier, with some encroachments and conditions, a portion of the accessory structure is located within the public right of way. It's that little bit of that roof overhang over the fence. So if this request is approved, the condition will be that they'll need to get an administrative encroachment for the overhang.

Staff is recommending denial of the variance request as it does not meet the criteria and the definition of a variance. Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, we can give the time. Oh, Kim?

Yes. This has not changed

since what we saw the last

No, ma'am. Okay.

We just go to procedural question? Of course. Just procedurally, so I know there was a memo from staff with additional information. When will that be presented?

That was in the staff packet.

And so that's not going to be presented as part of the staff presentation? That's just informational in nature? Doesn't I mean, it's

part of the staff packet that should have been reviewed. The material was covered in the presentation. But if you have specific questions

What? Okay. So the material was covered in Correct. We highlighted Because there was three

major

to the requirements that existed prior to when the structure was installed? Are you

asking about the building permit We didn't include that because that's actually not under the purview of planning and zoning. We responded to that just in the memo As a courtesy. As a courtesy to the board.

Okay. I was just curious. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Mr. Patel has a question.

Yes. And just to clarify, was this was there a question about how tall the fence had to be prior to 2021? Or you know, I believe in the at the last hearing that when asked, you know, that he had reviewed the regulation or the ordinance and it said it was a certain height or he couldn't find it. And then currently, it's it's listed as a as a certain height. Was there any information on what it was at the time of closer to the purchase of the property or when this was erected?

You mean the structure, not the fence?

Right,

yeah. So in terms of whether a building permit would be required based on because from a zoning standpoint in the ordinance, our requirements say that we don't state whether this requires a building permit or not. That's done by code administration. And code administration provided in the comments both the first time and the same comments for this deferral of that a building permit would be required.

Mr. Patel, did I answer your question?

Kind of. I thought there was a different issue where the applicant had represented that he had looked into whether or not, you know, a certain height requirement was there.

Are you referring to the special exception case?

That may be. So this is just for the variance. That issue may have already been addressed at the last meeting. Well, from

our previous discussion, listed that a gazebo counts as an accessory structure that an applicant is allowed to have on their property. But that does not delineate in that section of the ordinance whether a building permit is required based on any sort of height or size of the structure. What that section of the ordinance stated that we talked about in the last hearing was that an applicant is allowed to have one on their property as a permitted accessory structure, but not that it's permitted within a required yard.

And I think to further clarify, I think I now remember what you were asking, we allow pergolas of a certain height, and that is something that has changed since 2018. We didn't previously allow those in required yards. But now a pergola with an open roof that is no taller than 10 feet, so the same height as the structure, if the roof was 80% open would be a permitted obstruction in the required front yard. Is that maybe what you were thinking?

It may have been.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, I can give the time to the applicants to present.

Thank you. I apologize to the remote members. We brought our notes and a proposed finding of fact and proposed conditions, but I only brought them in paper.

And sir, can you introduce yourself?

Sorry. Name is John Maplybruttle. It's my wife, Tracy. We live at 1030 Cross Drive. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you for your time tonight. I understand the board's concern regarding precedent and a contextual blockface. I want to address that concern directly by proposing a narrowly tailored site specific basis for relief under Section eleven-eleven oh three with limiting conditions under Section eleven-eleven oh two tied strictly to the unusual physical characteristics of the property.

This property is illegally substandard for an R8 corner lot. The ordinance requires 9,000 square feet for a corner lot. This property contains only 6,182 square feet. The lot width is also substantially substandard at approximately 62 feet compared to the required 80 feet. In addition, the principal dwelling was established in 1947 prior to the current zoning framework and sits approximately 26 feet from the Bayless frontage.

These dimensional constraints were not created by applicant, but arise from preexisting lot geometry and dwelling placement established decades before the current ordinance framework. When the current 25.2 foot secondary front yard setback is applied to a lot with these dimensions in this preexisting house placement, it consumes approximately 40% of the lot width along the Bayless frontage, leaving an extremely constrained and functionally impractical area for accessory placement on that side of the property. The physical constraints are further complicated by the significant topographical grade differential identified in the staff report. The gazebo is currently located at elevation on an existing deck and remains visually softened by the surrounding grade conditions and mature maple canopy. Staff had suggested relocating the structure to a technically compliant area to the south.

However, under the unique physical condition of this property relocating the structure to that higher elevation area would likely create visual prominence and neighborhood impact greater than the existing condition. At the time the gazebo was constructed in 2018, the alternate placement area also contained a mature apple tree I sought to preserve. Although that tree was later lost to disease, the reasonableness of the original placement decision should be evaluated based on the actual site conditions that existed at the time of construction. The structure itself is a longstanding open air accessory structure subordinate to the principal dwelling. It does not increase habitable area or residential density.

It has existed for many years without demonstrated harm the immediately adjacent properties. In fact, the neighbors most directly affected by the structure have submitted written support because they believe the current placement improves privacy and buffering between the properties. I want to briefly clarify the procedural history. The original complaint was submitted using my personal contact information without authorization. I raised that issue and wanted to explain why the complaint history may not accurately reflect actual neighborhood opposition.

