this is the time in the place for the meeting of the board of pills for the city of holland we are here to consider applications for variances and or special exceptions we are not empowered to rezone nor take any action that could be considered re g applications need to meet a number of crucial tests we're going to walk through the responses that you put on your application again tonight let's see what else do i normally  say you're welcome to stay while we deliberate you know if you don't elect to stay you know you can call city hall tomorrow morning after eight thirty i believe it is to find the results  i missed the part about you know we hear the applicant than the people and in favor than the people in opposition come to the microphone to say your piece when you do so please state your name and address for the record i rebuilding his home at twelve west twelfth street the building would be sixteen feet where the maximum height is twelve feet this building would be located in the historic district it is required to have the certificate of appropriateness and meet other conditions for the board to approve this request thirty nine dash one eighty five ok do we have somebody here to speak to th no ok do we have anybody here to speak in favor of this application do we have anybody here to speak in opposition to this they're not here it's also possible it might show up in the next ten fifteen minutes so perhaps a few decide to take the other one out of order i don't do that one if the applicant still not here for the toss treat one than to move t to the next meeting that would be appropriate process you also have the right to make a decision on it based on what's been submitted a will it's a little difficult sometimes to do that when you don't have to have been here to answer questions and i said a prove it based on what submitted or deny or denied based on what we have right right yeah ok all right so what's the procedure just call the other one just call the other one just call the other one all right sharon what do we got next summer again ninety seven east twenty third street seventeen point eight this has been postponed until tonight joshua banner is requesting special exception to build an excess rebuilding that has an accessory dwelling unit in it the board can improve the special exception for an accessory duelling unit if certain conditions exist thirty nine dash one eighty five eighty one and thirty nine eighty one eighty five g all right so i think the first thing i'm looking for here is a motion from the board to pull those off of the table motion to pull it off ok so i got a motion by then where in antwerp all in favor say aye aye and any opposed all right it's off the table now we noted in the study session that it looks like there may be some differences from from what was originally submitted to what we're considering now i would entertain some sort of a motion as to whether this is significantly different or largely the same is is what we've got with that right  i think we should have some notation on the record of of the the application night what we talked about is that the footprint is this the same or just a little smaller the height is the same location is the same as the original application and and i think mr tiley could confirm that he i think indicated that downstairs and with that information and i think you can entertain a motion as to whether this is substantially different or not ok and just for the public watching same location as slightly different from the original application i think was twenty by thirty and this one is twenty four by thirty ok so we're pretty pretty close the height is very close and except for the pictures of the so what not were added ok all right any discussion from the board or otherwise i'll be looking for emotion and emotion is just referring to this significant difference yeah yeah is this different enough to be significantly different or is a substantially the same anybody think we have evidence to show that it's substantially the same ok no objection so i'd be looking for someone to say a move th this is either the same or different and i can make a motion to show that this is this is the same or substantially the same ok i've got a motion by then during any support i'll support it since no one else will so we got a motion by vendor in support by q s do we need findings of fact no no you don't for something like this and also simple majority would prevail ok fair enough motion approved all right so do we have the applicant no so i had attempted to come up with the drawing back in december and not really understanding how ordinances work how these things what to look at ok thanks for your patience i'm on some preliminary drawing so my neighbors talked with dan on the day my application was due realized there was all these obstacles i didn't realize i was asking for variance i didn't understand how difficult that was this what we tabled this last time so i could step back and just do to discuss the best way around this what would the next step forward be that the city planner decided to take this to the planning commission to look at my drawings in detail and so i have attempted to match the drawings with the design of my house the pitch the roof is exactly the same the extensions in the front it's trying to instead of the previous drawing was was really modern and  decided that it was within the scope of what they thought was appropriate for the community for the neighborhood and so i'm not exactly sure what further other than i think we're in a particular part of the city where it's not yeah yeah the occupants of the eighty you will be occupying the space for periods of a month or more we don't have any official plans right now to the setting but yeah i won't be any more than what specified in your hands ok well that's the point here is this can't be an overnight thing here that if you have someone living up there that it's got to be for a month or more i understand ok all right the a to use been approved through the residential infill process  ok i think that was a sticky point yet last time around or two times ago you've submitted a cite plan showing the eighty you and designated parking spot you say ok the eighty you will be at least one hundred  twenty square feet but less