we're all here so this is the time in the place of the meeting of the board of the peals of the city of holland we are here to consider applications for variances and worse special exceptions must be noted that th board is not empowered to rezone nor take any action that can be considered resulting applicants that are here tonight we're going to walk through each application there's a number of points that each application needs to make in order to be granted you should have already done you know made responses to those and in your application but we're going to go ahead and walk through them  again we asked that when you come to the microphone you state your name and address for the record before you start talking we do ask that you come to the microphone to talk so that people at home can hear what you've got to say  we hear from the applicant first followed by a one in support of the application than anybody in opposition that's probably all the rules that are germane tonight protect four feet into the required setback where a three foot project in a projection is allowed thirty nine dash one nine hundred seventy four in thirty nine days to twenty three c all right do we have someone here to one brian martin egg five seventy nine crescent dr this is my wife rachel howdy hi so talk to us what are we trying to do here so we have we had submitted plans to the city  for our construction and that included a four foot on ing which which was actually approved initially and i know that some of the building plans that are submitted there's a little kaviak know when those plans come come back to the it says the city may have overlooked something but in any case the initial plans with a four foot on were approved we built that awning and really the reason we built that awning was  the narrowest the narrowness of our lot it's a forty foot lot with and the max width of the house is twenty five feet within the setback so we've got a twenty five foot with the home so that made us put the front door on the side of the house so with the front door on the side of the house really what we wanted to do is have a space to keep weather off of visitors as they enter the house they're going to have to go up a few stairs so you can see from the picture there the there will be a couple of steps that actually go up to the front door and we want to just maintain a safe space for people to be able to enter the the house actually initially submitted plans with it had more of a porch and and we needed to revise those per the city's guidelines so this was actually our second attempt again that was approved and i think after the construction process the inspectors identified that hey this is actually a little bit too big for the city codes ok so how much are we talking about here we're talking about a full full foot or six inches or one foot in one one foot right at one foot ok i was hoping the house was shifted over just a little bit that to find one way or the other on here so the first one i think you may have touched on what's unique about the physical conditions of your property it would drive the need for a help us understand how the need for the variance is not self created well as as i mentioned before we thought we were within the city regulation the house but again we on the revision we thought we were within the city guidelines or right what's unreasonably burdensome about a three foot on in there you know the question here is strict adherence and why is that unreasonably burn of them or prevent the owner from using the property so i think the main thing would be the safety aspect and since you're going to be coming up stairs you can see that we've got a roof line that would be potentially exposing that sidewalk to the elements rain ice in the winter so what we're trying to avoid is you know a surface there that you know could be potentially dangerous for visitors closely with the neighbors on both sides i let them both know that we were we did file for a variance and that that this meeting was coming i let him know that the size of the awning what the city said and communicated to both neighbors understand everybody within three hundred feet right well and one of the guys next door you want one neighbor actually is in florida we'll have to will have to rebuild the awning that's already there so that you know there will be some expense on us i spoke with the builder today he said that would probably be about a you know six hundred two thousand dollars expense on revising that from the way it currently is is the is the walkway that goes up to that top level is it what's the with of that and what's the planned with of that so there's going to be a sidewalk and we're we're finalizing that but at the top underneath the doors will be a three by three foot pad three by three foot period with a with a foot overhang from one foot overhang how many steps from the side i believe it's three steps ok so the sidewalk is three feet the walkway up to that top so there will be a believe a three foot sidewalk and then as the steps go up the the actual pad be you look at my phone i can tell you i've got a note here we had somebody looking at it today the sidewalks coming from the side sidewalks coming from the side on the sidewalk right  total of a seven and a half feet to the actual property line so we don't have a great deal of space in between the property line and and the house so it's all pretty tight because it makes sense for something where you live incorrectly ye will close the public hearing and a discussion amongst the board just speaking to other board members i am i always find these kind of situations to be so difficult because while the requests seem so reasonable that you would almost always want to do it but on the other hand whatever we do up here sets a precedent that another house will show up somewhere else and will be aware of what of the exception that we made in this case and was always very hard we have to extremely careful in giving the reasons why we would make an allowance for this it has to be according to what the law says and so it's very it is difficult both both sides of this are very difficult things to decide one thing i'd like to point out to the board is that it looked at the the house decided on a lot seven have feet on each side and it really