Oh here you go because uh it's only on those three.

So we'll say everyone.

Um start the meeting.

Welcome to the May 11th meeting of the board of voting appeals.

For those of you who have not been to a BCA meeting, uh here's a procedural briefing.

When a case is called, the city staff will 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 speaking 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, um during this process, speakers 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.

Christmasen, please call the roll.

Mr.

Liu?

Here.

Ms.

Evelyn?

President.

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 later.

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 Zechman 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, uh appeals of director determinations, talk a little bit more a little bit about as well the um process for appeal when something's appealed to court.

We'll also look at FOIA meeting and documents rules, um, conflicts of interest, um, some rules that apply to all boards and commissions, and um touch on Robert's rules and your bylaws.

Um 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 have an author 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.

Um the Dillon rule is um basically the opposite if you think of it as uh from home rule.

Home rule means that you can create and generate any rules that you you would like to govern the conduct of the locality.

We instead have a charter and the charter and the Virginia Code are both given granted to us by the General Assembly.

And those are um specifically they speak um they speak in more recent years, they've been speaking more specifically to the functions of the BZA and um its rules and and the role that it plays.

Um this is just a list of and links to um the different provisions of the zoning ordinance, the city code, and the other rules um and laws that apply to the BZA.

Um so to start off, the BZA um serves several distinct and um important land use functions.

Um through the special exception process, you all grant property rights.

This allows a particular use to be made of a property if is if specific zoning ordinance criteria are met.

You also grant variances, which is a mechanism, the 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.

This means looking at the particular facts of a 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, your 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 make not making reference to facts or law in the case specifically.

And also to when you're making a decision, you support your decision by stating it on the record, like in uh, you know, I move I move to approve based on the criter or the discussion at the hearing and the um 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.

Um again, this is the list of the um the general powers and duties provision of the zoning ordinance.

Um generally you all again are doing appeals, variances and special exceptions.

Um you all don't have the power to legislate that rest with the council.

Um also the BZA doesn't rezone properties.

Um it again restating it it doesn't legislate, so you can't um make decisions based on the purpose of intent, but you're making an interpretation of the law as it exists.

Um and these are what the next two slides do is they lay out a little bit of the the variance standards.

Um and so the variance standards, there's um there's basically seven factors.

There's five parts of the variance um definition and um 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 um the application for a criteria for the variance um does or does not meet each of those and it's a very um you know uh very specific look at each factor related to the case specifically.

Um here are the um I don't know if you want me to go over them or if you have specific questions about the variance criteria, but I'm um I know that you all are familiar with these, you work with these you know every every session.

Do you all have any questions right now that I can I have I I have a question.

Um 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 uh laid out uh staff has decided that uh they they see it one way and the the board wants to uh see something a different way.

What level of documentation or explanation would you expect in a circuit court process in that appeal uh for the the uh for the those those ideas to be understood and why the board went in one direction versus another?

Um I think the generally the advice I would give is the more specific the better.

If you if there's a specific factor that you disagree with the interpretation of or multiple factors, it's um the 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 wonder was wondering if you talk us through uh often people come to us and say like one of the reasons they should have a variance is a reason that's uh rooted in like they have a big like the people who live there, they have a big family or they have like multiple pets or something.

Um just confirming that that is not a reason to grant a variance that it needs to be related to the the property and like the inherent quirks.

Correct.

The the 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.

Um it it is looking at the app 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 for instance um something related to um a height or a setback of of that nature.

So it would be looking at these criteria and saying is that a consideration within that?

Most often it's not.

Um but staff have you know laid out the the reasons and explanation and argument for you know, or evaluation of the um the criteria in the staff report.

Yep.

Um may I there's there's a case that really bothers me.

It was a number of years ago, and I really liked 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.

Um it was uh the house was kind of 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.

Um I'm kind of wondering in a situation where you have a very odd architecture and it's it's they're just trying to work with those sort of uh just some oddity that is not normal in most properties.

Would granting like a FAR exception, um a floor area ratio exemption um to to uh 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.

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

Um so I don't um I can't speak to the specific circumstances, but again, um a variance is like I said, it has um quite a list of factors that have to be met.

So an examination of those, you know, 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 um you know the BZA could have an opinion about.

Um but again it's it's relying on those criteria and 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 um it's based on you know a very fact-specific analysis of the particular request.

Thank you.

Um sorry.

Just to confirm for the record um approval of a variance requires the meeting of all six criteria, right?

So even if one is uh you know is not met, then the board um should not approve that variance.

Correct.

You do need there does need to be compliance with all and the factors, you know, there's the factors what I it's 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 it gets a little bit complicated, but yes, um every every one of the criteria needs to be complied with in order for a um uh should be complied with for a variance approval.

Um then just a few things about the variance generally.

Um the burden is on the applicant to make the case and the argument for the granting of the variance.

Um the BZA, and I think this goes to the earlier question, needs to support its findings by the facts and conclusions based on the variant standard.

So again, if if they're 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.

Um 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.

Um this is just another provision where certain conditions and restrictions can be imposed to mitigate impacts.

Um you can also make specific references if they're granting one for persons with a disabilities that once it's no longer needed, then the variance can go away.