The adjacent neighbors with direct standing have expressed support for the structure. It says here I've applied and paid for the necessary permit for the electrical work. That was done after I assembled it and I didn't realize it. I actually now have an approved electrical permit. I just need to schedule to get the inspector out there to clean up the electrical part of the permitting.

I recognize the board's obligation to preserve the integrity of the zoning ordinance and avoid creating unintended precedent. For that reason, I'm proposing narrowly tailored, excuse me, limiting language that confines any approval strictly to this existing structure, this specific substandard lot, these inherited dimensional constraints and these unique topographical conditions. The proposed conditions prohibit enlargement, enclosure, relocation or intensification of the structure and expressly state that the approval does not establish a prevailing setback pattern, contextual block face condition or generalized precedent for neighboring properties. This allows the Board to resolve a unique hardship created by preexisting lot geometry and topography without ordering setback expectations elsewhere in the neighborhood. For these reasons, I respectfully request approval of the variance with the proposed limiting conditions.

My proposed findings of fact, the Board finds the variance is justified pursuant to Section eleven eleven oh three due to the unique physical characteristics of the subject property, including legally substandard lot area, legally substandard lot width, preexisting placement of the principal dwelling established prior to current zoning, significant topographical grade differentials and the resulting constrained secondary front yard configuration. And thank you very much.

Thank you sir. If you don't mind staying at the podium.

Sure.

Are there any questions from the board? Mr. Patel? You have your hand raised.

I apologize. I apologize. I think it was left over from last question.

Any questions for the applicant?

I don't know if this is a question that the applicant can best answer or if staff would be better positioned, but do we know if the neighboring lots are substandard? And if they are, in what dimensions?

Since we just got this at the hearing, I did look at a couple of the other corner lots. 1100 is substandard in lot area, 1100 Cross. 1113 is substandard in lot area. I don't have their widths because I don't have their surveys. Just looking at those two for corner lots, they're like the most close corner lots are both substandard in lot area.

And just to confirm, the structure was built in 2018 for the materials. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. I assembled it in 2018. It's a kit.

And what year did you purchase

the property?

I purchased the property in 2017.

Okay. Thank you, sir. And

the space that it's built on, the patio type area, was there when you had purchased the property?

It was. And I've talked to neighbors that have been there probably twenty years, that existing flat.

And there was nothing that existed on top of that beforehand of any sort that you're aware of?

I lived down the street before I bought this house. The prior neighbor had multiple tent structures that collapsed. And I also tried multiple tent structures the first year, but they kept falling to weather and wind and snow.

Thank you. Do you have pictures of the apple tree that you referenced?

I believe the stump of the apple tree in page 29 of the packet, I believe you have. If you look in front, there's the existing tree. If I can There's existing apple tree that's still there. And then in front of the dog, you can see the stump on the crest of the hill there. I only remembered it when I tripped over cutting the lawn the other day. It's not why I'm in a boot. But that was a full tree with a full canopy that was there. Because I went back and said, didn't I build it there?

That's a stump by the trampoline?

The stump is up on right on the crest of the hill. It's actually if you went from the dog's feet and moved towards the ladder of the trampoline, it's right there it drops off like three or four feet straight down.

Thank you, I see it. Thank you. The last question, with the and again, I was not present for the previous hearing. But with the structure being right next to the sidewalk, was there a storm water issue? Like if it rained or stormed and passersby on the sidewalk, we're walking by with that. There's lots of

If we go to the picture that was in the staff packet where it looks straight down, you'll see that there's two primary big trees there and there's the smaller green trees we put in. And the roof actually drains right there in that two feet of dirt right there where those trees are.

Okay so the water would not encroach on the sidewalk.

No, sure. In fact you can see the tree to the far right died. Didn't get enough water. Is it page 30 in your packet, you'll see that the roof extends about six inches into that two foot of dirt right there. You couldn't walk down there because of that big tree.

Thank you. Does the board have any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, thank you, sir. The board will move on to deliberations.

Anyone have an opinion or would like to express?

Mr. Chair, may I? Thank you.

Foley, just please wait a second. Go ahead, Mr. Foley.

Yeah. So, I've given this particular case a great deal of thought over the past month, thinking about it. And one of the things that, you know, first of all, I'd like to say that at the last meeting, I was acting chair, and I kept my opinions to myself for a lot of this. But one of the driving things that really makes me really opposed to granting this variance is just the thought about being a property owner myself, thinking about if everybody started putting structures like this in their front yards, how the whole character of the neighborhood would change. I am a homeowner myself, and I look around and things like this just they just tend to bother me a lot.

And I just I completely agree with staff, and I agree with the zoning ordinance of why things like this should not be in front yards. And this, to me, is not just a little thing. This is, like, extreme. It's it's, like, right butting up against the property line. In fact, I think it goes over the property line a little bit. And it it is just it is not characteristic of any neighborhood in Alexandria anywhere. And I I just think that this is just the the wrong thing to put in the front yard, and I think the zoning ordinance are clearly outlined that say that it should not be in the front yard. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Foley. Ms. Baumann?

This is a question for staff. The information regarding the substandard nature of the lot, was that considered in your evaluation of the variance?