than seven hundred twenty square feet straight ok you're going to connect it to city water and sewer you're going to meet all the setbacks required for your age is going to be at least five feet all right maximum height is less than twenty four feet because i see it's a two story here it's at twenty one point five and it's a believe twenty four is the medium height of the pitch of the roof so i want underneath that  i thought that was for that pulling the permit that we will have a sleeping arrangement and a bathroom and a kitchen you know at this point we just need to confirm all those will be in place at the point of construction ok all those will be in place ye s all right is this a do you in your opinion compatible and harmonious with your neighbors and the other properties and they were yes i have worked very hard to talk with my my two neighbors on either side they have some differences of opinion on this i have said we're not all going to agree on this so that's the reason why i decided to go ahead and try to mark the exact description of my my actual house ok so yes i do believe that if it's within if you want to find as we talked about this the planning commission meeting the neighborhood in terms of the five hundred square feet of my my property yes there are some like same buildings and then if you were think about the diversity and creativity throughout holland yes i do think it is appropriate ok any landscaping or screening or that that you're contemplating yes i am looking at some various types of privacy fence for separating the east side where the end of the drives steps to that staircase to the second floor and then as well as some fencing on that  landing at the top of the stairs as well as on the other side yes i'm going to be doing lots of landscaping once i'm healthy ok all right any questions from the board i have a  the front does that boy i was the space because yeah i i should have made that measurement since i spent three hundred dollars hiring a professional the first time around i decided to do this myself so i would say if that right now the original one that i brought he was twenty four by thirty this one is actually narrower so it's twenty by thirty so i'm going to guess it's just over thirty five feet between the back from what i can tell from there i'm sorry i don't have an exact number and the the the height of your house your existing house what is that i don't know i know it's taller by probably five or seven feet than this this is right now it's taller than this facility and ok ok thank you i'm sorry i'm not more well formed i never know what you're asking thank you i'd be hard pressed to tell you how tall my house thank you and the other questions from the board all right thank you sir anyone else to speak in favor of this application this project in the mass just appears to me to be too large and all the planning commission approved the sun june thirteenth but it seems such a rush to judgment comparing is a much more green scale when you stand in the yard and look where it is as opposed to the dry right right i believe most if not all the board has driven by the house diana extra ninety one hundred twenty third i just would like to voice an opinion as to the zoning board go strictly by height size lay of the land the infill board goes strictly by doesn't look like the rest of the houses who do the neighbors go to when they have concerns nobody really wants to listen to the concerns the emotional concerns of you know single women in the neighborhood that have you know their children they're living alone elderly couples and not just us even l d s elderly earth living in the community that are concerned with rentals and so forth is there  place where we can go to voice those opinions well our voice those concerns this is one of the boards where you bring it to and that's one of the things the we need to decide is is this proposed a t u compatible and harmonious with the character of nearby residentially developed properties and so there's a little bit of a challenge there in that eighty use are relatively new in the city and so we can go and say ok five of fifteen houses on the block have one and so of course it's harmonious well everyone is going to be a little unique until the city has a dozen or two scattered throughout it and i know you have several letters from neighbors from the previous board meeting right are those being considered for this board meeting as well because there are motion all and physical concerns in those letters stated by other neighbors i'd like to ask if you could if we could kind of sense this is but they will for a couple of months if we can go back over your concerns especially when you describe things as single women with children living in their i don't know the board understands maybe where you're coming from when you're when you're when you're saying that because there is no danger with the structure so obviously you're discussing something else correct whether banner discussed in his at that meeting for the infill that this probably four years down the road would be considered a rental well ok four years down from down the road we're going to be in our late but we built an addition on our home specifically so that my husband could stayed in a home that we've lived in for thirty seven years ok so the idea of having renters in and out our other so there's always a concern that there is stuff in our driveway when you come home from work this type of thing not that there is so much now but if there renters this might be a concern it's just a major concern with some of the neighbors that have had and i don't know that i would go as far as to say to put it delicately  sexual issue where she has had some issues in the past with people that have come to her door and so forth and i think that is a concern of hers that something like that might happen if there's somebody renting there it's just more of an emotional thing i think for people right now than the physical building itself ok other one else to speak in opposition to this topic banner would you like to come up and say any any other word serve thank you i think one of the most important ways to make our community safe is to be able to talk with our neighbors and i have attempted to speak directly with david i and