But generally, variance is 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.

Um this is a list of pretty much all it's a list of all of on over, I think it's two, two pages about the different types of special exceptions that you all see.

Um so it's everything from fences on corner lots, um, yard and setback requirements for enlargements of dwellings, um, front porches, um, maximum heights for uh dwellings, attached private garages, and um bulk and setback requirements for um accessory buildings.

Um 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 a um a width of vehicle um analysis.

A lot of 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 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 of the adjacent owners, um, whether it increases traffic, impairs adequate light and air, um, all whether it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, whether it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, um, and only means if it's the only means reasonable in the location.

So these are um 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 a special use type exception or special use application is that council decides.

These are specifically delegated to the BZA to allow you all to grant um specific zoning permissions to owners.

Again, the burdens on the applicant to establish that they've met all of the standards.

Your decision is to approve or deny or approve with conditions, um, 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.

Um I can pause for questions or I can keep moving along.

Okay.

Um and this is the category of things that you will see the least, but um is another area where you all have authority.

It's to hear appeals from determinations made by the director of planning and zoning.

Um this sets out who can make the appeal.

Um that's generally something that's um decided by planning and zoning before it comes to you.

Um it does stay a proceeding, um, but you all for administrative uh appeals, decisions of administrative appeals of administrative decisions are acting in a sort of quasi-judicial um capacity because you are taking interpretation and seeing if you are in a 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.

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.

Oops, sorry.

His decision is deter is presumed to be correct.

You all look at ordinances, laws, and regulations, and you don't make your decision on equitable 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 appeals of BZA decisions go directly to the court by agree 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 um 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 it's requested.

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 we'll be getting to this one along with those.

I think uh Mr.

Patel might have a question.

Yes.

In terms of interpreting the six factors, my question is on just the factor number 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 variants 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 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.

That's I'll I'll go back to that slide.

It was uh slide nine on the variance criteria.

So I think there's there's two different factors here that come into play.

Um you have um 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.

So that is um the 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, um, it's got a rugged topography, um, 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.

Um and generally what the courts have looked at for a hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance is typically a case where um the owner who 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 they didn't do the thing under the zoning ordinance they should not have done, and then are seeking relief from you all.

Um so that it does that help explain the difference between those criteria?

Yes, and just for for clarification, when the the abusive discretion standard was kind of mentioned.

What you know what does that exactly mean with respect to when it gets appealed to Alexander circuit?

Well, I think the court will look to whether those 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 um the interpretation of the of the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

You know, if a um owner purchases a new property, they're not really obligated to sort of look for any like major zoning violations before they purchase it.

Because I'm thinking after they purchase it, and then you know they get called up to the BZA.

Um, there is some case law that um 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 was still that's still considered a good faith purchase.

Does that answer your question?

I think so, yes.

Okay.

Um let me try to think of another way to explain it.

Like if somebody who knows they 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 a what I mean, what about I was thinking more about um having an sort of having an obligation or a responsibility to sort of vet the property characteristics against the zoning ordinance and normal or expected?

I excuse me, this is echoing a little bit.

Um I don't believe the court would put a s a requirement on somebody to affirmatively make sure that there are no zoning violations.

Um again.

Because they aren't the ones who created it when they purchased it, the it wouldn't be the fact the criteria of that they didn't create the hardship wouldn't be applied against them.

So it's considered good faith or theory.

Good faith.

Yeah, I I think it they they do kind of work together in that sense, yeah.

Sorry, I'll skip back to where you were.

Um let's see.

Uh just real briefly again, the appeals to court, they're not actions against the board, the board's not a party.

They do have to the board does have to provide a response to the court with forwarding the papers and all the the um other information that you all based your decision on.

Um the parties to the action are the council, the landowner, and the applicant.

Um again the links there.

Um so those are the just the basic decisions that you all are making.

I'm gonna go a little bit more into nuts and bolts about you know who you are and 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.

Um 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 uh the city government, you're serving four-year terms.

Um you have a member who's a chair, the chair presides.

If the chair's not here, you um uh there's another member designated.

Um and the BZA also appoints secretary and other um employees can be um requested.

Um so meetings are called at the held at the call of the chair with the supportive staff who tell you what's on the docket.

Um you have to have a quorum here, um you have your rules where you provide equal time to the different speakers.

Um you all have some um ability to to set rules and bylaws by which you operate.

Um under FOIA, you the meetings have to be kept and posted.

Um you all generally approve those.

Um and then let's see, one specific thing about the BZA that's different than other bodies is these limitations on ex parte communication.

Um 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 a B of the BZA on a specific case.

Um 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 you 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 the all the boards and commissions.

You have 10-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 council about your activities during the year.

And Roberts 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, quorums, 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.

Onto 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, one pertaining to public records and one to meetings of public bodies.

So what are public records?

Those are any sort of excuse me, 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 libraries retention period.

And we also have to make those records available to the public upon request.

For meetings generally, the FOIA rules set up who the requirement for the number of 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 about with a question as a member of the public or someone else, you know, need to hold those and maintain those.

Staff have copies of the things they send out with the docket materials, so those aren't you don't have to worry about as much.

