as you can expand first and nonconformity and i've looked at the court decisions in the past where there's a bit of a quest to either go up or do something that would make the not for me greater than it is now so it's my my estimation if they are to build on top of the non conforming structure to make it more non performing are already on the property right right as that was existing so the whole back of the house but the purpose to my mind of a step back here is that we have decided the structure should be a certain distance away from profit warnings and so my mind i don't understand why it would make any sense if any difference if it was a one story structure with ins encroaching on it a step back or a two story or three story when i hear increase the nonconformity when i hear move closer to the light so if i have a preexisting nonconformity that's five feet in a ten feet step back zone i can't go any closer to the property line but i don't understand why you couldn't build up with me because that was within the set back that didn't have a roof and i put in an application to put a roof just putting the roof on it make it work not conflict i think where where the where the court has set back and i'm not allowed to put a bed in there that's expand the use the purpose of a setback is to keep the structure away from the property line i don't really care what you're doing inside structure that i don't think the the purpose of a setback cares either that's not why we have setbacks it's not to keep you know it's to keep structures away from property lines it doesn't matter how big  unclear the structure is so if again i view this effect as a structural not a use so that like if this were an enclosed you wouldn't need if this were already enclosed you wouldn't need permission to change it from a bedroom into an arcade that's as much as that's a great idea so well actually you us their supreme court precedent and it just seems to me that it's a minimal change really has no impact on the neighbor that is bordering the property of the set back side and i mean we can talk about variance the application the appeal request a variance i suppose in the alternative if we disagree or if we agree with paul's decision that's more involved of an analysis my limitation would be to take the path of least resistance and just you know politely disagree with the reasoning that changing the youths it deck of bedroom they're all residential use this is residential see it's on for residential use i don't think of it is that in in terms of not conforming i actually don't think it use is a dimension that is at play but maybe i i'm comfortable with what you're proposing and i mean i think yes from an administrative point you have to deny it because that's specifically what the rules say in the rules that allows us in certain circumstances like this to you know use our best judgment and come up with our own opinion and if it's something we're comfortable with i think you know there's clearly a mechanism in here to grant waiver in this instance in my own opinion you're right the buildings are in there the the structure that you want to enclose is already there close to the property line i like i don't have a problem that's that's my opinion is it's how i would want to let the rest of you think and how we want to go forward to get to that application to increase the nonconformity of the structure because it doesn't bring it any closer to the set and we're not convinced that any other changes are relevant to the analysis  day appeal period because it made its way up to your level there's now thirty day period but i would say that what we would do is i would so i just want i want that clear on the table and i sort of agree with you on that but i guess what i wanted to understand though is what sort of the definition of the non conforming lives and that does it mean is it non conforming use in the case law between use and so issues that i deal with often for clients or how many rooms are sorry how many units does your property or how many unrelated people are living there live with it they can't bring it in force in action after fifteen years but if it's inside if it's a non conforming youth like you've been operating your property as a commercial arcade for fifteen years there's no statute of limitations because the city would have no way of knowing unless it parked in your house so you can and are standing at the porch is i mean it is outside that is covered so i'm just curious if this was just a deck would you feel differently no this is the reason it's non conforming isn't it big isn't because it's a porch it's because it's within a certain number of feet of the property physical structure that might look at  table of land use you know under uses you know it doesn't say it doesn't say porch or a bedroom it says you know single family dwelling or to family to well you know they're not they're not expanding it from a single family house into a duplex or that and breakfast or family child care home or group home th there was a large cap off the back of the house that was a lie and it was right on the property line and the other house was right there and someone came in see it was a twenty by twelve deck someone came in and put in another room in a roof right next to your think maybe you're right maybe with staff it really does it looks like it almost didn't follow the structure and maybe it would be i mean i don't know whether intellectually the offensiveness of it to the neighbors really matter and my administrative decision on the basis that this board disagrees with the zoning administrators reasoning that the application would increase the nonconformity of the structure and this board does not consider any of the changes in the proposal up to be in the even read the permit as he feels set then if he denies it it comes back to us and there's you know we don't have to say yes we're going to do in or no we're not going to looking at january eighteenth third thursday yes again