diana and the other neighbor that they've mentioned have labored with them for months trying to respect them we've been in this house since two thousand and six my wife is a tenured faculty member her college i have been working in churches here and hope college campus ministry at her culture eight years we plan to be here for a long time mr reason why we're doing this we wanted to originally to have space for our grandparents my parents her parents to be able to come visit the ordinances didn't work out so that would make it possible to make it easy on the first floor we have no designs and making money off this facility at any time right now i know this is a large issue in the city right now in terms of short term rent rentals i didn't even stay for the extra part of the planning commission that followed me at the last one because i'm not i'm not concerned about that my issue is taking good care of my property and my family and having some space to live and what's hard for me is that i put a lot of money in the siting in this house they don't build houses like this anymore it's a wonderful one nine hundred twenty eight house and some people would put  vinyl siding on it and if they want to expand they'd just you know destroy the integrity of the building as it is i am trying to build something that i want to be proud of that my neighbors can be proud of and i've had many ninety people stop by and say what an amazing job we've done we've got over and above the craftsmanship of what we were doing with her house and i want to i want to do something that these folks can be proud of and we're safe people we  have a baby girl in a way we don't want anything but safety and and good communication so we believe we're good neighbors and i'm here to figure out how to do that with integrity  the house i've walked around in front i want to take this chance to congratulate you about the design of what you've already done with your house i think it's a beautiful improvements that you've made there have been quite remarkable the house stands out on the street as are very nicely designed a statically pleasing home and a neat i wanted to commend you about that my my concern with your project  and i'm also i mean i'm certainly the sport isn't opposed to use we're facing them all the time as they come through and the the one issue that i was wondering about when i looked at your proposal in your life is that the the amount of the amount of density the amount of mass seen on the lot seems to be quite large to be quite significant i would say and if i were a neighbor i was when i was looking at your proposal of course it's not built so it was hard for me to totally envision that but a big two story structure in a relatively small space in the back gave me some concern and i was wondering whether if your design is compatible and harmonious with the character of the surrounding neighborhood especially the neighbors themselves the ones that are going to be living next to you the fact that you move the ada you upstairs as opposed to downstairs gave me some concern that there's always the privacy issue people looking down on others none of these individually by themselves would constitute to me a negative finding but taken together i have concerns about the harmonious harmony and compatibility with the structure when you view the entire lot see how how much space this building takes up in addition to your home on a lot that your neighbors certainly don't have anything like that on their lot and it may be maybe kind of imposing to them and so  that's my only concern that i have about your  dan do we have any requirements in the city of what what proportion of your your backyard or that you can build or so guidelines as to  dwelling really the thing that the city of holland has right now that really restrict successor buildings is the height requirements the criteria that we're looking at this is the eighty you compatible harmonious with the character rev nearby residentially develop properties and so it's very subjective well i understand that so i'm trying the the one third is for the actual accessory dwelling unit not the size of the garage the second floor or that's correct with the dimensions are right there on the screen yeah so the footprint here is looking to be about eleven hundred square feet right so that puts a set the maximum of seven hundred square feet or one third of the size actual right the the one third is for the eighty you which is the accessory dwelling unit so that is everything within the the realm of the second floor is the rear deck could be considered part of the aid you if would if you think it if you would interpret that but it could also be a portion for of the the owners accessory use of the space so we we could have a eight jack on the top of the garage in the city with no issues correct that's not going to be the footprint that would be the other that's correct and that is another thing to look at when you're talking about massing when they came up the rules for the accessory do well in units the one third of the footprint rather than one then one third of the total square footage was was determined based on what does it really feel like in comparison the structure to two structures together really showing that one is accessory to a principle use and i think that's where the maximum seven hundred square feet and the one third came from now other things will also come into place the side that the height of both structures could could come in place and that in regard to that that's not addressed by that one third  well the tough part for me is trying to imagine that structure that they're trying to actually be in there and the size of it is not insignificant i don't know that i'm wholly  understanding what you were saying about the dac being a part of it because i'm the one hand it's minus ten you put it back on top of the grass and the other hand he said it could be part of the eighty you yeah your interpretation of th that's part of the principles the principle owners space  it could be joint space it really doesn't take up any it doesn't create any any feeling of density because that because there are no there's no rough structure of the top i don't believe there's any wall structures it does appear to have a fence well yeah privacy