But what I do recommend though is if you all have a if you want to keep things sort of separate in from your email addresses to set up a separate email account for your BZA business versus you know personal or other other accounts.

So generally the restrictions on public meetings, things that you all need to be aware of.

Staff handle the upfront, making sure they're not 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 one 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 uh public events where there is something going on and you want to make sure that you know 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 um electronic communications can become a meeting under FOIA.

Um, and so that is largely uh it would be a finding if you're having conversations with again like three or more members, and it's it deals with how close in time those communications are.

Um the case law is these cases looked at email communication, but now you know people are more relying since those decisions people are more reliant on chats, messages, um, 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.

Um, but just be aware of communications with multiple members.

Um some advice that we give is if you get an email, don't reply to everybody.

Um, only respond to one other board member at a time, or save the discussion for the next board meeting.

And again, not only are 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 if someone requests them.

So there's sort of two layers of responsibilities that you all have under FOIA that come into play.

Um generally uh FOIA requires physical assembly of members and remote participation is prohibited.

You all have adopted your um remote participation policy for individual members to be able to participate remotely like you have tonight.

Um 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.

Um 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.

Umflicts are uh 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.

Um so you all have to, when you have uh 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 public a um a financial benefit or liability.

Um those are the specific some of the wording used in the state conflicts of interest act law.

Um the zoning ordinance speaks of it in terms of having a uh business relationship with someone within the last 12 months.

Um this is all very high level.

Um 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.

Um, but also you can um reach out to our office because we do these, and these are very um fact specific inquiries um about whether uh conflict actually exists.

Um that seems to be telling me it's the end.

I think it's the end though.

Um I think that's most of yep, okay.

I left off the last slide.

So um anyway, that is um an overview of all of the laws.

Again, all of the all of this is covered and linked in this uh PowerPoint, so staff can certainly share that with you, and you can have it as a reference.

Um if you don't 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 2026 0002, 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.

Um, 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.

Um, just some background for the agenda, and just we're gonna go over a general summary of the property with some background information.

Um, then we're gonna 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 secondary yard.

Um, some key elements of the discussion we're gonna go over tonight are the contextual block face reduction, uh structures within required yards, and then all 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 a 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.

If a little bit of the roof overhang and there's some additional photos.

And 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 are X to zero feet in terms of the secondary front yard for 1100 cross, uh 1334 baylists, and 1329 baylists.

Um though the properties they may not be able to build an addition or to within that reduced setback, they could do a full demolition or partial demolition to change their FAR in order to use that zip approved zero front yard setback.

So the variance request, like we just said, um that the applicant is request the required setback is 25.20 feet in terms of um for the secondary front yard setback.

Therefore, the requested setback they want is to maintain that zero foot setback.

So the the relief they're requesting is 25.20 feet.

And um 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.

And um, due to this property being a corner lot, as you can see from the plat, it has a primary and a secondary front yard.

Um like I stated earlier, um 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 um for the overhang.

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

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Okay, hearing none.

Um we can give the time.

Oh, Kim?

Yes.

This has not changed since what we saw the last.

Uh no, ma'am.

Okay.

Of course.

Is that what it was suppressed?

Um just procedurally, so I know there was a memo from staff um with additional information.

When will that be presented?

That was in the staff packet.

And so will that's not going to be presented as part of the staff presentation.

That's just informational in nature.

And doesn't I mean it's part of for the staff packet that should have been reviewed?

Um, and it was in the material was covered in the presentation, but if you have specific questions, but the material was covered in correct.

We highlighted three major areas the specific to the requirements that existed prior to when the the structure was installed.

Yeah, question.

Um we didn't include that because that's actually not under the purview of planning and zoning.

We responded to that just as in the memo courtesy.

As a courtesy to the board.

Okay.

I was just curious.

Okay, thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Uh Mr.

Pateau has a question.

Yes, and just to clarify, was this um was there a question about how how tall the fence had to be prior to 2021 or believe in the at the last hearing the applicant 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 uh as a certain height.

Um was there any information on what it was at the time of you know 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 uh whether a building permit would be required based on because from a zoning standpoint um in the ordinance, our requirements say that like we don't state whether this requires a building permit or not.

That's done by code administration.

Um code administration provided in the comments both on the first time in the same comments for this uh deferral of that a building permit would be required.

Mr.

Pattel, did I answer your question?

Kind of.

Um 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 maybe.

So this is just for the variance of that issue may have already been addressed at the last last meeting.

Well, from our previous discussion, we listed that um a gazebo counts as an accessory structure that an applicant is allowed to have on their property, but it 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.

Um what that section of the ordinance stated that we talked about or the last hearing was that a 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.

Um we allow uh pergolas of a certain height, and that is something that has changed since 2018.

Um we didn't previously allow those in required yards.

Um, but now a pergola with an open roof that is no taller than 10 feet, so the same height as the structure.

Um, if the roof was 80 percent open, would be a permitted obstruction in the required front yard.

Is that maybe what you were thinking?

Uh it may have been.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Hearing none, um give the time to the applicants to present.

Thank you.

Apologize to the remote members.