Yes, ma'am. We do take that into consideration. In terms of the criteria of as you can look over, there are alternatives that the applicant could pursue that we would allow with in the required front yard. So even though the lot is substandard in both its width and its size, there are alternatives such as, like we mentioned earlier, a pergola, which under 10 feet can be located position as the current structure is right now. Another alternative, if you look at the memo we mentioned, was an open porch.

The applicant brought up a big concern about having outdoor covered space. A front porch in both the primary front and the secondary front can go all the way up to 10 feet off of the property line. And up to eight feet of that off of the house can be taken as deduction from FAR, not increasing the FAR of the property. So the question of the substandard was taken into consideration, but the alternatives that the applicant has available to them is why you still see a no under that portion of the criteria.

Thank you. I would also just add the substandard nature of the lot in this particular part of the city is not that unique. There are several other substandard lots sort of in this general area. Just on a quick look of the area, it's a fairly common thing. A lot of times the lots were created before the zoning designations were placed on them. And we're still trying to figure out why they did exactly what they did in the '50s. But it's not that unique of a situation in this particular part of the you.

Mr. Patel?

Just a question for staff. I guess what differentiates this from a side lot? And I know it's adjacent to the sidewalk, but the front of the house, you know, seems very unencumbered and this does seem like the side of their house, you know, now I guess to to where all their their neighbor sides are, you know. I guess why are we evaluating this as the front of their house?

So by definition, this is a corner lot because it fronts on two public right of ways and then two streets. That's what makes it a corner lot versus a normal interior lot where you'd have a front, rear, and two sides. That's what is why this is considered a corner lot. This is a secondary front, not a singular side yard.

And just to add to that, the secondary front abuts to a primary front is immediately adjacent to it. That's one of the reasons why corner lots have two more restrictive front yards. And then the benefit that you get with a corner lot is that instead of having you don't have a rear yard, is more restrictive than your side yards. You have two side yards and two front yards.

Did we get a letter from the person whose front is, I guess, facing the side yard? Was that one of the people that signed the petition?

Yes, that was included in the letters of support for the fence,

yes. And out.

And the gazebo was

sent out.

Sir, you cannot talk.

I just have a very quick technicality question on pergolas. Are pergolas, you said 80%, but is it open air or just light that needs to shine through?

Open air, that way it's actually fully open so that way light and air can pass through.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Patel, do you have another question?

I apologize. I keep on forgetting to lower the hand. Sorry. Sorry, chair.

Mr. Justice, do you have any questions? Okay. So I think you all have heard of this case last month. And I've closely reviewed the materials earlier this week as well and last week. Can I just get a sense of how everyone's feeling about this case?

I would have said that I tend to agree with Mr. Foley in this case, maybe not to the length he has being a homeowner and what he expressed. But I think that it is important knowing where the area that the structure could have been located in. But at the same time, I also feel like it is located here because there was already something existing on the ground that would signify that it was a gathering place, representing that it may not have been looked at to attach it in a place that could have met within the code. And so while I would want to, if I was in their case, agree with something like this.

I personally, looking from what we have and the way the law is written and how we would have to defend that in order to approve this, I don't see how that is possible to have it be an approval from my position.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. I'll move on to you, Mr. Justice.

You. Yeah, I just want to piggyback on the last couple of comments and where I understand where Mr. Poley is coming from and if we were to have a graduate seminar we could talk about how in the English system they hold property owners to a very high degree of responsibility because in their system property ownership is historically not a democratized thing. But in The US it is a very democratized activity and we tend to give people wider latitude to do with their land what they would like to do here. While I certainly appreciate the applicant's renewed presentation and trying to address a lot of the concerns that we brought up in our last meeting, I still grapple with the fact that it's a nice place.

Applicant has made this a very nice property that's a fine home. And the variance threshold that we need to get over is that without this change, it's actually not usable as a home or as a property that can be used in any kind of an economical way. And I think it's plain to see that

a

how can I say? This is a very nice home with or without the covered gazebo. It's not like it's required for it to be a house. And so with that coupled with the potential of making precedent for the other properties in the area, I just don't know that I could get to the variance level to grant approval here. If this was a special exception, think it would be much easier. But unfortunately, it's not.

Thank you, Mr. Justice. I'll move on to Ms. Baumann.

Sure. Thank you so much. I have a quick question. And I think we talked about this last time. This is for staff. This does not qualify for a special exception, correct? I think we talked about this.

No, it's not eligible for a special exception.

Okay, great. Thank you. That's what I recall. I don't love the process that there can be an anonymous complaint. We've talked about this before.

I don't love that process. I don't love that all of their neighbors are completely fine with this improvement. However, we have this framework that we're working in. And this affects property owners today and tomorrow. And I think with the framework that we have that we have to maintain the integrity of that framework. And I don't see a way to approving it at this time.

Thank you, Ms. Baumann. Ms. Hueblin?

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to hear your case again. Strictly objectively speaking, I don't see how we can justify the exceptions that would be necessary to approve it. And I'm very sorry for that. However, as you've heard the same legal seminar that we just sat through, you know what our responsibilities are. I agree with Ms.

Baumann that the fact that this is here because of an anonymous call and the procedure that allows that is really disturbing. But again, unfortunately, we can't change that fact. So I'm afraid that I would have to not vote to allow you the exception.