fence yeah so as you can see from that drawing it appears that the the door for eager rest would directly come out onto the deck something to consider though is if we were to determine the footprint of the principal dwelling probably wouldn't include the the square footage of a rear deck or front back around like that as well right so we've got this foot we think it's not part of that equation then a fruitless exercise except for the compatibility issue if you i'm you know i'm thinking about compatibility that visual aspect compatibility it's not just measured square feet it's not just it's actually how a human being senses the space and whether it's a large or too large or perfect or whatever i mean there's a very difficult matter there that's subjective about how human beings perceive space and i think that's why this language is so loosely goosey also it allows people some room to imagine that and that's that's my concern is the visual perception of the space on that lot and how the neighbors will see it that's where i'm coming from but what about the window placement next to neighbor not only was that highlighted as a concern but shows as a potential suggestion as well well we look at  is a rather large window looking out in your backyard ok we've got a couple windows on the front of this thing looking down your driveway it looks like we've got two daylight windows that no one will be able to see out of or into rather high up adjoining your neighbor so right right now we're looking from a tree in the neighbor's yard that joins the driveway into the structure and also appears that the fencing up on the on the second level screen that portion both windows and porch from adjacent neighbors and is open with guard rail system to the principal to launch property correct so as far as window placement like i think it's pretty good yeah certainly that's you know you're in the a v eighty you there and you're going to have a wonderful view of your own house at this point i kind of feel like that because we don't have a footprint of the house and i don't have clarity and if they do use really one third of the footprint of the principal structure i don't know that i feel comfortable  so dan from the from the city website can we pull up the footprint of the house we don't really know what the footprint of this is what i mean we don't know the footprint of this because obviously we're not coming well the building is six hundred square  garages six hundred square feet the eighty new the second floor of the garage is by this drawing what twenty two b twenty yeah twenty and change twenty two and change and we were coming down to be less than four hundred  right me i think because we do have a specific requirement or a specific allowance or permission to go to a certain size which would be the one third or seven hundred whatevers the lowest i think it it would be within the boards right to just to prove a dimension or a square footage an area based on that having to get the exact layout i don't think is necessary because he's already limited to one third we can make those calculations before building permits issue through it in philly you for their actual structure that's correct but you can see what that structure and the rough system there you know lose a lot of square footage first for arizona lower than that and you can it can be framed internally to the point that it is only one third i mean that's his maximum he cannot submit anything that is more than one third and a technical standpoint absolutely i agree the problem is the technical standpoint is one of the elements that were used and i'm using to make subjective decision so but we're we're talking here about moving a wall six or yes well if if we look here at the let's look at page two of seven he he's saying that the from the very front of the overhang to the very back of of the the eighty you is just shy of seventeen feet with a different drawing show this twenty twenty two the other drawing a garage there's no that's the second level where you're looking which page more seven page four of seven is showing what now the twenty two feet and roof here you can see how this works i was just meeting with my contractor yesterday and this is part of the difficulty as a layperson not knowing how this works and trying to work within the  even so oh i thought i was trying to do here is to give you an idea of the overall gist of this is really like based on my house and i'm happy did change this  well and and and and and like alan was saying earlier i don't know that what has been approved the infill that you see right now is going to change much in regards to what square footage the interior of the unit is so i think if we were looking at something that was going to school could substantially change the appearance of the exterior and the density and the size and just the feel of the whole thing i would totally agree with you well i guess big eighty user kind of cases of first impression still  where your thoughts are so wrong with an a t v like this they'd be part of the deal is they have to submit to the county register deeds of the restriction saying that one of the units will always be owner occupied correct correct insane terms of is it footprint or is it a square foot footprint of the first floor as to the question earlier about rental if the main dwelling was occupied by the owner could a t u be granted the the ordinance indicates that that the  the deed under which the property was acquired stating the following the use permit shall be in effect only so long as the main residence or the a t u is accurate as a principal residence of the owner so the owner has to live on site has to be their principal residence ok so they couldn't read the entire property they've they've got to either live in the a to you and read the house or they live in the house and read the presidential use goes yeah that that would that would be true they would they would lose your special exception which means they couldn't use eighty us and e u they could still use it as a game room or whatever but true they couldn't have anyone live up there correct  would be just the eighty you portion ok which is it's a little bit odd when it's on the second floor because at least the dictionary definition of print of a structure