We brought our notes in a proposed finding of fact and proposed uh conditions, but I only brought them in paper.

Uh sir, can you introduce yourself?

Sorry, uh, my name is John Mapley Bertle.

It's my wife Tracy.

We live at 1030 Cross Drive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, thank you for your time tonight.

I understand the board's concern regarding precedent and a contextual block face.

I want to address that concern directly by proposing a narrowly tailored site-specific basis for a leaf under Section 111103 with limiting conditions under Section 111102, tied strictly to the unusual physical characteristics of the property.

This property is a legally 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 baylist frontage.

These dimensional constraints were not created by the applicant, but arise from pre-existing 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 and this pre-existing house placement, it consumes approximately 40% of the lot width along the baylist 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 conditions of this property, relocating the structure, 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.

The structure itself is a long-standing 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.

Excuse me.

To 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 raised that issue.

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've 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.

For that reason, I'm proposing narrowly tailored 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 and closure, 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 pre-existing lot geometry and topography without altering setback expectations elsewhere in the neighborhood.

For these reasons, I respectfully request approval of the variance with the proposed limiting conditions.

And thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

If you don't mind staying on the podium.

Sure.

Any are there any questions from the board?

Uh Mr.

Patel.

Oh, you have your hand raised.

I apologize.

I apologize for that.

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 uh do we know if the neighboring lots are substandard and if they are in what dimensions?

Um I did look uh since we just got this at the hearing, um, I did look at a couple of the other corner lots.

Um 1100 is substandard and lot area, 1100 cross.

Um 1113 is substandard and lot area.

I don't have their widths because I don't have their surveys.

Um just looking at um those two for corner lots, they're like the most close corner lots are both substandard in lot area.

Okay.

And just to confirm the structure was built in 2018 for the material, is that correct?

Yes, sir.

I assembled it in 2018.

It's a it's a kit.

Okay.

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 that um 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 20 years, that existing flat.

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

Uh the prior neighborhood, I lived down the street before I bought this house.

Um 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.

Um do you have pictures of the apple tree that you referenced?

I I believe there the stump of the apple tree in page 29 of the packet, I believe you have.

Um if you look in front, there's the existing tree.

If I can there's the 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 a cut in the lawn the other day.

Uh it's not why I'm in a boot.

Um, but that was a full tree with a full canopy that was there.

Because I went back and said, why didn't I build it there?

That's that's a stump by the uh trampoline.

Uh the stump is up on right on the crest of the hill.

It's actually if you went from the dog's feet and move towards the ladder of the trampoline, it's right, but right there it drops off like three or four feet straight down.

Thank you.

I see it.

Thank you.

Um last question with the um, and again, I I wasn't I was not present for the for the previous hearing, but um with the structure being right next to the sidewalk.

Was there a stormwater issue?

Like if it rained or stormed and passers by on the sidewalk, you know, we're wild by with that.

If we go to the picture within the the staff packet where it looks straight down, you'll see that there's two primary big trees there, and there's a smaller green trees we've can't we put in.

And the roof actually drains right there in that two feet of dirt right there where those trees are.

So the water would not encroach on the sidewalk.

No, sure.

You can see the tree to the far right died, didn't get enough water.

Is it page thirty?

Page 30 in your packet, you'll see that the roof does not it 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.

Okay.

Hearing none.

Um thank you, sir.

The board will move on to deliberations.

Anyone has have an opinion or would like to express Could we get back to the slide that has the criteria on it, please?

Mr.

Mr.

Chair, may I?

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Foley, uh just please wait, wait a second.

I just let that down.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr.

Foley.

Yeah, so um I I've given this this particular case a great deal of thought over the past month uh thinking about it.

And one of the things that, you know, first of all, I'd like to say that it at the last meeting I was acting chair, and it really didn't I kept my opinions to myself and um uh you know for a lot of this, but one of the driving things that really makes me uh 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 I am a homeowner myself and I look around and things like this just they just tend to bother me a lot.

And I 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 a front yard, and I think the zoning ordinance are clearly outlined to say that it should not be in the front yard.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Foley.

Ms.

Bobby?

This is a question for staff.

The information regarding the um the substandard nature of the lots.

Was that considered in your um evaluation of the uh variants?

Yes, ma'am.

We do we do take that into consideration.

Um in terms of the criteria of as you can look over, like we there are alternatives that the applicant could pursue that we would allow within the required front yard.

So even though the lot is substandard to both its width and its size, there are alternatives such as like we mentioned earlier, a pergola, which under 10 feet can be located in the exact same position as the structure the the current structure is right now.

Another alternative, if you look at the uh memo we mentioned was an open porch.

I mean the applicant brought up a big concern about having outdoor covered space.

Um a front porch in both the print the primary front and the secondary front um can go all the way up to 10 feet off of the off of the property line.

And up to eight feet of that off of the house can be taken as a deduction from FAR, not increasing the FAR of the property.

So the question of 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, um, the substandard nature of the lot in this particular part of the city is not that unique.

Um there are several other substandard lots um sort of in this general area.

Um just on a quick uh look of the area, there it's a fairly common thing.

A lot of times um the lots were created before the zoning designations were placed on them.