Thank you, Ms. Yifeng. Mr. Patel, you have your hand raised.

Yes, I would vote in favor of approving the applicants, you know, for variance. I think really with all of these zoning regulations we talked about in terms of the pergola, in terms of the setback, if it's to maintain, you know, light air and space, I have a very hard time, you know, looking at the pictures we were looking at, you know, reading what the neighbors have said about it, or how this adversely affects the property or the community or the intent of the law for air and space where, you know, on a technical level, you know, pergolas versus gazebos, you know, look different in the Home Depot catalog. But is there no light? Is there no air? Is this not an open area because of the construction that we saw with our eyes with what the neighbors reported, with what the homeowners reported.

I don't really tend to see that distinction being there on the ground and, you know, so for that factual basis, think the the intent of whether there's air and space is fulfilled. You know, addressing what was brought up earlier in terms of maintaining a certain standard for the community, you know, the evidence before us is, think, at least three or four, I don't wanna overestimate, letters of support and then a a petition with, you know, a dozen names on it saying that we are the ones facing this, you know, I'm the homeowner looking at your side yard slash front yard. I'm your next door neighbor. I'm the three properties to your left. I'm the three properties to your right.

All saying this fits with the character of our community. And so I understand why these regulations may maybe they're applicable, you know, in my neighborhood where I live. But in terms of a case by case analysis of where this home is, its unique characteristics in terms of the topography, how how the land owner actually bought this home, what his challenges were and then what the structure actually is. I I just have a very hard time seeing how this is a hardship for for his neighbors or for Alexandria as a whole. You know, I think that from one of the things that we received counsel on was that there is an abuse of discretion standard which is, you know, very high burden for the person appealing to to overturn.

It is almost the the highest burden on an appeal if it's an abuse of discretion. And, you know, I think any logical reason the board can come up with to approve, then it would be the city's burden to do it versus on the flip side making it the homeowner's burden. Here, you know, I think what we saw in the presentations doesn't lead me to believe that, you know, this was a, I guess, a hardship that they created. They inherited the property this way. You know, I I don't think it was I think it is a solution to the hardship, you know, of their their unique lot where, you know, it doesn't seem like their neighbors have this two front yard type of problem and it seems like their neighbors actually liked the structure they put on there because it protects their privacy as well.

You know, it doesn't look ostentatious or, you know, this is a 20 foot fence or something that is in a completely different material. It looks pretty consistent with the houses around it, with the blocks around it. So I think that the minimum relief was, you know, the way it was constructed fits the minimum relief kind of prong. And I mean, to detriment to neighboring properties, the only evidence we have before is everybody is alright with it. Everybody likes it, Everybody wrote letters in support of it, and I know we've had plenty of cases where you actually have an objection from neighbors in the surrounding community.

Here, it seems like everyone that this effect supports it and we would be the only body saying, I agree that, you know, here thinks it's good and they want it in the neighborhood, but we who don't live in this neighborhood are going to decide for you that it's not good and you should tear it down and it doesn't fit with the characteristics of your neighborhood. And then lastly, with the, you know, the ordinances intent, I think again, if it's to maintain no, I get I get it. We don't want big tenement buildings like we've seen on, you know, some documentaries for cities and things and we wanna have a certain kind of look to the neighborhood. Well, here and maybe it's just me, but it looks pretty open when you see the pictures and the actual factual kind of evidence. And so for those reasons, I do I do support granting the variance.

And I'll remember to lower my hand this time, mister chairman.

Thank you, mister Patel. Mister Foley, you've been raising your hand for for a while.

Yes. I wanna ask mister Patel to change my mind and go through the what is it? The six criteria that the staff laid out and labeled no to on every single one, go through all those criteria and come up with a reason for yes. And you do that, and you'll get my vote.

Yes, Mr. Poehler. Will put out one disclaimer where I do believe in an abuse of discretion standard. If we decide as a board on yes or no without providing reasons, then the city has to make an argument guessing at why it was yes or no and they have the burden on appeal to show that versus the more details we give, the more artillery the city may have on appeal. That aside from, you know, aside from that fact, you know, tried to do that in my last argument where So factor one in terms of, did the land owner face a hardship?

I I think the answer is yes. I mean, I don't have a house that has two front yards with one of the front yards looking into my neighbor's, you know, basement or windows. And, you know, I think they also don't have the way this property seems to be slanted where, you know, something that that may be the right height or or or fit with everything would kinda give me that privacy, my neighbor that privacy which he wants as well. So I think he bought this land and bought this house with the existing conditions where it's an odd shape, it has odd topography. So I think that really speaks to factor one.

Now, get to factor two at the end. Factor factor three, you know, I I don't think this is shared by his other properties. I think looking at the pictures, the the properties along the block don't have two front yards or, you know, definitionally two front yards. They all have the front door facing the street and that's that's their front yard, which is why, you know, they they don't have a need for this kind of structure. You know, based on how it's structured, I think this is the minimum relief that was necessary.

