WCA August Meeting (08/28/01)

Board Members: Don Gross, Ellen Jones, Ann Lunson, Mike Murtha, Dede O'Donnell, Jim Toronto
Community Attendees: 28 Williamsburg neighbors
Guest Speakers: Tony Burnette, Deputy Zoning Administrator
Vivian Elmendorf, Code Enforcement Inspector
Mike Lews, Construction Code Official
Handouts: Meeting agenda, Be a Good Neighbor, various items on
zoning

The meeting started at 7:30 p.m.

Program: Zoning Issues -- Ellen introduced Tony Burnette from the Arlington County Planning Division. She also discussed the procedures for the conduct of the meeting with the speaker getting 15 minutes for a presentation followed by a timed question and answer period. Ann Rudd agreed to keep time for the Q&A period.

Mr. Burnette started by telling the residents what his role is in the County. He has held the position for less than a year. Mr. Burnette was joined by two coworkers, Mike Lewis and Vivian Elmendorf.

Mr. Burnette explained that he is the coordinator for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). One of his primary activities is controlling the variance process for the BZA. He reviews the variance requests and makes recommendations to the BZA. He also stated that the BZA is not bound by his recommendation(s).

Mr. Burnette discussed several aspects of his position. He defined a variance as an exception to the zoning ordinance. A variance may be granted for several things including a deviation in the bulk, coverage or placement of a structure on a lot. Normally, a deviation (variance) addresses exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of the property topography or other extraordinary conditions, or conditions on the adjacent property. Further, the strict application of zoning requirements would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.

He told the residents that the BZA can grant a variance only at an advertised public hearing. The application for a variance must be received at least 56 days in advance of the public hearing in order to be properly analyzed and advertised. A Public Notice is generated from the information submitted on the variance application. This notice is advertised twice in the Arlington Journal both two weeks and one week prior to the hearing. Notices are also placed on the County's web site. Lastly, notices are mailed to the property owner and to the neighbors adjacent to the property and immediately across the street. Placards are posted on the property and four other placards are posted in the immediate area showing the designation of the property and time and place of the public hearing.

The Staff prepares a report and makes a recommendation to the BZA. The report includes history and background on the property, height and size of the proposed structural changes in relation to others in the neighborhood and other pertinent information. The BZA reviews the report and makes its decision.

Mr. Burnette said the County is trying to be more timely with information especially on the web site. He said they are trying to ask applicants to identify the Civic Association in which their property is located, so that this information could be included in the announcement. Also, they are considering a change in the variance application to include the information on the public notice.

Mr. Burnette then discussed the house at 27th and Sycamore Streets. He personally doesn't know much about the background on why the variance was granted. He was not part of the Planning Division when the variance was granted. At this point the Q&A period commenced.

Q. If the BZA is supposed to consider a variance in keeping with the neighborhood structures, how did the house on 27th and Sycamore get approved?
A. Personally, I wouldn't have approved the variance for this house. It is not in keeping with the make up of the neighborhood.

Q. Was the variance granted on the original structure?
A. The variance stated that it was an addition to the original structure and that two walls of the original structure had to be retained. Today, the house would require a different type of variance because it is obviously a new house not an addition.

Q. In reading the report out of the variance hearing it appears according to stated policy the BZA did not act appropriately. Did the BZA act improperly?
A. No.

Q. Is there any recourse?
A. A survey is being conducted by the owner. The structure appears to be taller than stated restrictions and the lot coverage appears to be in excess of the restrictions.

Q. When will the results of the survey be in?
A. Approximately two weeks.

Q. What happens if another resident wants to construct a house like this one? Is it now in keeping with the neighborhood structures because of this house?
A. If another resident wants to do something, the owner must meet requirements or go through the variance process.

Q. We are concerned about occupancy. We saw mattresses being moved in and several people with back packs moving into the house.
A. Ms. Elmendorf has just gotten access to the house. He has two people who are staying at the house as security because of trespassing. The doors are expected to be in within two weeks. At that time the house can be locked and his security team will vacate the property.