Um we're still trying to figure out why they did exactly what they did in the 50s.

Um but it is it's not um that unique of a situation in this particular part of the city.

Thank you.

Mr.

Patel, um just a question for staff.

What I guess what differentiates this from a a side lot.

And I know it it you know, it's adjacent to the sidewalk, but the front of the house um you know seems very unencumbered, and that this does seem like the side of their house um you know, analogous to to where all their their neighbors' sides are.

Um you know I guess why are why are we evaluating this as you know 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 um two streets.

So that's what makes it a corner lot versus a normal interior lot where you'd have a front, rear, and two sides.

Um that's what is why we this is considered a corner lot, and as is this is a secondary front, not a just a singular side yard.

And just to add to that, um, you know, this secondary front abuts to um a primary front is immediately adjacent to it.

That's one of the reasons why corner lots have um two more restrictive front yards.

Um and then the benefit that you get with a corner lot is that instead of having um you don't have a rear yard, which is more restrictive than your side yards, you have two side yards and two front yards.

Did we did we get a letter from the person whose front is, I guess, facing the side yard?

Was that one of the people that that signed the petition?

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

The gazebo versus and the gazebo, say all the neighbors sign closers.

Sir, you cannot talk.

I just have a very quick technicality question on percols.

Are pergolas you said 80%, but is it open air or just light that needs to shine through?

Open open air, so that way it's like 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.

So sorry.

Sorry, Chair.

Mr.

Justice, do you have any questions?

Okay.

Um I think you know, we've you you all have heard of this case last month, and I've closely reviewed the materials earlier this week as well and last week.

Um can I just get a sense of you know how everyone's feeling about this case.

Uh I would have to say that I tend to um agree with Mr.

Foley in this case, maybe not to the length he has being a homeowner and you know what he expressed.

But I I think that um it is it is important knowing where the you know the other stump, the other area that the 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 you know it kind of signified that it was a gathering place, representing that it may not have been looked at to attach it in a place that could have been could have met within the code.

Uh and so um while you know I would 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.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just want to piggyback on the last couple of comments and where I understand where uh Mr.

Pole 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 uh degree of uh responsibility because in their system property ownership is historically not a democratized thing, but in the US it is a very democratized activity, and uh we tend to give people wider uh latitude to to do with their land what they would like to do.

Um here.

While I I certainly appreciate the applicants renewed presentation and trying to address a lot of the concerns that we brought up in the last uh in our last meeting, I still grapple with the fact that like it's a nice place.

The applicant has um made this a very nice property uh that's a like a fine home.

And the variance threshold that we need to get or get over is that without this change, it's actually like not usable as a 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 this is a you know better.

This is a a how can I say this this is a very nice home uh with or without the the covered gazebo.

It's not like it's uh required for it to be a house.

And so um with that coupled with the potential of of making precedent for the other properties in the area, I just don't know that I that I could get to the variance level um to grant approval here.

If this was a special exception, I think it would be much easier.

But unfortunately it's not.

Thank you, Mr.

Justice.

Um I'll move on to Ms.

Paulman.

Sure, thank you so much.

Um 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.

Um that's what that's what I recall.

Um I don't love the 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.

Um I don't love that all of their neighbors are completely fine with the this improvement.

Um, we have this framework that we're working in, and this it 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.

Ballman.

Ms.

Evelyn.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to hear your case again.

Um 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 heard the same legal uh seminar that we just sat through, you know what our responsibilities are.

Um I agree with Ms.

Bauman that the fact that this is here because of an anonymous call and the procedure that allows that is really disturbing.

Um but again, unfortunately, we can't change that fact.

Um so I'm afraid that I would have to not vote to allow you the exception.

Thank you, Ms.

Evelyn.

Uh Mr.

Patel, you have your hand raised.

Yes, I would vote in in favor of approving the the applicants uh you know uh for a variance.

Uh I think really with all of these the zoning regulations we talked about in terms of the pergola and 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, um, you know, reading what the neighbors have said about it, where how this adversely affects the property or the community or the intent of the law for air and space, where you know, on a on a technical level, you know, pergolos 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, I think the the intent of whether there's errant space is fulfilled.

Um, addressing what was brought up earlier in terms of maintaining a certain standard for the community, you know, the evidence before us is I think at least three or four, I don't want to overestimate letters of support, and then a petition with you know a dozen names on it, uh 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.

Um 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 landowner 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.

It is almost the highest burden on an appeal if it's an abuse of discretion.

And 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.

Um 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 don't think it was I think it is a solution to the hardship um, you know, off 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.

Uh you know, it doesn't look ostentatious or you know, this is a 20-foot fence or or something that is in a completely different material.

It looks pretty consistent with the houses around it, with the the blocks around it.

So I think that the minimum relief was, you know, and the way it was constructed fits the minimum relief kind of prong.

Um I mean to detriment to neighboring properties, the only evidence we have before is everybody's alright with it.

Everybody likes it, or we 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 effects supports it, and we would be the only body saying, I agree that you know everyone 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 ordinance's 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 want to 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.

Um for those reasons I do I do support uh granting the variance.

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

Chairman.