You know, the partly because I don't see how to to kind of tackle the the hardship of this specific lot. You could have built it differently. I I think one of our our co board members mentioned that, you know, the patio structure was already there when he bought it. So this this was logically where to put it where, you know, unless you wanted to rip out everything that was there beforehand, which, you know, I think, again, would be on the hardship at that point. I think the last two factors are probably easiest.

I don't think it has any detriment to the neighborhood. And the only reason I know that is everyone in the neighborhood has spoken up. Right? No one's come to the board meeting to say this affects me in a negative way. We don't know who submitted the complaint.

The only thing we know is everyone that lives around this landowner has said, yes, we agree with this. We want this there. You know, to the people to the very next to them that protects their privacy as well and, you know, so I think it's not a detriment. I have a hard time seeing any argument for why it's a detriment to this block, this community, you know, these group of people that are actually affected by it. And in terms of the city's ordinance, whether it fits with the spirit of that ordinance, you know, generally speaking, I would think if all setbacks, you know, the pergola versus gazebo debate on on air space as, you know, you're not blocking off a big area if your land to be, you know, essentially a chicken coop.

Like you're it's a garden. It's a it's a patio. It's a outdoor space that's usable. That's kind of what I would, you know, my interpretation and what I think the board's interpretation of these air and space type ordinances should be is, you know, when you look at it, does it look like there's open space and it's an outdoor area or have you enclosed this to make it, you your know, sixth bedroom and are trying to get away with it. Here, it's still their backyard. It's still their side yard. It's not an extra bedroom. It's not a fully enclosed thing. So I I think it does fit with the intent. You know, in terms of the hardship, whether the landowner created it or not, mainly there, I think of the interpretation as they bought it with the existing hardships.

I I tend to think of it as the physical hardship of the the land itself. Was that there beforehand that necessitated, you know, whatever structures there now. And again, you know, relating back to the first factor, I think that this land was very unique. It did have hardships with it that, I mean, I can't relate to. My property doesn't have the same hardships.

You know, I don't know what I would necessarily want in that situation, but I know what the reasons the landowner gave were which seemed reasonable and I know what his neighbors and his adjacent property owners gave and and support and those all do seem reasonable. So that's kind of my take on the factors and again, I think for something like this where it looks like the affected community supports it, the burden should be on the city to say it's arbitrary for for why everyone who lives there thinks this is okay. Nothing further, mister chairman.

Thank you, mister Patel. I guess the the question I'd have that follows up with that is for city staff. Did mister Patel answer all the criteria for the variance?

I mean, stand by our position in the staff report that we don't believe that the application meets all the criteria for a variance.

Yes, but did Mr. Patel just go through and answer all of the criteria to dispute or to give a different viewpoint?

I mean, he stated his opinion. I can't staff disagrees with his evaluation of the criteria.

Yeah. But he did state his opinion for all of the criteria. And so that if this were brought to an appeal, if we were to approve this and this were brought to an appeal, that we would have all the criteria addressed?

I mean, can't really answer that question. I don't believe that it addresses the criteria correctly. I don't believe that the standards for a variance are met.

Mr. Foley, can we perhaps get your opinion on whether he addressed

Oh, I gave my opinion earlier. But I'm listening to Mr. Patel, and Mr. Patel is changing my mind in a lot of ways. So I think I kind of tend to still agree with staff to a certain extent that I don't think that Mr.

Patel is really addressing the intent of that criteria. Because they're like, for instance, like, the the fact that the the existing condition versus building a porch around the house could get the same accommodation, which I tend to really agree with staff, and maybe I'm not stating it just right, but, you know, I really do tend to agree with staff on this. But I'm trying to get to yes, and I just don't really think that Mr. Patel is really, addressing yes. He's got an opinion on it, but he's not really addressing each criteria, and it's where where it needs to be.

Mr. Patel, can you help us understand better the topographical hardships with the property? You mentioned that many times, but I don't have a very good idea about what

And that comes from my recollection of the last hearing where I think there was a part of the landowner's presentation was because of the slope. That's why the fencing and why the fence had to be the height that it was. You know, and generally that outdoor structure, why it was planned that way because I think if if that wasn't there, and and maybe I am misremembering, but I thought that they could look into a window or, you know, the neighboring property was was right there and kind of we'd have no privacy for, you know, having that outdoor space. I think that was a result of the topography. But, you know, I would have to check the previous meetings, minutes of record about that.

Okay. So with respect to the couple alternatives that staff had presented, for example, porch next to the house or relocation of the gazebo to the southern facing side of the house, right, where you see that there's a bit of space before it slopes downwards. How does that do those alternatives mitigate that hardship in your opinion?

Are you asking me?

Well, Mr. Particular. But if the rest of the board have opinions, feel free to share them too.

And I don't recollect what staff's recommendation was in terms of where the structure would be moved to. And to clarify, we're talking about the gazebo?

Correct.

Like where on the property it could be moved to?

Ms. Christosan, didn't staff provide a couple alternatives, including So the

alternatives we provided were, number one, if they wish to keep the same structure in its exact location, it could be converted into a pergola because it meets, by definition, of seven dash -202A5 everything except that the roof is fully closed. If it was open to at least 80% open, obviously they would still need the encroachment for the overhang because if the roof was opened, there would still be that encroachment public right of way. But by right in the zoning ordinance, they're allowed that.

