good evening everybody this is the time and place for the meeting of the zoning board of appeals and housing board of peel's for the city of holland we are here to respond to applications for variances and or special options this board must try to interpret each application as it relates to the ordinance this board is not empowered to rezone nor take any action that could be considered rezoning variances must meet for crucial tests in order to be granted those of you who are here for a variance and have already answered those questions on your application w be asking you about those questions again tonight there is a procedure guide out there and we ask you to come to the microphone and state your name and address we typically hear from the applicant first and anyone supporting the application then we hear from anyone in opposition to it typically we do not typically we do the public hearings on each application and then deliberate and decide on the application before moving on to the next application you are welcome to stay for the deliberation deliberations but there is no opportunity for further public comm if you elect not to stay for our deliberation decision you can call the city clerk's office after eight thirty tomorrow morning to learn the results with that said before we move to the first application i do want to point out on the gen the there was  to be a public hearing for a construction application for and get the church point thirteen zero to see that was already handled at the meeting december sixth so there's no need to have that on the agenda and will just go ahead and pass over that  i'm not going to declare the public meeting open at this time there's a unique perspective with regard to this application the application itself was for  consent to continue with the change that they had already put on file however this is only board can only handle variances in special conditions we cannot grant accent so i would suggest is that the apple can't with draw and amend their application and get with the city to help pinpoint and or narrow in exactly what those variances should be we don't me again for a month but i do want to say that it's possible to ask for a special meeting public hearing because there's no public hearing this type of item or do they want to have an opportunity just amend their application and request a variance they need to get it with the city department of community and neighborhood services to clarify exactly what variances are required so that being said if we do act on it now there is nothing we can do because of the exact request so the two options are if we open the hearing now we would be delivering on something that's not within our power period well i understand that this is a board that seat reviews variances and not consents the result was requested as a consent was because of the documentation on the record which i believe was attached as part of the application requiring either consent to the transfer of proposed transfer or that that property comply with the variances that consent was or that document was put in place and my understanding as part of so long as it wasn't transferred any time there's a transfer then then we need to look at a variance as if we were looking at the property and new and fresh and so that's why the senate won't be a political to us in was discovered by the building officials in ninety three when there was an application for an addition to the building or actually i think there were two additions to the building then that came before both the planning or excuse me both these zoning board of appeals and the construction board of appeals and at the time the applicant as shown in the minutes very specifically asked the zoning board to treat this property of the four lots as one lot for the beneficial zoning issues and construction board issues that result from that indicating they only divided into lots for tax purposes legitimate tax purposes and so the zoning board in the construction board both granted the applicant what they had asked for and that is an interpretation that as long as these are commonly owned they're one law but also indicating that that if the lots go into separate ownership that there needs to be compliance with the zoning ordinance at the time which is just like any other property if it's divided into separate ownership compliance must be be met and so there is no obligation under the findings to get consent from this board to divide the property if they could comply with the ordinance without a ri so would not be any need for action here but since there's a variance required that needs to be applied for in that way and then noticed out that way in the same applies the construction board although there's no action really needed there at all because the relief they needed was given last month ninety that it's variants at which the condition we're dealing with tonight was present it came in one thousand nine hundred three three years later so i wouldn't say that the owner drew these lot lines that's not possible  characterize our application as a request for consent because that's how i read that condition but if it can't be that's not something this board can do then i would ask that it manned its condition from one thousand nine hundred three to the extent that it can't amend its condition i would ask that you grant a new variance and there's language to specifically in the application if you look at the damned i'm asking that you specifically view this as a variance request if you couldn't characterize it as a  the variance application before the exhibits second paragraph last sentence to the extent now and use variances could be required due to the existing noncompliance of the property but the s back requirements of the zoning ordinances however the approval of such variances is implicitly requested if required to be of this only board of peel's and or construction board of appeals so i think we've made the variance application that you're suggesting that we do next month already in the body at the application before you i further think that to delay this would serve no purpose i think you have all the information you need before you back the variance application was filled out in the alternative if you look at the nine used variance section of the application just see that i've addressed each of the points necessary for you to make a determination about whether it's warranted in this instance and in fact to delay this would cause a fair bit of harm to our applicant they'd have to extend their lease another month seven thousand dollars they'd have made the opportunity to nail down the construction contracts that they're currently considering and that's going to