Thank you, Mr.

Patel.

Mr.

Foy, you've been raising your hand for a for a while.

Yes, I want to ask Mr.

Patel uh 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, yes, Mr.

Pole.

I will I will put out one disclaimer where I do believe in an abusive 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, I tried to do that in my last uh argument, where so factor one in terms of did the landowner 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 there I 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 kind of 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.

Um, I'll 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 alongside the block don't have two front yards or you know, definitionally two front yards, uh 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.

Um, you know, based on how it's structured, I think this is the minimum relief that was necessary.

Um, 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 uh 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 an undue hardship at that point.

Um I think the last two factors are probably the 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 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.

Um you know, to the people to the very next to him that protects their privacy as well.

And you know, so I think it 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.

Um in terms of the city's ordinance, whether it fits with the spirit of that ordinance.

You know, generally speaking, I would think of all setbacks, you know.

The perglo versus gazebo debate on on air and space as you know, you're not blocking off a big area of your land to be you know essentially a chicken coop.

Like you're it's a garden.

It's uh it's a patio, it's a outdoor space that's usable.

That's kind of what I would uh um you know, my interpretation and what I think the board's interpretation of these errands based type of 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 know your 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, um, 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, that you know, relating back to the first factor, I think that this land was very unique and did have hardships with it that I mean I can't relate to my property doesn't have these same hardships.

Um 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.

Um again, I think for something like this where it it looks like the affected community supports it, uh 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, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, thank you, m uh, Mr.

Patel.

I guess the the question I'd have that uh that follows up with that is for city staff.

Did uh Mr.

Patel answer all the criteria for the variance.

I mean, we stand by our position in the staff report that we don't believe that the um the application uh 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 uh to give a different viewpoint.

I mean he stated his opinion.

I can't I I I staff disagrees with um his evaluation of the criteria.

Yeah, so but he did state uh his opinion for all all of the criteria, and so that if this were brought to an appeal, if we were to approve this and it's brought to an appeal, that we would have all the criteria addressed.

I mean, I I I can't really answer that question.

I don't I don't believe that it addresses the criteria correctly.

I don't believe that the standards uh for a variance are met.

Mr.

Foley, can we perhaps get your opinion on whether whether he addresses Oh I gave I gave my opinion earlier.

Um but I I'm listening to Mr.

Patel.

Mr.

Patel is changing my mind in a lot of ways, although I think I kind of tend to still agree with staff to a certain extent.

I don't think that Mr.

Patel is really addressing the intent of that criteria.

Um because they're like for instance, um like the 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 uh um you know I I I really do tend to agree with staff uh on this.

But I'm trying to get to yes, um and I I just don't really think that Mr.

Patel is really um addressing yes, he's got an opinion on it, but he's not really addressing each criteria in its uh where it needs to be.

Mr.

Patel, can you um help us understand better the topographical hardships with a property?

You mentioned that many times, but I I don't have a very good idea about what's that comes from my recollection at the last hearing where I think there was a uh part of the landowner's presentation was because of the slope, that's why the the fencing and and why the kind of the fence had to be the height that it was.

Um generally that outdoor structure, why it was planned that way, because I think if if that wasn't there, and I maybe I am misremembering, but I thought that they could look into a window or you know, the neighboring property was right there and kind of we'd have no kind of 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 the previous meetings uh minutes or record about that.

Okay.

Um so in with respect to the couple alternatives that staff had presented, for example, um porch next to the house or relocation of the gazebo um to the southern phasing facing side of the of the house, right where you see that there's a bit of space before it slopes downwards.

How does that um you know do those alternatives mitigate the that hardship in your opinion?

And this is a USDB?

Um, Mr.

Patellin's in 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.

Um and to clarify, we're talking about the gazebo.

Correct.

Where like where on the property it could be moved to Christason?

Or is it didn't staff provide a couple alternatives including the process?

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 7-202A5 everything except that the roof is enclowly closed.

If it was open to at least 80% open, the uh obviously they would still need the encroachment for the overhang because if the perg if 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.

Um there was a second option, correct?

The second option would be obviously if they pushed it back to meet that 25.20 secondary front yard requirement, they can have the structure right behind the house by right.

Um because technically the this structure would then be meeting the secondary front yard uh setback as well as the other setbacks as well.

Um 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 an a wraparound porch or on the on the house or only in the secondary front yard is that's if the area they wish to enclose with an open porch that's allowed by right as well.

And that would also can be located within that required secondary front yard.

There was some reference in the packet about utilization of space um in the backyard or to the to the south of the house.

But it could be constructed like immediately to the south of the property, uh I mean of the of the dwelling.

Um it does drop down kind of there's a part like right behind the house that's fairly level, and then it kind of drops down in the pictures, you can see like where the trampoline is like the low area of the lot.

Um so either of those two locations could comply with zoning.

Um but I know the the applicant mentioned there was some uh concerns about um that low area having some water and maybe uh some issues with constructing it in that location.

Um what's the what's the length between the dwelling and uh and the um point where where the ground slopes down?

I don't have that exact measurement.

I don't know if the homeowner does.

Um it looks trying to get uh Mr.

