Town Government / Town Services / Regulations & Ordinances / Town Information / Town Departments / Mailbox
Minutes
WINDOVER HEIGHTS BOARD OF REVIEW
MINUTES
June 7, 2005
The Windover Heights Board of Review met at 7:30 PM on June 7, 2005, at a Regular Meeting in the Council Chamber of The Vienna Town Hall, 127 Center Street, South, Vienna, Virginia, with Steve Bukont, Chairman, presiding. The following members were present: Robert B. Petersen (arrived 7:44 PM), Shirley Damon and Carey Sienicki. Absent was David Miller. Also in attendance were Town Staff Linnea Eastin, Planner and Denise Rose Adams, Board Clerk.
It was moved to approve the minutes of May 2, 2005.
Motion: Damon
Second: Sienicki
Carried: 3-0
Absent: Miller, Petersen
ITEM NO. 1:
Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the existing transom located above the entryway at 214 Lawyers Road, NW, in the RS-16, Single-Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR 02-05). Filed by George Banks.
Vito Florimonte was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Florimonte said it was requested at the last meeting to provide a drawing of the transom window over the front door. Mr. Florimonte said that the old transom window was forty-eight (48) inches and they are going to add six (6) inches to either side.
There was noone to speak either for or against the application.
It was moved to approve a request for Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the existing transom located above the entryway at 214 Lawyers Road, NW, in the RS-16, Single-Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR 02-05). Filed by George Banks.
Motion: Damon
Second: Sienicki
Carried: 3-0
Absent: Miller, Petersen
Ms. Damon brought up the replacement of the Knights of Columbus (KOC) sign that was located adjacent to the front door and noted the drawing that was submitted in the packets for the sign. Ms. Damon asked if this Board approves the sign or does the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approve the sign. Ms. Eastin said according to the ordinance, the signs would have to go before the BAR for approval.
Mr. Florimonte said they are replacing an existing sign with a new sign, identical to the old sign which was approved and asked why they have to go before the BAR. Ms. Eastin said that when one replaces the materials and the sign, it has to go before the BAR for approval; Ms. Eastin said that all signs have to go before the BAR for approval. Ms. Eastin explained to Mr. Florimonte about the BAR and its functions, how to get the application forms, when they meet, etc.
ITEM NO. 2:
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of decks located off of the family room and kitchen, and code related changes to the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness at 315 Windover Avenue, NW in the RS-16, Single Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR-06-05). Filed by Sagatov Associates, Inc., owner.
Lou Sagatov was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Sagatov said he is proposing to build two (2) open decks, one (1) off of the kitchen and one (1) of the family room. The decks will both be mahogany decking, with cedar rails. The intent for the cedar rails is to blend in with cedar on the upper portion of the house and the mahogany they feel is a better product than the pressure treated wood. Mr. Sagatov said regarding the construction and Code related changes, when they first submitted the plan to WHBR there was a delay between getting a final Certificate of Appropriateness and in that time frame Fairfax County adopted a new Code; thus they have been required to make some changes. Mr. Sagatov said most of the changes were done up-front during the engineering phase. Mr. Sagatov went over the changes to the house (in detail on tape). Drawings of the changes are also on file. Some of the changes made were reduction of the garage door by one (1) foot, stair moved to meet Code, rear fireplace bumpout eliminated and bay window bolted.
There was noone present to speak either for or against the proposed application.
Ms. Damon asked if the proposed deck off the rear of the kitchen was going to be close to the neighbors property and infringe on their privacy. Mr. Sagatov noted the deck is within the allowable setback requirements; also with the amount of vegetation there is between the properties he does not think privacy to be an issue.
Mr. Petersen asked what the height of the floor of the decks was going to be. Mr. Sagatov said with the final grade it will be between 32 inches and 40 inches. Mr. Petersen noted that on one side there is 15 feet to the adjacent property line and on the other side there is 16 feet and thought the height to be a major factor in how much protection is offered to neighbors by the vegetation.