is the surface area  and so when we look then at the question does the eighty eighty you have a third of the footprint of the structure or principal structure less we would ultimately need or before the building permits are issued a determination of what those two numbers are right and if there's going back to it if there's a remote idea that we consider the know and i'm asking for clarification on that that's just what i want all right so i'm hearing three or four people on the board so we got a number of questions remaining open tonight on this  question number one is what is the footprint of the main structure number three would be what is the layout of the eighty you floor plan all right before we send this gentleman off for the third time chasing this information down let's say the footprint is less than a third of  structure and it's an appropriate layout and all that kind of fun stuff we're going to say no anyway if we're going to say no anyway i did we say no now i would like a little more resolute conviction on whether or not that the fence area the deck area should be considered part of the footprint ok so let's  dan in buildings today if you've got an extra in a staircase is that part of your square footage calculations not per your footprint calculations no deck balcony would have you would not be part of the eighty you use those same interpretations steers apart from the deck itself either live in the next is never wrote let's look at it this way let's say that the forget about the garage all the stuff on the main floor and they do a twenty by twenty eight year that's four hundred square feet if they put a little ten by ten back at grade or a foot above grade meeting all those setbacks but i'm still i would think you would should be one of the way to also look at is if you were if you were out to go buy a house in a sort of a seven hundred square feet and you went to the house do you think that the decks that would be included person if someone's in the eighty you had a nice night like tonight there's a couple of chairs and some plants and over there we get out so i hang on a second i'm trying to understand so i've got this this structure then let's say it's exactly this by your definition if the door opens onto the flat roof of the garage that area is included in the a you if the door opens onto an external staircase it's not including only and everything to make it space and if it if the if the the door opens onto the staircase it's not part of the e u and doesn't i agree just to clarify something that dan brought up earlier he did say my rock band you can hear me actually that if it was approved you would grant a building permit if it exceeded one third anyway correct he'd have to submit plans you have to review them you would know what the foundation size of the house was and you would not approve even if we've already said yes you still give a building permit because it was over a third grade because a lot of the stuff we're relying on his house that this is all stuff that we asked them and they answer us in a lot of cases we don't verify one hundred percent of the stuff that they answer us if we have suspicion that it's not true or it just doesn't sound right then we would  verify but in this case a lot of the times what they tell us when i'm talking is down to building permits and things along those lines where we actually have dimensions right in front of us and i think you have to get back to it and said this is not an he is one third or less so why don't we improve all applications contingent upon all the factors we essentially we do because we give the guy and correct me if i'm wrong here run we give the guy you know here you put your plan on a piece of paper and that i'm sure ninety five percent of the plans the get submitted to to dan vary in some degree from from what submitted to us but they don't vary materially and dan checks the numbers to make sure that they fit then in your numbers are you considering the that part of the footprint for you not because what you're saying is we're ceding that material question to dan and not to the board and i believe it lies with us ok so what's let's step back here ron  has there been a determination on whether a something honest and a you garden space or whatever is part of the eighty you are not yet i don't recall there ever be and i determinations i think that would be a city if you don't for truth more than x amount or you're more than this for this so high off the ground it doesn't count anyway i'm thinking  an improvement ok fine we have no set back issues here not the only issue is eighty you but i would i would argue if i may that the reason why this is an important issue goes back to the compatibility argument that i'm trying to make and that is if visual pres of the structure on that lot from the perspective of the adjacent neighbors what you're really arguing here is that you're trying to find a way that that narrows the and the impact visual impact of this building whether you have to include another hundred square feet or not gives you a technical way to say yes or no to it i still think that this is incompatible with the with the neighborhood because because it's just takes up too much room it's large from the perspective of the neighbors it's out of sync with what's going on in that need in on that street and close by that house and that's that's where i'm going to hang my hat it's not on the technical part of  the cause i think while this is only one criteria i think it's one of the most important criteria that we're looking at just like mr mrs hoekstra said this is a big deal this is a place where neighbors get to to raise their concerns about jason property and that's why i'm well in some respects so it's inseparable because if you do consider that a part of it in order to maintain this it has to shrink yes well what you're also saying there is though is as soon as you say that landing in all that is part of the neighborhood if that were just a slow pitch rope back there than this great wall in this place where people would think there's a huge then i think you've got to probably table this and let the applicant come back with a new plan right because your party is made up and if the deck is not part of the footprint then if that's the conclusion of