ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA"

Branden Carroll
5 years ago
Views:

1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V UP-1: Meeting of March 21, 2018 DATE: March 16, 2018 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Hajra Zahid & Zahid Yousaf th Street North R-6, One-Family Dwelling District 7,414 Square Feet (recorded) Low 1-10 units per acre SUBJECT: Use Permit request by Hajra Zahid & Zahid Yousaf, owners, to permit a rear setback of 0.5 feet to the eaves of an existing accessory building (garage), instead of 10 feet as required; re existing garage with new shed addition in by-right location "R- 6" Zoning District, premise known as th Street North. (Lyon Village) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Proposed Resolution approving the subject Use Permit. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: For all accessory buildings in R districts On corner lots, the nearest edge of an eave of an accessory building shall not be located closer than one foot to any side lot line or 10 feet to any rear lot line. (Article 3, Section A.2.c.iii) EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subject property is a foot wide corner lot containing a recorded 7,414 square feet of land area. The lot is Zoned R-6 One-Family Dwelling District. This zoning district permits one-family dwellings on lots that are a minimum of 60 feet wide and contain at least 6,000 square feet of land area. The General Land Use Plan is Low 1-10 Units per acre. County real estate records show that the dwelling was constructed in There is an existing one story detached building (garage) and a separate small storage shed on site. In the last recorded plat staff has on file, the detached garage was located 4.2 feet from the rear property line, 9.3 feet from the side property line, and the small free standing shed is not represented. The applicants claim that prior to his purchase of the property in 2014, the garage was expanded to its current configuration with its wall 1.1 feet from the rear property line, and the small square foot freestanding shed was added to the property. Neighbors have submitted letters of opposition where they contend that this is not the case. Staff was unable to find any approvals for either the expansion of the non-conforming garage, nor the placement of the second detached accessory shed. PREVIOUS BZA ACTIONS: On December 20, 2017 The BZA deferred case V UP- 1 to the March 2018 BZA hearing. PROPOSED CHANGES: At this time, the applicants are proposing to remove the small free standing shed, and are only asking for approval for the existing garage in its current configuration. Staff: Stephen Risse, Board of Zoning Appeals Coordinator V UP-1

2 In the future, the applicant may build an addition to the garage, or may build an additional accessory shed, but either of those would be done in by-right locations according to the current ordinance. At this time, the applicants are not asking the BZA for any additional additions be built onto the current structure, but are asking for the BZA to grant the approval for the current garage, with the current bump-out with eaves that at.5 away from the adjacent property line. STAFF ANALYSIS: (1) Would the proposal promote compatibility of development with the surrounding neighborhood because the overall footprint size and placement are similar to the structures on the properties surrounding the subject property and would the proposal help preserve natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees and foliage? The proposed approval for the existing garage may result in a building that is compatible with the surrounding area, because the existing footprint of 237 square feet, would be smaller than the footprints of many existing accessory buildings on some surrounding properties. See the table below for a sampling of some of the larger surrounding footprints. Address Accessory Building Footprint Location 2815 Key Boulevard Square feet Interior 1505 N Herndon Street 808 square feet including carport Interior 3161 Key Boulevard square feet Interior 1404 N Hartford Street square feet Interior 1400 N Hartford Street Apx square feet Interior 3128 Key Boulevard Apx square feet Corner 3143 Key Boulevard square feet including carport Interior 1703 North Harvard Street square feet Corner Staff was able to find three examples, though only on interior lots, where the setback from the rear property line is less than the 1.1 foot setback (to the wall) that is currently shown and requested for approval on the existing garage. Staff was unable to locate any instances where the eave of an accessory building was shown as less than or equal to the.5 feet currently proposed by the applicant, however it should be noted that the eave distance is not shown on most of the plats staff was able to locate for these nearby accessory buildings. See the table below for a list of the surrounding setbacks staff was able to find for accessory buildings in the surrounding area. Address Rear Setback Side Setback From Lot Location 3143 Key Boulevard.6 feet 1.2 feet Wall/Carport Interior th Street N.8 feet 1.3 feet Wall Interior 1404 N Hartford Street 1 foot 1 foot Eave Interior th Street N 1.6 feet 1.3 feet Eave Interior 2815 Key Boulevard 1.9 feet 1.9 feet Wall Interior 2616 Key Boulevard Apx. 2 feet Apx 1.5 feet Wall Corner 3161 Key Boulevard 2.1 feet 2 feet Wall interior 2126 Key Boulevard Apx. 2.5 feet Apx 2 feet Wall Corner -2-