Chairman Bukont asked what the lot coverage was for the decks. Ms. Eastin replied it was under the 5% allowed lot coverage, but did not have the calculations with her.
It was moved to approve a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of decks located off of the family room and kitchen, and code related changes to the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness at 315 Windover Avenue, NW in the RS-16, Single Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR-06-05). Filed by Sagatov Associates, Inc., owner.
Motion: Sienicki
It was amended to include that the color scheme and materials here are consistent with what is on the existing building and that the rails are to be constructed of cedar and is going to be a natural seal finish and the remainder is the substructure is pressure treated lumber and mahogany decking.
Motion: Bukont
Second: Damon
Carried: 4-0
Absent: Miller
ITEM NO. 3:
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of an addition to the existing asphalt driveway and the construction of a fence at 135 Lewis Street, NW in the RS-12.5,
Single Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR-04-05). Filed by Sean Staats, owner.
Paul Layer was present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Layer said Mr. Staats is proposing to extend his driveway (as shown in the submitted drawings) and is proposing to put in a four (4) foot high picket fence on both sides of the side property lines. Mr. Layer said the fence will not close in the yard and is more of a decorative fence. The materials will be pressure treated lumber.
Ms. Sienicki asked why the driveway was being widened. Mr. Layer said that there is not enough room to park the vehicles. Ms. Sienicki asked if the tree shown in the photograph was going to be removed. Mr. Layer said no.
There was noone present to speak either for or against the proposed application.
It was moved to approve a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of an addition to the existing asphalt driveway and the construction of a fence at 135 Lewis Street, NW in the RS-12.5, Single Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR-04-05). Filed by Sean Staats, owner.
Motion: Damon
Second: Bukont
Carried: 4-0
Absent: Miller
ITEM NO. 4:
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the existing rotting hardboard siding with flat natural stone at 288 Windover Avenue, NW, in the RS-16, Single Family Residential zoning district. (Docket No. WHBR-05-05). Filed by Greg Haight, owner.
Greg Haight was present on behalf of the application.
THE FOLLOWING IS A VERBATUM EXCERPT.
Greg Haight: Good evening, I’m Greg Haight and this all started out with me painting the house. But what happened was the many parts of, the house is clad with a Georgia Pacific product which even now is subject to a large lawsuit, I think in Atlanta for improper cladding. At any rate, the area around the garage and below the windows on the front of the house as I went to paint them rotted out, so you could actually put your hand through it. So we attempted to find cladding that was close to it but were really just unable to do that and so it was decided to put stone instead of the cladding. We thought that was a better fix than trying to match something and have it not really match. And so that was what was put up. I think you have the stone, the company, Newkirk Industry, Newkirk Services, I guess, had done a number of, a number of the houses in that area and if you go down Windover Avenue, NW, you’ll see a number of the houses have similar stonework. My contractor was under the impression that a building permit was not needed. And I am now told that if it was artificial brick I would not have needed a building permit. At any rate, I guess I need to apologize for not getting a Certificate of Appropriateness. It looks appropriate to me and I hope that if you look at the pictures you’ll agree.
Steve Bukont: Questions for the applicant?
Carey Sienicki: Why did you decide to go with stone as opposed to another type of, I mean there are various types of wood. I mean...
Greg Haight: Yes, well there are lots of types of wood but you could not match that cladding and hardy plank didn’t work, didn’t want to do vinyl, there was nothing that worked. We couldn’t find anything, if you look at it close, it is very unusual cladding on that house unfortunately...
Carey Sienicki: Oh, I’m aware.
Greg Haight: You just can’t match it, couldn’t match it.
Carey Sienicki: I guess I, I kind of have a, it disturbs me in that if the similar houses in the Windover Heights area have that type of stone as a base kind of material, instead of on your property it’s an infill material around, with wood surroundings around it...
Greg Haight: Wood and brick.