There was a second option, correct?

The second option would be, obviously, if they pushed it back to meet that 25.2 secondary front yard requirement, they can have the structure right behind the house by right. Because technically, structure would then be meeting the secondary front yard setback as well as the other setbacks as well. The other third option, like we mentioned, would be an open porch. So therefore, they would still provide the covered structure that would be attached to the house. And they can have a wraparound porch on the house or only in the secondary front yard, as that's the area they wish to enclose with an open porch. That's allowed by Wright as well. And that would also can be located within that required secondary front yard.

I thought there was some reference in the packet about utilization of space in the backyard or to the south of the house.

It could be constructed immediately to the south of the property I mean, of the dwelling. It does drop down. There's a part right behind the house that's fairly level. Then it drops down. In the pictures, you can see where the trampoline is the low area of the lot. So either of those two locations could comply with zoning. But I know the applicant mentioned there were some concerns about that low area having some water and maybe some issues with constructing it in that location.

What's the length between the dwelling and the point where the ground slopes down?

I don't have that exact measurement. I don't know if the homeowner does. Looks Mr.

Mapley Brittle, if you have any insights on that, feel free to provide them.

Yes, sir. It's right about the size of the gazebo before it drops off. Can I talk about that southern piece that the staff recommended?

Sure.

I didn't build it there in 2018 because there was the existing tree at that time. If I was to move it there, it looks based on the height, it looks over the fence into my neighbor's backyard, into my other neighbor's living room, totally removing their privacy. And as far as the porch, in 2018 when I built this porches were not a right. I remember about 2019 signing the first letter of support for the first porch in the neighborhood to go in. The city did not approve front porches. They were very, very hard to get at that time. And so at that time, it was the only option available. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

This is a question for staff. If you could remind me I apologize for this. But if you could remind me how the board should consider any potential hardship of moving, relocating a structure that is unapproved?

That would not relate to the definition of a hardship when it pertains to a variance. It's talking about hardship on the lot, like the physical constraints of the property. So things like topography, lot shape, some sort of unique situation like that would be something specific to the property. Is there something specific

in the ordinance or in our rules that say we cannot address that hardship? Or is that silent? Like a hardship that you know what I'm saying. Like a financial hardship? Right, like financial convenience,

just the hardship That is not part of the standards that you should be considering for a It's silent it. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Fuller?

Yeah, Ms. Christensen, I believe at one point in time, I don't know if it was one of the attorneys that came in and trained us or if this was actually from city staff as well or otherwise. But I believe that to Ms. Baumann's question, I recall at some point, the Board was told that we were to any situations like this, we needed to consider as if the structure never existed. And this was being asked for as if it's it's going to be built, not that it's already built.

So the guidance that we have based on it's not specifically written into the zoning ordinance, but from case law and guidance from the city attorney's office is that decisions of the BZA must be in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Otherwise, they'll be overturned by the courts. So only the standards of section 1,100 should be considered by making a variance decision and that considerations like cost or financial hardship are therefore inappropriate.

Mr. Patel.

Just a question for staff. If they could walk me through the sixth prong of the test and how they came to their conclusion about the ordinance and the intent of it.

Can I bring you back up? Sorry,

was trying to get up the criteria again so we can walk through them. So you want me to go through each of the criteria and why staff is recommending denial?

Numbers five and six, mainly.

Numbers five and six, Okay.

Can you pull the slide back up,

Yeah, should I get that up

for you?

I did it again. There we go. So for the last two, the granting of a variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification of the property. So for that one, we came to the conclusion that since there are alternatives that can be placed on this property that would comply with the zoning ordinance, the granting of this variance there are alternatives, meaning that the applicant can pursue other means beyond what they are proposing by right in the zoning ordinance. And then for the last one, this request cannot be available, as we stated earlier, through a special exception and that there are, once again, other means in the zoning ordinance that can be obtained by the applicant beyond simply just applying for a variance to gain relief.

I'm sorry, have horrible vision on my screen. It's Okay, understood.

Mr. Patel, did I answer your question?

Yes. Is there any way to and maybe not on the Zoom to kind of enlarge that the staff recommends kind of that chart.

We're trying to make it larger.

Mr. Patel, do you have the packet in front of you as well?

On page eight of the staff report, it goes through the analysis of the variance definition and then goes down each of the and then on page nine goes through the standards. So that basically is where staff lays out its stance on why we're recommending no for each of the criteria. Because on the PowerPoint, it'll just state the section, and then it'll have staff's stance on that part of the criteria. But the staff report on pages nine through 10 will have the breakdown of the specifics of each of the criteria.

Do you have a follow on question for staff?

No. Sorry. I'm just letting you know what mean.

Mr. Foley.

Yeah. I was wondering if maybe I might make a motion.

Before you do, I have one or two questions, one or two last questions for the applicant, if you could hold off on that. Mr. Mayflake Brittle. Thank you, John. Can you and apologize if you covered this last month. What uses of the gazebo would you derive that you would not derive from the other options that staff provided, such as a pergola with an 80% open roof or a porch next to your house?