3 1400 N Hartford Street 2.7 feet 3.7 feet Wall Interior th Street North 3.5 feet 3.5 feet Wall Interior 3128 Key Boulevard Apx. 6 feet Apx. 2.5 feet Wall Corner 3128 Key Boulevard Apx. 7 feet Apx. 2.6 feet Wall Corner 1703 N Harvard Street 7.4 feet 2.4 feet Wall Corner It has been pointed out to staff that the carport referenced at 3143 Key Boulevard, has been converted to a pergola, and is no longer a carport. The change from carport to pergola however does not affect the required setback for the accessory structure. The site is already developed with an existing single family residence and the existing garage that is the subject of the current application. For these reasons the project may be seen as helping preserve the natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees and foliage. (2) Would the proposal adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood? The proposal would not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood. (3) Would the proposal be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood? The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (4) Would the proposal be in conflict with the purposes of the master plans and land use and zoning related policies of the County? The property is zoned R-6, for single family residences. The GULP designation is Low 1-10 units per acre. The property is currently improved with a single family dwelling and two accessory buildings, which is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and is in accordance with the GULP. The proposal is therefore not in conflict with the purposes of the master plans and the land use and zoning related policies of the County. COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS: Staff has previously received 5 letters of support from neighbors supporting of the project, and another letter without an address that may be from a neighbor, who is in support of the applicant s proposal. Staff has also received two letters of opposition from directly adjacent neighbors (side and rear). A packet of opposition from one of the adjacent neighbors was also submitted directly to the BZA at the 12/20/2017 hearing. Since the last time this case was heard by the BZA, Staff has received updated letters of opposition from the two adjacent neighbors, both updated letters are attached to this packet. -3-

4 CONCLUSION: The proposal would be compatible with the development on the surrounding properties in terms of both its footprint and its placement. The proposal can be seen as helping preserve the natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees and foliage since the building is already existing. The proposal will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood, and it will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal is in accordance with the County s master plans, therefore staff recommends the Board adopt the attached Proposed Resolution approving the Use Permit. PROPOSED MOTION: I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the attached Proposed Resolution approving the Use Permit V UP-1. PROPOSED RESOLUTION (Staff s recommendation -approval) WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals ( BZA ) has held a duly advertised public hearing on March 21, 2018 on case number V UP-1 for a Use Permit request by Hajra Zahid & Zahid Yousaf, owners, to permit a rear setback of 0.5 feet to the eaves of an existing accessory building (garage), instead of 10 feet as required; re existing garage "R- 6" Zoning District, premise known as th Street North.; and WHEREAS, the BZA finds that the proposal will not affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the BZA finds that the proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the BZA finds that the proposal will not be in conflict with the purposes of the master plans and land use and zoning policies of the County; and, WHEREAS, the BZA has determined that the modification is compatible with development in the surrounding neighborhood and that the structure s overall footprint size and placement are similar to comparable structures on other properties in the County and the proposal would help preserve natural land form, historical features and/or significant trees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the BZA hereby approves Special Use Permit case number V UP-1, subject to the following: 1. The applicants agree that the structure/addition shall be constructed in accordance with the footprint shown on the survey, and the architectural drawings attached to the staff report dated March 16, 2018 and that no enlargement of the structure/addition may be made in any dimension shown on the plat or architectural drawings. 2. The applicants shall obtain and provide to the Zoning Administrator one or more final plats, to certify the addition s location. 3. The applicants agree that the garage including the bump-out, shall not be built over or further enclosed, and that existing setbacks shall be maintained. -4-

5 4. The applicants shall obtain a building permit to construct the structure permitted herein by March 21, 2019 or the Use Permit shall be null and void. -5-

V-11338-17-UP-1 3140 17th Street North 15-046-011 Note: These maps are for property location assistance only.

6 V UP th Street North Note: These maps are for property location assistance only. They may not represent the latest survey and other information. Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development Case Location(s) Scale: 1: 1, County Use Only Date Placard Posted By Removed

38 December 12, 2017 Jessica Bowman & Timothy May 3136 N. 17 th St. Arlington, VA Arlington County Board of Zoning Appeals Attention: Stephen Risse, BZA Coordinator 2100 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 1000 Arlington, VA Dear Board: RE: V UP-1 (Proposed Use Permit for th Street North (Lyon Village)) We are the owners of the property located at th Street North, and we write to express our concerns and objections with respect to the above-proposed use permit. The proposal, as we understand it, would extend the garage in two directions. On the side facing our property, the garage would be extended to within about 3 of our adjoining side property line. We are concerned about the added density that the proposed structure creates. The garage is 12 4 tall, and its rear façade squarely faces our adjoining side property line. If this tall rear façade is moved to only about 3 from our adjoining side property line, then we are concerned about the new density that this would create between our properties. The current shed, while closer to our property line, is much lower in height and not very visible above the fence. Our density concern is compounded by how our rear neighbor s garage abuts our rear property line in the same corner. In essence, our rear yard would be cornered by two large walls adjacent our property line. We are also concerned about potential water runoff. The proposed garage structure would double in length to about 45 long. Because the new structure would end about 3 from our side property line, and because the proposal does not address how water runoff from the new roof structure would be diverted away from our property, we are concerned about water runoff. This is an important issue for our property, as we currently have two sump pumps that run daily. Our house is also downhill of the proposed garage structure. If the Board were to grant the use permit, then we ask that any granted use permit be based upon a survey from a licensed surveyor. We mention this because Mr. Yousaf disputed the accuracy of the professional survey we obtained in 2015 when we replaced a deteriorating fence with a new one. At the time, Mr. Yousaf disputed the survey s location of our adjoining side property line and disputed whether