Carey Sienicki: What’s that?
Greg Haight: Wood and brick.
Carey Sienicki: Right, but, but the nature of what a Victorian type house is, the infill being the stone is somewhat to me disruptive, you know, I have not seen a precedent of that type before.
Greg Haight: Number one, there’s not many Victorian’s in that area. I did however see some in San Francisco that had that.
Carey Sienicki: With that um, because I really, I’ve seen a lot of Victorian houses in my day and I never quite seen that.
Steve Bukont: I share your concern about this. And, um, we’re in a ticular situation here because you’ve already done it. But, unfortunately I don’t think that we can consider the fact that it is there already. We have to look at this piece of paper tonight and treat this as if nothing’s been done out there. And I do have a, and while it’s maybe seemingly minor it’s, some of the things that get discussed I think sometimes or considerations that come up from the public and before this Board don’t necessarily fall within our purview. This one I think squarely does. And the house that you purchased I believe was constructed in, approximately 20 some years ago and was reviewed at the time of construction by this Board. That type of material in my experience in architectural history, the type of house that you have is a wood frame building sitting what appears to be a brick foundation.
Greg Haight: That’s correct.
Steve Bukont: We can discuss the, the, the nuances of architectural style but there is one thing that I think is universally important in terms of the discussion of architectural authenticity and as concerned to materials and that’s that we are true to the material. And if you go back 100 years ago we didn’t have adhesives and the type of materials that stone has been applied to your house with. We had to rely on gravity and what I find a little disturbing about this is that the stone appears to be suspended against a wood frame structure. And regardless of whether it’s natural stone or used as a 2" or 3" veneer or a manufactured stone, in my experience on this Board, the uses of stone that have come before us in the past have clearly appeared to be greeting the ground, so to speak, holding up the building, used in a structural way regardless of whether they’re veneer or part of a true masonry structure. So I have some reservations there. The other thing that really concerns me is like you say, you see this example in many of the buildings in San Francisco. When you look at the Victorian style, and I don’t want to get into making a lecture out of it, but those textures, this vertical siding, the fishscale shingles, were an applied surface within an applied framework on a building. They were not, they were truly serving a decorative function not structural. And when you place stone in that frame I just have to say, I have never seen, in my experience in any type of Victorian architecture, and there’s, granted there’s some liberty, I’ve never see that type of application before. I mean, I, I, share your concern with the hardboard product because I’ve had to deal with that before, but I think that, um, you know, there are other materials that are out there that are available. There’s individual shingles.
Greg Haight: I don’t want to disagree with you, but I did look for; I wouldn’t have spent $30,000.00 putting this stone up if I thought I could come even close to matching it with something else. So, we were unable to find it.
Steve Bukont: See, now we’re in the situation where there’s, this Board, you throw out the number $30,000.00 and it’s not our place to come up with a comparable cost alternative to it. We have to consider what’s been proposed and decide on it’s, on it’s, merits and in an ideal world, if that wasn’t already done, than we could discuss that at the next, at a future meeting perhaps and look at some other materials. Unfortunately, we don’t have that, I mean I’m trying to be sympathetic to your situation
Greg Haight: I understand.
Steve Bukont: And at the same time fulfill our obligation on this Board.
Greg Haight: I understand.
Steve Bukont: But, any further discussion by members of the Board?
Robert Petersen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I, I really appreciated the way you described your, your misgivings about this, bringing in the issue of authenticity and the history of how, uh, stone was used, engineered in building historic Victorian homes. When I went over and looked at the property last week to prepare for this Board meeting, my primary concern was the issue of harmony, trying to keep in mind the guidelines that we were operating with, uh, in terms of whether the stone was in harmonious with the rest of the structure and looking at other buildings that I could see in the neighborhood, that was my primary concern and I frankly was not, I did not take into account the engineering authenticity of the use of the stone, but I felt that the appearance of the stone that I looked at certainly fit in with other structures that I could see and with, I believe with the guidelines that apply to our decision making.