GREGORY So the porch was not an option back then. The side of the house where that is, there's an entry to the basement under those steps, which would make a porch impractical. It would have to be a porch into my front yard into my primary front yard. There's no cover. It would not protect my family from the elements. It would not protect anyone that's sitting out there. A pergola is almost entirely decorative in nature. It doesn't really perform much of a function of shade or protection from the weather. There is a lot of sun there even despite the tree. That's why there was always tents there and the tents kept collapsing or blowing away.

This was an effort to replace them. May I ask a question, sir? Is that permitted?

Yes, you may.

I understand the variance of a non permitted is not a special exception. Is there a special exception to the amount of cover that's permitted on a pergola to still consider it a pergola? Or would that also be a variance?

I would relay that question to staff.

That would also be a variance. There's only very specific things that have been carved out that are special exceptions that meet very specific criteria. And fergolos are not one of them.

Can I ask a follow-up question, sir?

Yes.

If the variance was for the cover on a pergola, a pergola would not change the contextual front yard? Or is that correct?

It would no longer be a pergola. It wouldn't meet the definition.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Chairman? Or was that it?

Was all my question.

I would just like to point out that and make it known. Zoning is restrictive in nature, and it always has been since it was created in the 1920s. And ever since then, the objective for lots of city governments has been to make restrictive and make it so that people can have more uses and expand that. But I think, in my opinion I don't know. I'm not speaking for the entire board.

Whether or not they agree is their opinion. But based upon what zoning is now is what we as a board have to go off of. And whether or not we agree with that in our personal selves is something that isn't we don't always have the luxury of having in this situation. And so again, while, as I say earlier, it is something that the neighbors enjoy it, you enjoy it, that is not something that we can fully consider to this extent because of the way the law is written. And whether or not that changes in the future is something we are not aware of and we cannot have any control over.

What we can control is how we read it and how we see it right now. And so I still agree with Mr. Foley. I would love to vote yes, but I cannot based upon how the law is written and how we are required to interpret that law. Thank you.

That's my view as well. So in concurrence with majority of the board, personally I would love to approve this case. But the BZA is constrained by our strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance. And while the equitable framework you guys make a really compelling case, believe me, the board really is constrained in how we interpret the variance criteria. So with that, I'm in agreement with most of the Board.

So Mr. Foley, would you like to make a motion?

Yes. I would like to make a motion based upon the gallium efforts that Mr. Patel had put forward that we're trying to change my mind, but I have to agree with city staff and I want to motion to deny this variance.

Do we have a second for that motion?

I second that motion and thank Mr. Patel for his viewpoints and the arguments that were made.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. So hearing in second, we can move on to a vote. All those in favor of denial, please say aye. Aye. All those in favor of approval, same sign.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Patel.

Aye.

Okay, Ms. Yiblin. The motion is passed and the application is denied by a vote of five to two. Thank you, everyone. Next order of business.

The next item on the docket is BZA2020, 2411 Ridge Road Drive. Public hearing in consideration of a request for a special exception to construct an addition in the required side yard, zoned r r eight residential.

Staff can begin their presentation whenever you're

Can you speak into the mic? I can't hear.

Can you hear

me now?

You can hear me?

Oh, that's better.

Much better?

Yeah, that's better.

Okay, I'll go back. Sorry about that. The summary is to request a special exception to construct a rear addition in a required side yard. The elements are where the addition will be located and that it will be located in an existing non complying side yard. The property is zoned R8 residential and is surrounded by single unit dwellings.

And what you see before you is what is being proposed. The applicants are maintaining the existing house in the portions that's highlighted in blue. It's the portion that is to be constructed. The applicants are actually setting the addition in so that they are actually asking for less of a relief. The portions that you see in front of you, because this is a corner lot, so again, a corner lot has two front yards and two side yards.

So the portion that you see to the upper left is facing the secondary front yard facing central. The portion that you see at the lower right hand corner is facing the north side yard. Before you is a photo of the print excuse me of the survey plat. And as you will see, that the existing house sits currently at 9.1 feet. Now, you will say that the side yard setback for our R8 zone is a minimum of eight feet.

However, based upon the existing house, when you take the measurement from the midpoint of the gable to the existing grade, the existing house does not meet the minimum side yard setback that you see on the west hand side. You will also see that the applicants have shown that they're going to set the house in because the proposed side yard will be nine feet eight inches, or 9.67 feet. And then you will see that the applicants are also doing a deck, but the deck will be in compliance. They're also facing Central Avenue. You will see a portion of a porch that they're building that will also be in compliance, and it sits behind contextual block face.

So what is required based upon the addition that they're being proposed is a 10.44 side yard requirement. The existing side yard is 9.1 feet. However, they're moving it in. So actually, the relief is not 1.34. It's actually 0.6. It actually should be 0.68. So I correct that. It's actually supposed to be six'eight, which is eight inches, which is really eight inches. Staff recommends approval because it does meet the criteria as set above. And I'm available for any questions if you have any. Thank you.

Questions for staff? This is a relatively large edition, right? It seems like a pretty massive

It is large. And I do need to mention that I did speak with the well, two things. Before you, you will see the signatures that the applicant received from the neighbors. I did speak with the most affected neighbor to the West Side. He is a homebound gentleman.