Q. How did the work qualify as an addition?
A. The variance stated that two of the original walls (north and east walls) had to remain.

Q. It certainly appears that the house exceeds the 35 feet high restriction.
A. The survey will tell us whether the height requirement has been exceeded. However, the 35 feet is measured from the middle of a pitched roof not the top of the roof.

Q. I thought it was against County code to store construction material outside of the structure. In this case are the stone slabs in violation of this code?
A. He has laid out the slabs to get an idea of how he might use them. It is not against the code to store the material outside of the house.

Q. In the variance process, what records are available to the citizens and where are the records located?
A. Records are available in the County offices. In the case of the Sycamore structure, Ellen requested and has received copies of pertinent information. Much of that information has been posted on the WCA web site. Click here.

Q. Is the building different than the original plan/drawing?
A. No, the building is not different.

Q. How did the BZA ever determine there was a hardship? Can the County file suit within the Court because of the BZA's failure to determine a hardship?
A. You can file suit if you want to.

Q. Why is the Arlington Journal the paper of choice instead of the Sun Gazette which goes to all residents?
A. The Journal is the paper the County has decided to use.

Q. Can you go over the code requirements on notification?
A. Mr. Burnette reviewed the information he did earlier in the evening.

Q. What is the process for obtaining a Group Home license?
A. This is a licensure issue with the state. There are special requirements involving social services.

Q. Can you provide the definition of a hardship?
A. Mr. Burnette reviewed the information he did earlier in the evening.

Q. Can the Zoning Administrator put a stop work order on the project?
A. Yes. In fact, the property had a stop work order when both walls were removed.

Q. Can we petition the Chief Judge of the Court to grant a ruling on whether the variance was granted appropriately?
A. If you want to, you can.

Q. Was demolition of the walls appropriate?
A. No. The walls should not have been torn down. The County also should not have allowed the walls to be rebuilt since if violated the variance.

That ended the special presentation portion of the meeting.

The business meeting started with a report that the secretary had some difficulty locating the July meeting minutes so minutes were not being introduced for approval.

Ann Lunson presented the Treasurer's report indicating we collected $185 in dues. We had a closing balance of $1,608.11 as well as two certificates of deposit.

Ellen introduced the NCAC project updates with the Little Falls project. She reminded everyone that the lower portion of the street was not funded therefore it was not included in the overall project. However, we may be in business after all. Since a number of houses along the stretch of Little Falls that we wanted addressed don't have sidewalks, the Safe Walks to School program is encouraging action. Instead of taking the property from the houses, it is possible they will building into the road thereby narrowing the road, getting the sidewalks and leaving large swails for planting. The County is expected to act on this in September.

Don reported on Minor Hill reminding everyone of the approval of the $40,000 for use plan. The Minor Hill Task Force wants to be involved in the use plan. The County is releasing study funds, likely at a September 8th County hearing. The working group will get underway sometime after that. The County will hire an outside company to develop the use plan.

Ann reported the colors for the signs are as we expected (more muted tones instead of primary brilliance). On August 2nd the sign company faxed a final drawing for review. It appears everything we wanted has been incorporated including the details of the buildings and "established 1951". Tom Hutchings has given the okay and is processing the purchase order. We will get an estimated completion date shortly after Labor Day.

Jim talked about traffic calming on Powhatan. The County testing proved that Powhatan is dangerous, more dangerous than it expected. There was a meeting on August 7th for residents so the County could discuss actions. Another meeting on August 20th discussed what was likely to be approved including no speed humps, reclaiming part of Powhatan up the hill with a parking lane, yellow strips at bottom of Powhatan becoming a median, creating a nub at Rockingham and Powhatan, and two textured walkways.

Ellen reported about the new format on the web. Changes were required because of size and storage issues.

The meeting adjourned at 8:55.