39 his shed, as shown in the survey, was 1 onto our property. 1 We also note that the Request for Use Permit appears to rely upon a modified version of a survey dated 2001, before the existing garage was altered and the existing shed installed. We are thus concerned about the accuracy of the location of the proposed garage structure relative to the correct property lines. A professional survey by a licensed surveyor would help alleviate these concerns. To address the water runoff concern, we would ask that any granted use permit require appropriate drainage of water away from our property. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jessica Bowman & Timothy May th Street North Arlington, VA Recently, Mr. Yousaf removed the portion of his shed that was on our property. Because Mr. Yousaf was reluctant to move his shed when we installed the new fence in 2015, we offered to have our new fence go around his shed, even though that caused a loss of about 1 along the back portion of our yard. We now plan to have the fence moved to where it would have been installed (along the property line) had the shed not been in the way.

63 Dear Members of the Board, We refer to the hearing in December whereby you had kindly suggested and granted deferral to our proposal. And you had asked if a by right option is possible. We had, to recap, a three-part request for your consideration, including replacement for the shed, new car port, and extension space for an otherwise very narrow garage. You would be pleased to know that based on your feedback we will be able to move the shed to a by right position in entirety, instead of as an extension to the garage as previously requested. The existing shed has been there for over a decade and other structures prior. While we would lose valuable green yard space, and will have wasted space in the back as a result, but happy to have it in a by right position. We also went back to the drawing board yet again with our architect but it is impossible to have a carport or a two-car garage in a by right position and without removing the mature maple tree, in addition to substantively affecting the appeal and layout of the property and pretty much destroying the back yard. For reference, we had spent an inordinate amount of time, effort, and resources in the prior attempt as well, including substantive county staff time, for which we are grateful, to come up with the carport proposal, which the county staff had supported, and which was considered the most effective and appealing option in blending with the surroundings. We, accordingly, have decided to drop the new car port request. While we believe it is unfortunate that we would not be able to protect our car from the elements, we value more the mature tree and the historic and unique appeal of probably one of the smallest and most charming houses in Lyon village, especially as compared to the mammoth structures now being put in place by builders by demolishing such original houses, as is the case on both our sides. Literally dozens of neighbors have told us how much they love our house and how good a job we have done to enhance it. We now request your kind consideration to only allow some three feet by eleven feet extension of the garage towards the defined rear property line, without which one cannot even open the car doors when inside. This garage is made from the same block as the house, and is barely eight feet wide inside other than in this extension area, and doesn t have any running water, or heat, or insulation etc. to be used as living space. This some thirty-five square feet area is only about six feet high at the edge, and completely hidden behind some eight feet high fence erected by the neighbor. For reference, their water planter is almost as high and wide on the other side. Both ourselves and staff had provided multiple precedents of such accessory building usage in the neighborhood. Annex I shows a sample of dozens of other houses in immediate vicinity which are located on corner lots and have accessory buildings not meeting the setback requirements, many on or very close to property lines, including even new constructions. None of the neighbors had objected to this request then, and staff had also approved it.

64 The neighbor at th sent their letter well ahead of us even working out a way forward, and which is not germane to the case issue, and which objects to a plan that has been changed significantly in a way the Board had asked to explore. Staff are fully aware of the process. And I didn t respond as the was sent to an account that I do not check. For further reference, we have gone through multiple plats submitted by these properties and there is some discrepancy about the property line and structure on all the properties including new. So, what they are taking as malice, exists all way around, including in their own plats. Again, we have shared this with staff. Our plan is, and in consultation with staff, that once the way forward is clear, we will get the garage and its little extension surveyed and wall checked to determine its precise placement. Their actions over the years have caused us a lot of damage and associated cost. And the recent construction at the back has also resulted in new substantive water and erosion problems for us, not the other way around as they are implying, necessitating expensive repairs. We have a very small ask for a structure that everyone acknowledges has been there for a very long time, and this requested extension of it is entirely hidden behind existing fence that raises almost eight feet up from ground on our side. We are also very limited in options because of placement of the property, forty-foot setoff from the front, and mature trees. We thank you in advance for an equitable consideration.

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V-11185-16-UP-1: Meeting of October 12, 2016 DATE: October 7, 2016 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Elizabeth Taylor