Maple U Britle, do you if you have if you have any insights on that, feel free to provide them.

Yes, sir.

It's it's right about the size of the gazebo before it drops off.

If I can I can I talk about that southern piece that the staff recommended?

Sure.

Um I didn't vote 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 uh 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.

Um 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.

Of course.

Uh this is a question for staff.

What is if you could remind me, I apologize for this, but if you could remind me the um how the board should consider any potential hardship of moving relocating a structure that is unapproved.

That would not relate to the definition of uh of a hardship um 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, um, some sort of unique situation like that that would be um something specific to the property.

Is there something specific in the in the ordinance that or in our rules that say we cannot address that hardship?

Or is that silent?

Um the hardship that you know what I'm saying.

Like a financial hardship?

Right.

Right, like financial right, financial convenience just hard to do that.

That is not part of the standards that you should be considering for a variance.

Okay, I went to it.

It's silent to it.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Foley?

Yeah, Ms.

Chris and uh 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 or well or otherwise.

Um but I believe that to Ms.

Baumann's question, I recall at some point the board was told that we were to um any uh uh situations like this, we needed to consider as if the structure never existed.

And this was being asked for as if it's uh it's a just uh it it's going to be built, not that it's already built.

So the guidance that we have um based on it's not specifically written into the zoning ordinance, but that um from case law um 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.

Um so only the standards of Section 1100 should be considered by making a variance um decision um and that considerations um like cost or financial hardship are therefore inappropriate.

Mr.

Vitelli.

Uh just a question for staff.

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

Can I bring it back up?

Sorry, I'm just 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?

Uh number numbers five and six mainly.

Numbers five and six, okay.

So can you pull the slide back up, please?

Yeah, should I get that up for you?

Yeah.

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 does there are alternatives, meaning that the applicant can pursue other means beyond what they are proposing by right in the zoning ordinance.

Um then for the last one there we we this 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 uh obtained by the applicant beyond simply just applying for a variance to gain relief I'm sorry, I have horrible vision on my screen.

Okay, understood.

Mr.

Patello, did that answer your question?

Yes.

Is there any way to and maybe not on the on the Zoom to kind of um enlarge that the staff recommends uh kind of that chart?

We're trying to make it larger.

Mr.

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

Is it um yeah, 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 to the standards.

So that basically is where staff lays out its stance on why we're recommending no for each of the of the criteria.

Because on the PowerPoint will it'll just state the section and then it'll have the staff's stance on that part of the criteria, but the staff report on pages nine through ten 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 looking at me.

Mr.

Foley.

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

Um before you do, I have I have one or two questions, uh one or two last questions for the applicant if you could hold off on that.

Um can you and apologize if you cover this last month?

Um what uses, what uses of the gazebo um you derive that you would not derive from um the other options that staff provided associates a pergola with a you know 80% open roof or a um or a porch next to your house?

Sir, the the the porch was was not an option back then.

Um that the side of the house where that is, there's an entry to the basement under those steps, which would make a Porsche impractical.

It would have to be a porch into my front yard into my primary front yard.

Um there's no cover.

It would not protect my family from the elements, it would not protect anyone that's sitting out there.

Um a pergoler is almost entirely uh decorative in nature.

It it doesn't really perform much of a function of shade or protection from the weather.

Um 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.

Um this was an effort to replace them.

Um may I ask a question?

Sure.

Is that permitted?

Yes, you may.

I I understand the variance of a non-permitted in the is not a special exception.

Is there 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 um very specific um things that have been carved out that are special exceptions that meet very specific criteria.

Um and percolos are not one of them.

Can I ask a follow-up question, sir?

Yes.

If if the variance was for the cover on a pergola would not change the contractual 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.

You have any other questions, Mr.

Chairman?

That 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 it less restrictive and make it so that people can have more uses and expand that.

But I think, in my opinion, I don't know, you 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 we don't always have the luxury of of having as in this situation.

And so again, while as I say earlier, like it is something that you know 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 you know, 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.

So we can that motion.

That's my view as well.

Um so in concurrence with the with the majority of the board.

Personally, I would love to um approve this case, but you know, the BZA is constrained by our strict interpretation of the zone of a zoning ordinance.

And while you know the equitable framework, you guys make it really compelling case, believe me.

Um, the board really is constrained in how we interpret the 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 um based upon uh the galleon efforts that uh uh Mr.

Patel had put forward that uh were 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 um and thank Mr.

Patel for uh his viewpoints and the arguments that were made.

Okay, 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, aye.

Aye.

All those in favor.

Thank you.

All those in favor of approval, same sign.

Aye.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Pantel.

Aye.

Thank you, Ms.

Yvelyn.

Um, 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 BZA 2026 0005, 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 R8 residential.

Staff can begin their presentation whenever you're ready.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the BCA, I'm Marvel Ford, and I am here to uh present to you a special exception for 2311 repro um drive.

Um, the agenda is going to um have hit these five points of the summary of background information proposal.

What the special exception request is a staff recommendation.

Um the request is to uh add a an addition to the required side.

So where they can our side of my speaking to the mic, I can't hear.

Can you hear me now?

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.

