Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alexandria board denies rear-deck and open-space variances for 9 Potomac Court
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a homeowner's request to build a 72 sq ft open-air deck at 9 Potomac Court after staff recommended denial and members split over hardship and precedent. The proposed deck would have sat 3.6 ft from the rear lot line and reduced required ground-level open space by 111.5 sq ft.
The Alexandria Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 10 denied a homeowner’s request to construct a rear deck at 9 Potomac Court after hearing testimony from city staff, the applicants and board deliberation.
Rachel Drescher of the Department of Planning and Zoning told the board the townhouse — built in 1967 in the RM zone — would require two variances: a setback variance to place a 13-foot-high, 72-square-foot open-air deck 3.6 feet from the rear property line (a 12.4-foot deviation from the 16-foot rear-yard requirement) and an open-space variance that would reduce ground-level open and usable space from 408.5 square feet to 297 square feet (111.5 square feet of relief). "The staff is recommending denial of the variances because they do not meet all of the criteria," Drescher said.
Applicants Mary Savino and Ron Masalip argued the lot is "substandard and irregular," that the proposed deck is modest and largely hidden from view by trees, and that the ground-level patio is difficult to use because of mosquito infestation and the lot’s unusual shape. "A deck is something we would use almost every day," Savino said, and the applicants presented neighbor letters of support.
Board members split over whether the homeowners demonstrated the legal hardship required for a variance and whether granting the relief would set an undesirable precedent. Several members said the facts of the site — notably that the property abuts parkland and a river — distinguish it from more constrained, back-to-back townhouses. One member noted an existing door that led "to nowhere" and said a deck would restore the door to useful access.
Concluding deliberations, a motion to approve the variances was seconded and put to a voice vote; the chair recorded that the motion received 3 in favor and 2 opposed and therefore failed, and the board denied the variance request. The board noted staff’s position on the reasonable-deviation standard and asked members to articulate any reasons those "no" findings were reversed for the record should the city's attorney review an appeal.
The case was followed by a five-minute recess and the meeting moved on to the next docket item.