Shirley Damon: Um, as a person who is a native San Franciscan and grew up in one of those homes that we talk about, the Victorians and is still there the last time I was in San Francisco, I was on a hill. At any rate, I was distressed when I went by this building in as much I felt the stone was inconsistent with the design of the rest of the structure, and I understand that you utilize that simply because it was what you could find at that time to work with. But, golly, I wish that you could have replicated what was there previously in some form or another. There’s another interesting thing in San Francisco, you cannot put brick or stone any higher than 10 feet on the face of the building because after the earthquake those things all fell and squashed. So we had a 10 foot brick and the rest of the wood house. But at any rate, um, I do, I do have problems with the inconsistency of the stone; I wish there could have been another material that you could find, but that’s one persons point of view.
Steve Bukont: Members of the public wish to speak on the matter? Please come forward.
Mike Covel: In this discussion of ...
Steve Bukont: I’m sorry could, just for the record state your...
Mike Covel: Michael Covel, 130 Pleasant Street, NW. This discussion of Victorians and ages of homes, etc., just for memory for everybody, in 1998, Chuck Anderson built a new home and it wasn’t in the historic district. And after he finished construction he went to the Town Council and they said okay we’ll put you in the district, they never reviewed his home. And during that time period John Gionfriddo was the Town Attorney, wrote a memo. And that memo, I’ll paraphrase here, essentially said, this is a district created by boundary, it makes no reference to the age or character of the structures in that boundary. I think it would be nice to have a little consistency in how we talk to people. I don’t know if you considered that. You know you are getting very specific about Victorian homes and we can have a debate till the cows come home about whether Greg’s house is appropriate or not or whatever. And I, we have to, there has been some opinion’s laid down by, by people about this ordinance, specifically Town Attorney’s. I just think we should all keep that in mind.
Steve Bukont: Okay. You know, that’s why in response to what Mr. Covel said, that’s why if it were just merely an inconsistency with perhaps, what some might argue is a subjective stylistic discussion of what’s Victorian and what’s not, I could understand that. But I think that, that, we are looking at, in its most basic terms the use of material and the way it would have been done between approximately 1870 and before the second World War when, it’s, what is at the essence of many of the buildings, old buildings in this Town in the historic district and outside of the historic district and outside of the historic district. What makes those buildings near and dear to us. And I think when you get down to it, it’s the use of the materials and way 100 years ago when we built buildings, we built them true to what the materials could do. And I think that’s part and parcel in one, of in discussion, of the seven criterion we consider on this Board. And that’s why I have the opinion that I do on this particular one. Incidentally on Mr. Anderson’s house I think if you look at the use of the stone on that house it doesn’t appear to be defying gravity. And that’s one of the reasons I think why people can...
Mike Covel: For the record he never got approved for that steeple. Inaudible
Steve Bukont: But, that is not on my agenda tonight and this one is and I can only give you my judgement tonight on what’s been placed on this agenda, you see, so anyway. Any further discussion from the uh, the... Anyone wish to make a motion?
Robert Petersen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I’ll make the motion, I’m obviously aware of how I think the voting may go but I believe that a motion is in order. I move that the Board approve the request for a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the existing rotting hardboard siding with flat natural stone at 288 Windover Avenue, NW, Docket #WHBR-05-05, in the RS-16 Residential zoning district as filed by Mr. Haight, the owner and described to us here tonight.
Steve Bukont: Second?
Carey Sienicki: I’ll second.
Steve Bukont: We have a second,you, all want to vote?
Carey Sienicki: I disapprove.
Steve Bukont: Okay, he meant a motion to approve. Are you making a motion to disapprove?
Carey Sienicki: I’m making a motion to disapprove.
Steve Bukont: Please make the motion.
Carey Sienicki: I move to disapprove, um, Item No. 4.
Denise Adams: There is a motion on the floor.