Um, the summary is to request a special exception to construct a rear edition in a required side yard.

Um, the elements are um where the addition will be located, and that it will be located in an existing non-compliant side yard.

The property is zoned R8 residential and is surrounded by single unit dwellings.

Um what you see before you is what is being proposed.

The applicants are maintaining the existing house and the portions that's highlighted in blue is the portion that is to um be constructed.

The applicants are actually setting the addition in so that they are actually asking for less of a uh 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 front of the secondary front yard facing central.

The portion that you see at the lower right-hand corner is facing the um the north side yard.

Before you is a um a photo of the print, excuse me, of the survey plat, and as you will see that the existing house sits currently at nine nine point one feet.

Now you will say that the side yard setback for our eight zone is a minimum of eight feet.

However, based upon the existing house, when you take the uh 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, um nine feet eight inches or nine point six seven 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 the contextual block face.

So what is required based upon the addition that they're being proposed is a 10 point four four um side yard requirement.

The existing side yard is 9.10 feet, however, they're moving it in.

So actually the relief is not 1.34, it's actually 0.6, it's it's actually should be a 0.68.

So I I correct that it's actually supposed to be 68.

Um staff recommends approval because it does meet the criteria as set above.

Um, and I am available for any questions if you have any.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

Um this is a relatively large addition, right?

It seems like a pretty massive.

It is large, and I do need to mention that um I did speak with the well, two things.

The applicant before you, you will see that the signatures that the applicant received from the neighbors.

Um I did speak with the most affected neighbor to the west side.

Um, he is a homebound gentleman, and he um called to ask some questions because he had a few questions, but the questions had to do with what is the special exception and versus the understanding the side yard versus the length of the structure.

So and ultimately, technically speaking, if the applicants were to just change the roof line 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.

Okay.

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 ease 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 being taken, is taken higher from the new addition than it is from a gable.

I see.

And the required um setback is based on that one to two relationships.

It's a one to two ratio.

So they are 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, the 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 fee, or you know, a half of a half of um foot.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any additional questions?

Okay.

Um hearing none.

Um we're ready for the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Good evening.

Sit on.

Uh press a button that's like the person with uh nothing.

And please introduce yourself when you start to speak to you.

Great.

Good evening.

My name is D.

Elwers.

I'm the uh resident and owner of uh 2411 Ridge Wheel Drive.

And uh this is my contractor.

Yes, I'm uh Steven Tinter.

I'm the general manager of Cook Brothers Design Build Remodeling.

We designed it.

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

Thank you, sir.

Does the board have any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Hearing none, we can move on to uh deliberations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Opinions, um comments, questions about the case?

Mr.

Foley?

Yeah, um I will just uh I just say that uh this is very much in line with other special exceptions we've seen with other rear additions in the back, and um in many, many cases that have come through, they've all been approved.

I see no reason that uh we would wouldn't just approve this.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Foley.

And just a clarifying question from me.

Um we received an email earlier this morning or earlier today about there was some back and forth between the staff and so I'm sorry.

So um we did get a telephone call from the adjacent neighbor.

Um the applicants went when they spoke to the neighbor, they spoke to the brother.

The applicant, um excuse me, the adjacent homeowners actually bed written.

Um and so um he was not quite aware of the full uh scope of the work.

And so um I did take quite a bit of time um Friday to walk him through the whole process and not just the process of the special exception, but the process of what is taking place.

And the first thing we had to talk about is that it's being a corner lot.

Um luckily the gentleman, Mr.

Mud, is um and he and his family are long, long, long time um family people in the city of Alexandria.

So it was easier for me to kind of discuss the ordinance and try to take them 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 um central.

Um, and then talking about the existing house about the um the addition.

His concern really was about um 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 um it has a whole different address.

I'm sorry.

It's actually the same, it's actually the same design or opposite on the two corner lots.

So the house that's at the very end of the street, um, 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 BZA to get a special exception for that addition.

So what you're seeing is almost like the mirroring of the two in the two very corner lots with something taking place in the middle.

I see.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Ms.

Molly.

Um I think the application clearly the 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 and to um 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.

Um I recognize that, and I think that is why this is a pretty easy discussion.

Um and again it it certainly meets the character of the neighborhood.

So I appreciate the effort that went into it in advance.

Mr.

Justice?

Yeah, I would just like to say that uh like Mr.

Foley, I think this is a pretty straightforward um application.

Uh also thank you for thankful for staff uh pointing out that the eves are the part that um requires relief.

I would have thought that uh even just building the wall out to the the same plane would have been fine in my mind, but uh appreciate that from staff and from the applicant.

Um I would say I'm generally in favor.

Do we have some Mr.

Coleman?

Uh 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 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.

Aye.

Aye.

All those against, same sign.

Okay.

Hearing none, uh the motion is passed and the application is approved with a vote of seven to zero.

Thank you and have a good evening.

Best of luck with your project.

Thank you.

All right.

The next item on the docket is the consideration of the minutes from the April 13th, 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, um 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 over the minutes, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Against?

Same sign.

Okay.

Hearing none, the minutes are passed.

Thank you, everyone.

Um that was the last item on the docket, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um this meeting is adjourned.