PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2006-00869, Lureda Devanadera – for a front yard setback variance in order to retain a seven-foot deep by nine foot wide covered front porch at 519 N. Horners Lane. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Devanadera presented her request. Ms. Devanadera stated that she proposes to have a covered front porch constructed. She said she is also making other improvements to her house. During the construction, the front door was replaced and the existing front porch was adjusted to create a wider front porch that was more compatible with the wider front door, but also increased the depth of the porch by four feet. Ms. Devanadera stated that the porch is nine feet wide, but it encroaches into the front yard setback seven feet. The setback encroachment is only four feet beyond what is permitted. Further, the width of the porch is minimal at nine feet in width. Since the porch is still located eighteen feet from the front property line, there are no sight line problems associated with the project. As a result, it cannot be found that the variance as requested would be contrary to the public interest. Ms. Devanadera stated that the lot is only fifty feet wide and contains 5,000 square feet of land. Currently, regulations require that an R-60 lot be sixty feet wide and contain a minimum of 6,000 square feet of land. The house is only twenty-six feet wide and the entry door opens directly into the original living room, without any separation between the outdoors and the living space. Compared with most lots within the City, the dimensions of the lot and improvements are modest. As a result, the variance is requested owing to conditions peculiar to the property that are not the result of any action taken by her. Ms. Devanadera stated that because the porch and new entry door are already constructed, it would pose a practical difficulty to the applicant to cut back the porch. It is difficult for staff to find that that would not be a self-imposed practical difficulty because she took the step to build a larger than approved porch without consulting either Inspection Services or Planning Division staff. It seems more compelling, however, to consider the fact that the cost to erect a porch of only three feet in depth that does not provide significant protection from the elements over the front door is certainly a practical difficulty. Ms. Devanadera said that because a three-foot deep porch does not provide significant protection over a front door that leads directly into the living room, a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in practical difficulty. Ms. Sternstein questioned staff whether the conditions have been complied with since construction has been completed. Ms. Hall replied that the porch has not been inspected yet and there may be some issues with that. The Board discussed that the porch must remain open. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2006-00870, William and Christine Holdsworth – for a height variance of two and one-half feet for fencing placed along the New Mark Esplanade and Radburn Court frontages of the property. The property is located at 10 Radburn Court. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Holdsworth presented his request. Mr. Holdsworth explained that he and his family have lived in New Mark Commons development for almost fifteen years. They are seeking a height variance of two and one-half feet for fencing placed in two locations on their property. Sections of fence are currently located on the New Mark Esplanade and Radburn Court frontages of their property. The one on the western or right side of their house was recently replaced in the same location where it had been positioned for many years. They plan to replace the existing 6-foot tall board and batten fences on the north (front) and west sides of the side patio and the east side of the property along New Mark Esplanade. Mr. Holdsworth stated that their property is a corner lot that is bordered by three streets – Radburn Court, New Mark Esplanade and Potomac Valley Road. Mr. Holdsworth stated that the sections of fence to be replaced have existed for some time. It is likely that the sections of fence along New Mark Esplanade were placed there as part of the original construction on his property because this type of screening is common in many areas of the neighborhood. The section of fence that was erected on the western side of the house was placed many years ago t provide an outdoor area on the property that was semi-private and not completely exposed to the surrounding streets. He noted that, because the sections fence were placed a considerable length of time ago without complaint and because the HOA has supported the replacement of these screening sections, the variance, as requested, would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Holdsworth stated that his property is peculiar because his property is bordered on three sides by streets, limiting the placement of privacy fencing. It is also peculiar because the house sits only sixteen feet from the New Mark Esplanade right-of-way. Because the house fronts on three streets and encroachments into the setbacks are common in the neighborhood, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Holdsworth stated that it seems that the only place a six-foot fence could be placed on the property is in the area along the western side of the house. Any portion of a fence closer to the street than the house cannot exceed forth-two inches in height. Because the sections of screening/fencing have been in place for a considerable length of time and the elimination of the fencing due to deterioration would result in loss of privacy and would result in practical difficulty. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Mr. Holdsworth stated that he agreed with the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Holdsworth submitted a petition into the record, which was signed by three homeowners approving the variance, as Exhibit 2. Mr. Sternstein noted that the New Mark Commons HOA also gave its approval of the fence replacement.
There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2006-00869, Lureda Devanadera Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Maravilla approved Variance Application APP2006-00869, Lureda Devanadera per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2006-00870, William and Christine Holdsworth Mr. Maravilla moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve Variance Application APP2006-00870, William and Christine Holdsworth per staff recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS The Board and staff discussed the moratorium on applications. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