doesn't make a difference if they would have moved it to one side or the other your awning still would have been three feet so it appears that the i mean they're within one foot of the minimum with a house at twenty five feet so obviously as we've discussed before having a front entrance was very difficult this design  make a motion to prove spork ok i've got a motion from the guard support from livvy and he gives us some findings of fact you know the findings of fact it basically boils down to the uniqueness of the lot being that it's so skinny you forty feet wide i think they jammed about as much as they can into this particular lot i realize you know that it could be someone setting a precedent but i think all those other applicants that are going to come back are going to be judged on you because of their specific i don't think it's it's setting a precedent would that we would be regretful know maybe some can help you with the russian help you know when you're out there i don't consider that self created need because of the requirement of the minimum home size the dimensions that are required keep rolling well that's that question right there ok right and then as far as the strict adherence would be burdensome they're looking at a safety factor here trying to cover that walk the stairs the next if it is at the minimum necessary  so we've got what we need ok sure ok then during yes no hughes yes libby yes avenue eighteen point zero seven c garland monger representing kevin and jennifer well is requesting especially exception and or even variance to construction in addition to construct in addition to the house at four fifty five college edition would be along in within the existing house side yard setback which is three feet from the north property line the required side yard setback in the r t r in zone district is five feet thirty nine to eighty five c thirty nine days for all five c all right do we have someone here to speak to this one my name is garland monger i live that tool five west twenty second street in holland and i am the contractor and this is cover was hice your property are all right so what are we trying to do here we are trying and we'll turn that thing the other way if we can or maybe there we go this is a scene of the existing law which is also very narrow a lot is forty two feet wide and there is an existing garage that you can see now is in the same plane the north plain as the house which is three feet from the property line the numbers are three point five three point six and so forth three point two and three point one that's the proper line so we already have an existing structure what we would like to do is we want to we would like to attach this structure to the house and create the attachment along and within the existing property line north property line of the house and that a middle portion there that was just highlighted that would be the attachment and ok so we've got a couple of different questions for you sure the addition is to be a long or within the existing set backs the existing set back that is there now yes that's correct yes ok the use of building going to be conforming if it's you're going to don't see any simply because the garage isn't moving and it's it's it's there and we're simply attaching it to the home  board are you are planning to tear down this garage and build another way in its place our desire at this point is because  the slab of the garage is not sufficient to support the attachment we're going to have to put foundation under it so we're going to leave the garage and just put a foundation under right so the setback on the north side of the house is as i as i see this joint is three feet that's correct three approximately three feet that's correct the required setback is five feet that's correct we have a five foot setback now on the east side of the garage which is compliant and those were just circled and so yes the exist the setback would be five  feet if we were building a new structure but again we're we're leaving the structure and just applying for that along within the existing northern back so the second floor then would also be within three feet that's correct do you have any options i mean could you well i think what i think what i read in what you wrote is that you said that if you find that concrete slab is insufficient the right you might replace the whole garage well that would be a last resort our our first direction would be to create a foundation under the garage which just stays put so that we can utilize what's there just take off the roof and then continue or build and not incur more expense to the property owner than is necessary  all right thank you ok that's it yeah that's it anyone else to speak in favor anyone speaking up position go ahead and close the public hearing that would split or the board i have a question before anybody makes a motion if if we were to approve this existing slab being made into a garage and house and they were to find that they had to tear down the garage would it be would it be appropriate for this board to put a condition on that situation where that they did have to remove the entire garage that the one that goes up would be conforming to the five six and three point five feet the existing garage is three point two and three point one but the way the ordinance reads is along with then this set back of existing buildings and it doesn't say principal buildings accessory buildings whatnot at this particular point that building is an existing building on the site so that actually creates the along with them that they would be creating so you could make the condition if you use existing grudge that  know that that's ok but they're also asking that if they were to replace it they're kind of put two options out there i don't know what the what exactly what the differences but if you're saying we're going to put the condition that if they have to remove the building then they have to put it in conformance at five feet i think that you could make that decision you could split this into since they they have both options out there if we don't make that s usually when you make these approvals it goes with what's there you create a essential line in the sand and that's what they would have to follow if you say we're doing along with in the