open them up to rebuilding which could probably cost them upwards of fifty thousand dollars i understand it in addition we're a little concerned that the person who's giving us his property could have some cold feet here they were going to try to transfer to us by the end of the year that didn't happen because we discovered this transfer restriction at the last minute and if they don't transfer the property because of the delay it's just barely possible i think that's going to be a detriment not only to a getty but also to the neighboring community into the city of holland i think this is a great project for putting four point one million dollars into a building that's right now and basically an eyesore so i'm i just think putting that in jeopardy is not in the best interest of the city or the applicant or the neighborhood i've got some other other comments here but i guess they're pointless if you don't feel that we can continue so maybe we should first decide whether this is an amendment to the earlier condition or if there's been a sufficient showing that this is in fact the proper variance request so that i can be heard on the merits of way that this was applied would actually meet the variance requirement or it doesn't because it doesn't specify the least three variances that are needed in stat noticed out to property owners for that  the variances that i could see that appear to be needed would be the side yard for a body the side yard for a lot seven and then approving the three lots in the back seven nine and ten as lots of don't have any deeded frontage on the roadway that can be taken care of with the easement but those things are noticed out as as variances in other words as a matter of form it's not possible for to even address that question tonight because if we do consider as a variance those have not been identified in those need to be enumerated with the city and then assuming if we could get the straightened out tonight they would have to be properly noticed to the surrounding area and since that notice isn't possible tonight this is a question that we just simply can't answer tonight the best that i can suggest is that request for a special meeting and that way it's fourteen days i believe is in fifteen days is the notice requirement and if those variances are get an improper time then we could undergo a special meaning within fifteen days otherwise it would be the standard last thursday in the month  i would note that all of the variances that are needed for preexisting conditions before the law even began to exist so they should be grandfathered to the extent that they were specifically enumerated we did allude to the fact that they were implicitly requested and i think  side yard setbacks are all within what was implied and yeah if i had heard about this before noon today i might have been able to them and the application to get the additional information but about noon today's first time i heard that there's any issue with this application which is frankly a little frustrating i think our biggest issue even if we are able to do that can be the proper noticing but i feel like that is not an applicant's issue and i didn't have any control over you know i was in process i feel a little prejudiced by the fact that i noticed wasn't completed properly through no fault of my own so i guess if you can't do it you can't do it but except for the fact that as i'm reading you're a denim to  of appeals application and construction of appeals application the second paragraph applicant is completed that portion of the application applicable to non use variances for the sake of background information an explanation  the application is not in the applicants view specifically intended as a request for a variance as the transfer of the property does not change any physical aspects of the existing situation in a variance for the setback situation as previously granted according to six paragraph of the act oversexed one thousand nine hundred three construction court of appeals minutes attached as e p a application one year as i read that you're saying you're not asking for a variance you don't think that you're asking for a variance under this and that and the fact that reading this as a notice that was out there would say they're not asking for a variance they're specifically stating that they're not asking for a variance when i look at the front of the application it doesn't say that you're requesting a variance when i look at the adenoma it says that you don't think that you're asking for a variance and i understand  frustration with us but we've got issues with making sure that the general public has appropriate notice for the things that are being asked for and so we need to do that ok and appreciate your pointing that out mr box do you go on to say though in that same paragraph that t e but i hope that it doesn't reflect on us that that notice wasn't oh i i don't think so at all i don't think i don't think this board seats at all matter fact it's as we're talking the meeting prior we said that we wanted to try to make as many accommodations as we possibly could to get this taken care of to the best of our ability but there are only certain things i think that we're able to do under the under the code so we want to make sure that everybody's rights are protected here and we understand that that's a that's an issue that's one of the reasons why we've suggested that the fact that this board will do what it can in order to get a special meeting as quickly as it can if you guys are interested in amending the application all right very briefly if that and believe we will be interested in having heads and should i talk with blacktop right there with curbing and it's the only practical way to get to the back if we split the us there's really no other reasonable way to get in there so it the property that seem to be missing from this survey is that part of parcel a or parcel b person a parcel i did you get the revised map no i will maintain the majority ownership but i'm going to bring a different best source for that so that is kind of the purpose that we're wanting to split this parcel into three separate  so those are meaningless for the board's ok if what i understand then your legal description as described would it was just overlaid over that preexisting plat yeah i just wanted to make sure we were trying to put additional items in there  of those parcels ok which determines all your setback requirements and all that kind of stuff and typically we ask you which way is up on these things or which way do you want to be up sure it's your more you wan there's there's there's a current plan in place for apartments on personal b that would be service it's not