WCA June Meeting (06/26/01)

Board Members: Don Gross, Ellen Jones, Ann Lunson, Mike Murtha, Dede O'Donnell, Jim Toronto
Community Attendees: 45 Williamsburg neighbors
Guest Speakers: Nancy Iacomini, Sakura Namioka, Ted Weihe
Handouts: Several handouts on Arlington County Zoning

Meeting called to order at 7:30.

Program: Zoning, Infill and Neighborhood Redevelopment

Ted Weihe provided a brief history and background on Arlington County zoning. He indicated the concept was to be uniform and consistent. Most residential zoning rules didn't impact Arlington until recently. The changes have led to much infill development. Mr. Weihe stated that Virginia is a property rights state which has played a large part in zoning ordinances or lack thereof. When other communities may have been changing zoning ordinances regularly, Arlington did not.

Land values are up because Arlington is a desirable/popular place to live. It is conveniently located and accessible. Residents want to maximize space for building houses that meet their needs.

Mr. Weihe explained some of the guidelines and issues. She noted that the limit of 56% coverage on a lot includes structure and interior sidewalks, landscaping, etc. Until recently, height (35 feet) was measured from the street; now it is measured from the base of the house. She also discusses how set backs come into play, grandfathered lots generally protecting smaller lots, and the like.

Nancy Iacomini informed the citizens that the County Board directed the formation of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC). It is a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Participants represent a cross section of interests. Ms. Iacomini said ZORC was concerned about four primary issues on in fill development: height, coverage, creation of pipestem lots, and irregular lot sizes.

She confirmed that height restrictions were not changed until the late 1990's. The 35' height restriction is measured from the midpoint of the roof (which can make a pitched roof appear to exceed the restriction). The base is measured at four corners at the existing grade or approved grade instead of street level. ZORC recommended the height be reduced to 30 feet; this was rejected by the Board.

Ms. Iacomini addressed several questions about the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and the Zoning Administrator. She explained the BZA is composed of five individuals who are appointed by the Circuit Court. BZA is the means for adjudication on issues. She also discussed with one of the citizens the concept of "hardship" in zoning matters. Responding to some questions about the house built on Sycamore and N. 27th Streets, she told the citizens that the County relies on postings to alert people on hearings. Physical posting is important to review. She also encouraged us to check the local paper to see what hearings were scheduled and the addresses of the houses. A suggestion was made for the County to consider using e-Government methods to communicate as well such as sending e-mail notification to residents.

She discussed lot sizes (R6, R10, etc.). She provided the following information on what ZORC considers.

• Dimension for bulk is height, depth and width
• Front line of lot has to meet minimum of frontage standard
• Not charged to look at set backs
• Are reviewing coverage and are developing a finite list of what constitutes coverage
• Alexandria uses FAR (floor area ratio) as measure of coverage. It is more costly to manage FAR.

She also discussed what ZORC is considering for pipestem development as follows:

• County does not want to eliminate pipestem development
• May mean modifying Unified Residential Code and use permit
• Preference when three or more lots are used because it allows for adjustments (e.g., two lots and a buffer)
• Will propose increasing set backs

Following her overview and during her discussion several residents raised questions about the house at Sycamore and N. 27th Streets. She and Ms. Namioka said the house did receive variances through the County, that the lot coverage is less than or equal to the current 56% coverage standard, and that the roof is within the 35' height restriction. Additionally, she stated the County did issue a stop work order at least once because of changes he made that were not approved (removal of specific walls). She said the County had revised the regulations for Beds and Breakfasts in Arlington stating the structure had to be on a major arterial and there had to be sufficient parking to support it. She confirmed there were no time restrictions on building. She was unable to answer whether he was within rights to have a trailer on the property for an extended period.

Business Meeting

1. Ellen presented the agenda for approval. Motion carried.

2. Ellen presented the minutes from the last meeting for approval. Motion carried.

3. Ann presented the Treasurer's report.

4. Ellen reported the outcome of the NCAC meeting. She told the attendees the biggest part of the Little Falls project was approved and $40,000 was approved for the use plan on Minor Hill. While the point system was changed and we were out maneuvered, Ellen said our two projects were in the top five and we did get more approved than any other Association. She also said that Chris Nixon suggested we go to get funding for the landscaping for the Little Falls project elsewhere. If successful, we could probably plow the money we received from NCAC to finish the project.

– Most attendees were not pleased with what took place at the NCAC meeting. Several questions were raised such as why NCAC was able to treat the Little Falls project as two parts which was not intended by the residents (recall the Little Falls project was voted the number one project by the Association) and why Minor Hill was funded at all instead of using the $40,000 for the Little Falls project.

– Suggestions were made to get the projects back on track. For instance, it was suggested that Ellen approach Chris Nixon in a non-threatening manner and explore if there are any legal actions that can be taken to correct what seems to be an error in the NCAC process and to explain the rules on the point system as well as how did the process allow for the rules to be changed at the NCAC meeting. Additionally, the residents were in favor of pursuing alternate forms of funding (e.g., Wheat's Landscaping for the Little Falls project).

5. There was considerable discussion about the house on Sycamore and N. 27th Streets. Ellen was asked to have the Zoning Administrator come to one of the next meetings and explain his actions since it appears the County has not protected the residents by granting the variances Mr. Kingery requested. Some meeting participants felt that this action violated the Virginia code for a hardship. Questions were asked about the sidewalk repair that is needed and what, if anything, Arlington East Falls Church [civic association] was doing about the situation. It was suggested that we have a joint meeting with AEFCA on the matter. It was further suggested that if the Zoning Administrator agrees to attend/address an Association meeting, the meeting be videotaped.

– Ellen asked what action the residents wanted her to take. She also asked if the objective was to tear the house down. Many said the objective was not to tear the house down. The residents suggested that Ellen call the Zoning Administrator, write the Board, and try to get the attention of the press, especially The Washington Post.

6. Ellen told the participants of plans for upcoming meetings including discussions on the plans for the East Falls Church Metro station, home repairs, I-66 proposals, candidates' night, and a symposium on neighborhood development.

The meeting adjourned at 9:40.