And he called to ask some questions, because he had a few questions. But the questions had to do with what is the special exception versus understanding the side yard versus the length of the structure. And ultimately, technically speaking, if the applicants were to just change the roofline a little bit where the eaves is lower, this actually could be built in compliance. And they still could have the same length. It's not about necessarily the length.

It's about the side yard to the height, because we're based upon a one to two setback. So in our zoning ordinance, we are bulk to mass to setback regulation. And so in this case, the eaves portion is facing that side yard. So you're actually taking the height from a higher portion than you would before. So let me just go back here to the original house.

In the report, you will see it on and I think it's clear on page three. But when you take the measurement from the house, the gable portion, you always take it from the midpoint of the gable down to grade. But when you're facing the eaves portion, when the eaves is facing that same yard, you take it from the eaves down. So in this case, if you look at the report, you will see that the height is taken higher from the new edition than it is from a gable.

I see. And the required setback is based on that one to two ratio?

It's a one to two ratio. So the yard currently has a 9.1. And so it's beyond the minimum eight feet. It's just that the current house doesn't comply, which is the reason why it's able to come for a special exception, because the existing house doesn't meet the existing side yard requirement. Therefore, if they do an addition, they're allowed to come forward. In this case, the applicants have also proposed to move the addition in. That's why you see the difference between the 9.1 and a 9.67 feet, or a half of a foot.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any additional questions? Hearing none, we're ready for the applicant's presentation. Good start to speak to him.

Great. Good evening. Evening. My name is Dee Edwards. I'm the resident and owner of 2411 Ridgewood Drive. And this is my contractor.

Yes. I'm Steven Tinter. I'm the general manager of Cook Brothers Design Build Remodeling. We designed it design the addition and

just here to ask for approval for our special reception and here to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you sir. Does the board any questions for the applicant? Okay hearing none we can move on to deliberations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Opinions, comments, questions about the case? Mr. Foley?

Yes. I would just say that this is very much in line with other special exceptions we've seen with other rear additions in the back. And in many, many cases that have come through, they've all been approved. I see no reason that we wouldn't just approve this.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Foley. And just a clarifying question from me. We received an email earlier this morning or earlier today about I know there was some back and forth between the staff and

I'm sorry. So we did get a telephone call from the adjacent neighbor. The applicants, When they spoke to the neighbor, they spoke to the brother. The adjacent homeowner is actually bedridden. And so he was not quite aware of the full scope of the work.

And so I did take quite a bit of time Friday to walk him through the whole process. And not just the process of the special exception, but the process of what has taken place. And the first thing we had to talk about is that it's being a corner lot. Luckily, the gentleman, Mr. Mudd, he and his family are long, long, long time family people in the city of Alexandria.

So it was easier for me to discuss the ordinance and try to take him through the steps. But the first piece is that he needed to understand that the house had two front yards, that there was a primary front yard facing Ridge Road. The secondary front yard was facing central. And then talking about the existing house, about the addition. His concern really was about what it would look like.

However, if you notice adjacent to the house on the other side of him, they also have an elongated addition. But also at the very corner of this block right here, the house used to be addressed as Ridge Road, but is now addressed as it has a whole different address. I'm sorry. It's actually the same design on on the two corner lots. So the house that's at the very end of the street, they changed their address to the other way.

So I'm sorry, I cannot remember the address. But if you look at it, they also have the porch on the front. They have the secondary. And they also came before the exception for that addition. So what you're seeing is almost like the mirroring of the two very corner lots with something taking place in the middle.

I see. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Ms. Smollin?

I think the application clearly you guys took a lot of time to understand what the zoning requirements are and what you had to create in your space to be able to comply with these requirements. And the character of the neighborhood is exactly what this home looks like, what is going to look like. And so I just appreciate the time and effort that went into making this fit into the requirements that exist in the best way possible. I recognize that. And I think that is why this is a pretty easy discussion.

And again, it certainly meets the character of the neighborhood. So I appreciate the effort that went into it in advance.

JOSHUA Mr. Justice? Yeah, would just like to say that, like Mr. Foley, think this is a pretty straightforward application. Also, you staff pointing out that the eaves are the part that requires relief. I would have thought that even just building the wall out to the same plane would have been fine in my mind. But I appreciate that from staff and from the applicant. So yeah, I would say I'm generally in favor.

Do we have some Mr. Coleman?

If no one else has anything, I would like to make a motion.

Please go ahead.

I would like to make a motion to approve the request for a special exception based upon staff's recommendation for approval.

I'll second. We have

a second from Ms. Bellman. So let's take a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those against, same sign. Okay, hearing none, the motion is passed and the application is approved. The vote of seven to zero.

Thank you and have a Thank good you everyone.

Best of luck with your project.

Thanks, Marla. Thank you.

All right. The next item on the docket is the consideration of the minutes from the 04/13/2026 Board of Zoning Appeals hearing.

Ms. Evelyn, have you had a chance to review the minutes?

I have reviewed those minutes. And to the best of my ability and recollection, they appear to be correct.

In that case, can we have a motion to approve the minutes?

I would move to approve the minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor of approval of the minutes, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Against? Same sign? Okay. Hearing none, the minutes are passed. Thank you, everyone. That was the last item on the docket, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.