the motion that then you can go forward you had some questions there are things that are on answered in detail that might need to be answered but at least you have the that's what the footprint is better define that motion and i think i would like to for clarification purposes to when you make that decision to to clarify what is considered part of the footprint and what is not considered for a part of the footprint because we also have to let's say for example consider this deck then we have to also consider any debt that's on the principal dwelling for its footprint so we can't just consider it because they do you has a deck that we count that we don't count it out on the existing structure and it is a dac is it a day is it is a flat work you know i've i mean flat work i mean i'm talking about like a patio because a patio that person can go out and use as well you guys use some of those things where they can go out there and hang out whatever that you started i'm starting to stretch a little bit for a reason but it's perfectly reasonable no i mean if you use an argument that hey they can use it to hang out there i so i would say that any building or structure to be used by the actions of the you should be included in the footprint building or structure that's be used by the principal occupants principal structure should be  k before we go too far with that one based on that definition if the occupant of the eighty you uses one stall the garage for their car that would have to be included and we're dance dance point there is alright i've got a first floor radio and and it's designated parking spot is one of the two stalls in the garage what you've just said now is that stall in the garage counts towards the eighty you footprint and the square footage so now you've got a maximum of seven hundred twenty square foot for an eighty you and you just took what's a parking spot three hundred twenty feet off of that or in addition to that if they did not if you had the same thing a single star eighty you are single story you and a principal dwelling owners two or three star garage now that would be included in their principal dwelling calculation and not in the aid use you know you could speculate and all kinds of different layouts that are before you but i think that the real role and zoning board in interpreting it annoyed at this application is to focus on what is proposed here because you know you could come up with a mid million different configurations and it's really not appropriate to try to interpret those unless you have the real facts before you you know one of the things i was at trial the other day and i criticized the court of appeals court for it for making broad statements that didn't apply to the specific case and didn't work so you know one of the things that you have to be careful of just as you may be in to general in your interpretations because every application has its own details and so the interpretation really should be limited to these facts should this deck with the wall around it which is or should it not be should will will pertain to every single what i think i think you have to look at it back it wouldn't be included in our but i think there's a point of clarification because the when you said to perhaps entertain a motion on whether or not the deck is included i was thinking of a broad brush that where making this determination in this is going to be standard going forward but what i'm hearing you now is can we make that interpretation as isolated in a container you the wealth container and we can take it  case basis direct right and so the board needs to follow established precedence of any one more state i just notice that the actual section says structure which includes buildings structure and my consideration about being too narrow with this term potations based on exactly what's in front of us when counseling people to either come to the board or not to the board giving them all the information based on situations that have happened or what not if we started taking things and then excluding them to make it to a point where i have to look at somebody and say sorry all you've got left that you subtract all these things is a ten by ten room to fit to fit your  decisions that are made are more there are some general almost precedent setting situations when you start talking about general areas that people are using and right that this is not in character with the neighborhood i would much rather say this is not and character with the neighborhood and these are the reasons we feel it is not well but that we also say it's not in accordance with this other arguments about had billy have been the size of the building so we make the assumption that the the eighty you is approximately one third the footprint of the principal structure or four hundred feet which is what the applicant has has stated dan is going to verify that it is after less than whatever we have proof which is what we've done and every other there now based on the drawing that was submitted in the earlier application it looks like it's between eight hundred six and eight hundred sixty square feet for the footprint of the principal dwelling as we were originally determining i will entertain a motion to send the it back and get a detail footprint of the principal structure part of part of the frustration i feel on your end to you know is unfortunately you're among the first if you're doing this five years from now i think we have all figured it out i've got a question for the board is an aide to you on the second floor of a garage that is a third of the footprint of the simple structure and meeting the area requirements in character with this neighborhood yes or no is an eighty you that meets all these requirements in character with  it was the size that made it inconsistent is the size in relationship to the lot and in relationship to the last size and placement of the houses and the adjacent properties is the nation ship of all of those place pieces together scales not insignificant here in the scale is not insignificant and and the and the criteria is a subjective criteria of perceptual size i mean ok can't you can't measure it and just decide all that unless you have other other criteria to use but if it's all of those things compatibility comes