Carey Sienicki: I’m sorry we have to...
Robert Petersen: Mr. Chairman?
Denise Adams: You have a motion on the floor and you have to second that motion and than you have to vote that motion up or down and than you can either if you want to, amend the original motion or you can vote that motion up or down and start over.
Robert Petersen: Yeah. And I, Mr. Chairman, I unless there’s a second, the motion dies of course and I understand that.
Denise Adams: But you did second that (talking to Ms. Sienicki).
Carey Sienicki: I’m sorry. I thought we had to move to approve it and than vote as opposed to, I made a technical error, I’m sorry.
Steve Bukont: You want to just pole us on... You’re making a second, if you’re not going to vote, well I don’t know...
Shirley Damon: According to Roberts Rules of Order if there is not a second to the motion the motion dies and than a new motion may be made.
Denise Adams: Do you just want to withdraw your second...
Carey Sienicki: I’d like to withdraw my second. I’m Sorry.
Steve Bukont: Okay, go ahead and make a motion.
Shirley Damon: No, well you have to ... you have to ask if there is a second and declare that if, it, the motion dies.
Steve Bukont: Okay, is there a second? Seeing none then motion dies. Does anyone else wish to make a motion?
Carey Sienicki: To disapprove?
Steve Bukont: Yes.
Carey Sienicki: I move that we disapprove the request for a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the existing rotting hardboard siding with flat natural stone at 288 Windover Avenue, NW and docket # WHBR-05-05, in the RS-16 residential zoning district, filed by Greg Haight, owner.
Steve Bukont: Second?
Shirley Damon: Second.
Denise Adams: You need to call for the question.
Steve Bukont: Okay. Let’s have a vote.
Denise Adams: All those in favor?
Steve Bukont: Aye.
Carey Sienicki: Aye.
Shirley Damon: Aye. In favor of disapproval is what you are saying.
Denise Adams: Correct.
Shirley Damon: Opposed?
Steve Bukont: Opposed?
Robert Petersen: I’m opposed.
Steve Bukont: Further discussion? Motion to adjourn?
Carey Sienicki: I have a quick, in reviewing the property, um, the Knights of Columbus Hall, I noticed that probably, about a month ago, there was some painting done to the property next door to that in purple and green. And I, I feel like it doesn’t harmoniously go with the nature of the Windover Heights area. So, I was wondering if...
Shirley Damon: That procedures there ...
Carey Sienicki: The procedure to look into that, that seemingly inharmonious choice of decoration on the property.
Shirley Damon: Is that property in the historic district, do you know?
Carey Sienciki: I believe so. I believe at least my drawing that I had was, you know it was next to Post Office, so I, I believe that everything to the Post Office is within that boundary. Um, so...
Shirley Damon: We can refer that to staff.
Steve Bukont: I think that you have a specific complaint about a specific property address it to staff and than they’ll decide if they want that to come before us or how they will handle it.
Carey Sienicki: Okay.
Steve Bukont: Motion to adjourn?
Robert Petersen: Before we adjourn, I want to apologize to fellow Board members and to our initial applicant representing the Knights of Columbus hall, 214 Lawyers Road, NW. I was delayed in unbelievably terrible track problem on the metro in getting to Vienna tonight and I apologize for showing up late. In particular I had some questions about the sign but, I wasn’t here to ask them and I’m not going to try to put them on the record now.
Shirley Damon: Well, the sign has to go before BAR, so that’s not an issue; we clarified that, it’s not an issue for this Board, uh, decides.
Robert Petersen: Thank you.
Steve Bukont: Once again, motion to adjourn?
Shirley Damon: So moved.
Carey Sienicki: Second.
Steve Bukont: Adjourned.
It was moved to adjourn at 8:25 PM.
Motion: Damon
Second: Bukont
Carried: 4-0
Motion: Miller
Respectfully Submitted
Denise Rose Adams
Board Clerk