set in stone but and i'm not sure what you'd call the front yard i'm kind of out of the need to set this is the front yard and therefore it's going to have the big setback or i see that and so ok you know make sense you're going to want to look at your your plans and noodle it for a quick second to make sure that we don't put a set  the sixty four thousand dollar question is are any of those buildings within twenty feet of any of the any of the lot lines well twenty well if they're if another within twenty we don't have to worry  twenty five i'm sorry yes never argue with an engineer about numbers and i figured that would be brought up but if you look in the plan that was submitted to you there is a building there a two story frame building that shows twenty two feet off the property line between a and c personally and see if you can see that on there that building is eighteen feet high so we should meet the building set there ok oh ok i'm not looking at your screen here but i think i think everybody has a copy of the original print you know you can look at that so and are you saying that needs to be twenty five then i want you for it depending on how you determine what your front yards are going to be i see you can have twenty feet on one side of the line and twenty feet on the other side of the line for forty foot between two so that was originally going to be a swimming pool back when this project was approved by the planning commission i believe he said yes all of these these buildings this whole development was approved at one point yeah we we would but he would probably get the swimming pool at this at this point maybe the easiest thing to do is to look at where those measurements are less than twenty five feet and then see if there's another side that we can be using as the front yard because anywhere we've got anywhere we've got the twenty foot setback in the twenty five foot setback those cannot be the front yard that makes  it by process of elimination does that leave us with a side that we can have is the front yard at the front and we can do front to front you just need to come up with one more fro you're fifty foot building to building across that line right she is that ok with that as well do you mind putting the other trawling up for can we look at that i think they've gotten it potential issue with your yard on that additional little but additional piece right know we have two sides identified already see anyone to speak in opposition leave it open if there is no one else i would like to speak for or against i'm going to close the public hearing and open up the deliberations for the board chairman just to make sure we have a good record on that i think there are two items that maybe staff could give some input and maybe has already and i just missed it but item number two on our list of elements to the lot area and with requirements meet the minimum requirements and i think cindy indicated to us  it is conditioned upon the the actual availability of connections to water and sewer there's there was a little bit of hesitancy on that i want to make sure that that's a condition to our approval that yes those are actually available  and also conditioned upon the side back and front yard designations as we have marked on the survey here at the meeting so additional condition you might want to have on th that that parcel include those four lots in the stay is common ownership i'm good with amending to that effect as well area and with requirements meet the minimum requirements and requirements under the ordinance that we have made a determination of the direction of the front side and rear yards as indicated on the survey here at the  meeting the applicant provided a scale plan with a lot of the surrounding properties but will also be providing additional documentation as referenced in the motion there was a review in a report from the planning office they're available connections to water and sewer that as indicated by the applicant and that the plan is in character and harmonious with the area as to depth with area it's harmonious in regard to the proposed development and there would not be any significant effect to the additional curb cuts and traffic and of course with the additional conditions that we discussed as part of the motion thank you i like the call  table and with that the the address of the property actually resides at is not the same address that it was applied for and therefore i move that we deny the application it's there's no there's no one in the audience so if you want to come up and speak it supporter against just so form follows that said i'm going to close the public hearing the board have any comments with regard to this application and some like to make a motion i move we deny motion by box to then i support for that think i don't think that the applicant has shown that there are any practical difficulties here other than that they hope that they would like them now is the natural consequence of that if someone with a similar situation shows up and makes the same application and proves otherwise would we not be held to this denial that you're talking about a different hotel now i think the problem here is applicants not here to present any reasons why he can't comply with the ordinance as i understand it is the problem as i was only that the microwave and the coffee machines would be in the sleeping rooms hotel rooms i have no idea what the way out of these hotel rooms are but they probably have a bathroom sometimes these items are in the bathroom so they are not in the sleeping area there may be a practical difficulty why they can't be here but the applicant is not here to explain that in the past sometimes when an applicant hasn't shown up you have a journey to your table that to the next meeting to give them a chance and this application there's no notice an issue so the applicant could file a new application next month and come in again and be here then and provide information you wouldn't be binding upon you in the future in light of all that information the motion by box to deny still remains is there support for that motion to deny findings of fact i don't believe that the applicant has shown that there are practical difficulties with compliance based on the structure or the property i think that's all i need all we need  interested in moving any farther on this thing without the applicant providing us with some further information i believe that there was enough information within the application itself to for us to be able to make a determination to approve it and call for a vote yes i would like to call for approval of the minutes as amended and it's my understanding that you have amendments in your possession