as much from the neighbors looking out the window as it is from our objective standards looking on the ground of this particular thing and whether it's the third or not compatibility is about other factors ok and so i in this particular situation with these lot sizes in the last size of the neighbors the placement of the other houses i say no it's not compatible ok if it were smaller it's hard to it's hard to imagine something on that lot size that would work an and b be something to keep those from somebody up for something to keep into consideration is like it we talked about earlier it's the size of an accessory building we're talking about square footage or footprint is not limited in the city someone could fill that entire backyard with building and all the arguments you just made you'd be asking why did we waste our time with the the excess redo all the way to unit when they can they can petition the city for a special exception for high if in this particular case i think twelve he puts that on top of a nine foot wall and you get the exact same building yeah but you don't have people which is probably the most important thing that's the question that's one thing that you guys haven't really talked about you talk about massing in size and all these other stuff  a lot of this argument is that this can be people living in the backyard which is why this read this or this was written in the first place eric was a part of writing it to let people to live and sleep in and abide in the backyard and compatible with this this property if the answer amongst the board is no let's not waste this gentleman's time but that's the thing you have to understand what what you're doing what you're using as reasons for denial when he can come in tomorrow and build an accessor doing it twice the size you have a dan you're you're making us accountable for all of the rules of the city when in fact and you're saying that all the rules have to be consistent with each other and we know that they're not we're looking at this particular lot today and this particular developed proposal and and we're trying to make a decision about it irrespective of whether it's consistent with what other people can do in different places and and situations within the city i think that's just too hard well it when you talk about other places in the city of the neighbor if the neighbors came in and wanted to build the building of the bridge reasonably the same size without an  said the roof pitch is the biggest thing that it brings you to a higher height than twelve feet it's domo square footage they can do that already without any approvals so i might say and look at other parts of the city look at that i'm talking about their next door neighbors well you know we were looking at another case tonight where we re in asked to judge the height of exhilarate building on a lot and we looked at least i looked at the size of a lot the space seen on the lot the neighbor's lots how close people are to all those all those factors come into play for us to make a reasonable decision and that's how we work oh absolutely and i understand the difficulty in making this determination but i also would like a little of the specificity when it comes to what is where is this this is too big for the lot are we talking the footprint of this building or we talk at the height of this building what are exactly are we talking about well there is a criteria that says is the eighty you compatible and harmonious with the character the character we're not talking a something that's easily defined absolutely so it's to me it's not compatible and it's a combination of those factors but i can't tell you with a one third height and one third that it's occupied by people and one third that is takes up too much space and one third that it's too close to the neighbors houses i'm not like that i they gave me this as an option and i feel like it's incompatible and what you know we say it's not what is it you don't think we all do i think present think so we're a lot of different opinions and yet on my senses you think it is compatible i'm i'm trying to get a fuel for where we go forward from here it's you know we've we've got a number of dimensional questions and all that for for the applicant i am strong nearly reluctant to send send the guy away ok apart from the size apart from the size i think it's beautiful ok chuck i think i'm having a little bit of difficulty with the size of the completed building i ncluding the garage underneath because yes with that the mass is pretty substantial he's clearly tried to consider the neighbors he's trying to make it look within this style on the other residences so i guess my my issue is if we included the deck there's no way this thing looks the same in compliance and so we're looking at a completely different structure but not necessarily so footage without the dac i absolutely think it looks different with a picture of the roof so where we're at then is you know my my concern on this you know and one of the questions in the back of my mind is alright i've got a downtown city  decide to do it exactly but but that's a way that organs was designed and that's why these numbers are very very small yes they are and so i want to understand you know it sounds like the board is coming down on the side i'm going to say i can't say yes if we took the assessor's number that chuck had mentioned and we had what we have here even without the court still ok so what i'm hearing from the board run finish so the board needs to make a decision and you know i can't think of any situation where you've made interpretations about things that are before you in one way or another so so what you really need to interpret here is whether a dac under the as shown here it appears to be a deck that's a roof over the garage that that that is is your sole area with a fence around it is is that part of the footprint of the eighty you are not you're not me whether a cement patio was is is part of the you you're not determining whether a spot in another garage somewhere on the property is part of the you you just determine whether this would be part of the eighty you and that answers the applicant's question  d terms of figuring out how to design this and come up with the size because if you can't determine