the exist the closest building in this case the garage not the tear that down you could put the condition that if it is torn down that they be they are approved for along with in the remainder building which would be the principal building which is three point six ok so we were actually looking at along with in the garage  yeah i'm just doing the math here you know they're they're going to need to be sixteen feet off of the south property line here and so they're going to have if we if we pull  back to the angle that the house is at they're going to have issues with depth of garage and that kind of stuff so we the will be along or within the existing set back the use of the building is conforming i don't see that the encroachment will harm the neighborhood it appears to be in character and i haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that it will have a negative impact ok so before we go can i ask clarification so what does it mean now if the garage stays it's along with in the garage because you know close to the line if the garage goes away and they rebuild it the plane closest to the property line when when we grant this thing so right now whatever's closest they can go and we'll start with ok right there's a there's a history of approving along with ins where the motion to table those to the to the next meeting at the table approval of the minutes is that we're looking for does everybody have a copy table for the next going to the next meeting does everybody have a copy of all of the make sure you get a chance to understand it and be ready with questions or be ready to approve at the next meeting we don't need to approve it we can discuss it but if we're all happy with the changes or if you have any suggestions please feel free feel free to send them our way before the meeting and we will make sure to get it out to you these are proposed ok i had sent trisha some comments i have attended a training session for zoning board members which led me into looking at several other things including there is a michigan municipal board model zoning rules and regulations that i have a look at and then there were the instructions that we were given at this training also and it struck me that our own rules and regulations first of all i found them to be a little bit difficult to understand as a new board member when i first came on and looking at some of the things that were written and these other documents that i reviewed i thought there was an opportunity to expand a little bit about some of the purposes of our board some of the by splitting out the types of things that we did in other words we can interpret  can prove appeals or we can consider appeals we can consider use variances in these other documents they split them up and explain them a little bit further and what what the rules were for board members and how they would handle those types of questions and i thought that our rules and regulations might be enhanced by expand that not a lot of expansion but simply a little bit more with an eye toward the public understanding what our roles were as well as new board members understand what our roles were also so i had already sent that material on to tricia just to just basically to ask for that question ok i thought i believe that should be in our office and we can gooden take a look through those and see if we can find some suggestions for the next meeting ok i had a question about the the the way that we would be removed from the board i think that it says that if we have filed for an excused absences from the board there is no mention of over what time period so i was thinking that if that might be per term for appointment term if it's good for one term then it should be renewed on a second term i don't know i'm not just raising here quite adept at that particular portion of the i guess the proposal is being reviewed by the attorney right now and more than likely will be changed oh i don't put a lot of stock in that quite yet will bring we bring something back to your we will provide you with some information ok so i think we will have a study session on it next meeting and then possibly approve it ok approach something out of that there i noted that there was an expansion of the conflict of interest section in these rules and an explanation for what would constitute a conflict of interest and when i looked at the conflict of interest clauses in these other documents they the first one that's mentioned here is a conflict a member should have a conflict of interest when the first one says a relative or other family member is involved in any request for which the board is asked to make a decision the other documents say a relative or a close business associate included the category of a close business associate and i think that's appropriate also so i would have raised that ok addition ok we will take a look at that and that's all that's most of my comments i did have one if you would mind article five section five three letter under those rules it gives us the ability to listen to the applicant anyone for and against and then make a decision not immediately but after i think there's a common here about removing that and putting in the rules that we need to decide immediately and that puts the board to the disadvantage if it's a specifically contentious item with a lot of public comment you might have to make a decision under somewhat of darius where this gives us the option to say hold on we will rule but not necessarily in this moment my personal opinion ok when the board has the ability to table it to the next meeting if they believe it will be in the best interest i will have to take a look at having options on that because at this point we're operating under slightly different policy than what's in there and so i guess we either had to put options in there or we had to modify it to be in a different direction than than what we're doing  i guess i want to be consistent i want to make sure that it's fair to the applicants and i think the way we're doing it right now is fair where someone can kind of get their answer right away especially if there's a long agenda right what makes them make sense and i understand you're so good  keep that you keep keep taking a look and see if you can find any more suggestions to make things better