that he does adult so and that's that right porton factor to so i'm looking for a motion on whether or not the second floor patio is part of an eighty you footprint well that's contrary to what ron just said we need to make a decision iraq has this is if someone comes in with a patio off the eighty year you'll make a determination at that time whether that patio and it in patio can vary a lot that's why it's tough to make a generalized statement you make a decision of what's before you that it is very a permanent location on the ground and has constructed but only or set back you have to apply structures and understand i think it maybe it wasn't that closely interpreted or interpreted that specific way right so dan you had said earlier something about if the wall is less than eight foot and it doesn't have a roof yeah normally that and that definition was based on when we talked about attaching or not attaching garages considered attached ok all right the i don't know what you want to call it the patio bell in the deck whatever cross or structure on the back of the garage part of the areas of the first floor accessory structure that doesn't work here help me out build or build a person here we need to define the footprint of maybe you and i i would say the footprint of the eighty you is only that structure which encloses these are footage of the eighty's when we could look for the definition of excess or dwelling so paragraph two they're all structures designed and used as a temporary or permanent dwelling so consider well for clarification i'd like to make a motion that to reinforce what appears to already be the definition that this that is a structure and so therefore all structures including  sub to yeah ok so we've got a motion a second and a second run do we have what we need all right sharon please don't include the actual garage with the way the motion was worded though i think if the fence was i'm not sure how wide it is the fenced in area here but if it was brought back five feet the five feet outside the fence i don't know the way so what direction do we give this poor gentleman here i don't know about direction but i can say a couple of things for me personally nothing that you have done gives me the impression that you're trying to be a bad neighbor and apart from the size i think you've worked  city and frankly i think this i'm not so much about the other one but this one is beautiful and there's nothing about your situation that gives me pause or that there shouldn't be in to you but but i do strongly believe that we cannot underestimate the requirements and the character of the neighborhood the density that the size and the mass that this would accrue is having an impact because if this were replicated across that neighborhood and every other neighborhood it would be an issue and so therefore apart from someone expressing otherwise i have to assume that the one third the footprint was designed to keep this very issue in check in order to keep harmonious compatibility with the existing existing city layout and i guess that's that's it and you can see we're wrestling with it so i don't know if i have any guidance other than so that's how i feel about the situation what is the pleasure of the board here to do we pull up  the application is years and vote on it on its merits or do we my inclination would be to table it but i i don't know what direction we're given this this gentleman to come back to us my i think we do table it because there's a number of different questions that were remain unanswered we're not here to design and build the peace years so responsibly bring an application of fair fair enough so i would entertain a motion yes right ok so you see you've got a few different options one i was so it would seem with the discussion that you can't figure out the footprint yet because you don't have enough information the other is strongly looks like the footprint to interpret it is going to be too big for the ordinance requirements which would lead to a denial as eric mentioned the other option is that you could table that and asked the applicant to come back with a revised plan if he desires that would have the specifics about this one third footprint rick my my purpose would be to do that so that we save this this gentleman the forty five dollars filing fee or whatever for that's the and that's what we're looking at really is the forty five bucks because it would be  fifty of be the substantially different anyway i don't think i'd be substantially different is going to be smaller ok if you i mean if he if he designs it differently you know if you went from maybe this design to the box design you had to table those i'd like to make a motion to table this to the next meeting taking into consideration the specific changes we've outlined here that would be required to meet the or i've got a motion by of in durham is there any support all right support by hughes the first one and that one i obviously they're not here so i'm so you know perhaps a motion to take over that would be appropriate or you could act on it too i mean either way but usually you table it to the applicants can come i think we've approved of if so is amongst discussion on the board does anyone have any qualms on this i mean i don't based on the perspective that the historic district review the compatibility through a focused lines and that kind that no neighbors have come forward to give comments about being opposed to it so you know we've got the appropriateness it's going to meet codes the only question the impact on neighboring properties it's been approved for appropriateness i would entertain can i get findings of fact please the there has been a certificate of appropriateness been issued by the holland historic district commission the building of fire safety and other local codes are met and the project has a positive or no negative impact on the adjoining and neighboring properties anybody bother to read the meeting minutes yes i would entertain a motion i move that we approve the meeting minutes of may twenty five two thousand and seventeen motion by twenty seven ok fair enough unless there is major contention i would entertain a motion to adjourn we could probably talk more could me i'm sure we could just go through definitions starting with