all right this is the time in the place for the board of appeals of the city of holland we're here to respond to applications for construction zoning variances or special exceptions housing in dangerous structures this board must try to interpret each application as it relates to city ordinance this board is not empowered to rezone or take any action that would be considered rezoning variances must make must meet for crucial test in order to be granted those are those of you who are here tonight to ask for a variance have already answered those questions on your application will be asking about those questions tonight this is a procedure we will follow we'll ask that you come to the microphone to speak in state your name and address we will hear the application first for the applicant first and then anybody supporting the application and anyone opposed to it typically we hold a public hearing on an application then we deliberate inside on the application before moving on to the next epic age welcome to stay for deliberations but there is no out because one rep member has to be recused on the before and it rather have a bigger board vote on the application you'd like me to read the first two that i mean the first one we should read the first one then they can move to to postpone it you can then read second one william sicko on behalf of m c v r properties out because her customary and her interpretation from the zoning ordinance and the housing property maintenance code to allow seven unrelated persons to continue to reside at two sixty four east thirteenth street the zoning ordinance and housing property maintenance code ordinance limits the number to four or up to six under certain circumstances do we have the most motion to postpone postpone this application moves or support support same the next step of william sichel on behalf of m c d r properties l l c is requesting a variance or interpretation regarding the number of cars that may be parked on a property and r t r and zone district forty two east thirteenth street the applicant requests that the board recognize that in this context property should be referred to dwell in unit rather than parcel as determined by the enforcing officer the ordinance limits the number of cars to six her parasol and again the application asked at the speed to be postponed to the next meeting because mr davis would have to be excused to lead a conflict of interest leaving only four members to vote on th own motion to just postpone this to the next meeting only support support all those in favor say aye all those opposed the same check in and a half of julie reagan in trust is requesting a special exception or a variance in connection with the construction of a home at twelve sixty eight weeks drive the home is proposed will be set back more than the existing house required side yard setback he can feel is there an applicant here to speak on this again and and i'd like to we have your address to sure twelve seventy six beach drive i want and i'll be happy to answer any questions about the application i think you've got it in front of you  we've discussed it was staff we've gone through a couple of meetings with staff talked about the project and located a home that essentially is in the same location as the current home but will be rebuilt there's a couple of things too i think about in this application one is the possibility of a variance and the second one is a special exception for the twenty five hundred square feet both were applied for and i think that there is there is a possibility that we could establish that the variance is not necessary if the board agrees and that would be that and that the i believe it's section fourteen point t easy would allow that the lot that sixty percent or more of the lots within three hundred feet of the property line along the same side of the street up developed out leicester front rear side yards a lot with them lot area requirements than required in that zone district correct correct and i understand apologize for interrupting but i believe in the hours when my have some information regarding that yes section thirty nine das ten of the zoning ordinance doesn't allow you to grant a special exception for the setbacks for this application you do have these specifics of section thirty nine ten and how that is allowed i was able to produce some evidence that shows that sixty percent of all of the structures on the same side of the street do have lesser setbacks no matter what street you look at beech street there's three houses you can clearly see that the ones on locust did not meet the setbacks good so we will be looking this at this as a special exception so that on the special exception we only have two standards to meet and one is that it's been reviewed and approved for the infill application and secondly that it is now i forget the wording exactly but negatively affect the neighboring property owners  chile i think we can establish that both of those are they are the case as well for the special exception you should have a report from joel di for the approval of the infill application as well i can report so with that i think that's my presentation we have any questions for  george holmes buyer of property located eight hundred twenty six west twenty sixth street is requesting a special exception to build in addition the addition as proposed will continue that non conforming side yard setback of three point four feet from the west property line where seven feet is required recently purchased the property and the existing living room area is very small to exist to expand that can only goes south handed down the east side it's prohibited by where the well is which it is one of these unusual properties in the city that has a well so to continue to expand that property it needs to extend a ten foot to the south and that existing setback line that is less than the required seven foot but as soon as i get beyond that ten foot to the south i'm going to comply with the seven foot and continue going south i just need to get around the well good do we have any questions from the board for the site your yard only gets on the side yard the west side only everything else compli you thank you very much is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application anybody in opposition of this application next to the garage i'm not able to expand on the garage do to a location of a telephone pole and going the opposite way towards the south would interfere with the setbacks for the very small to begin with so i don't have room to store equipment to maintain the property if i'm to also park a vehicle in their backyard doesn't really allow for a shed back there without just chopping other well actually no that's not true the snow drifting in the winter coming off the neighboring houses it tends to get about six feet deep in the backyard now is the need for a variance is not the result of any action is it that you've done of the property or the previous owner and strict compliance with the regulations governing the at the area except bank frontage heighth floor density and other dimensional requirements will will be done reasonably prevent you from using the property if i were to comply with a two foot setback on the north property line it would restrict me from access to the grudge  would be possible to locate a shed to the south east portion of the property in that back corner there yes there is landscaping trees things like that it would be possible i suppose do you know there's an easement on the north edge of the property where the shed is proposed for the for the utility company that manages the do you know i'm not aware of any you know thank you ok are there any other questions for that no thank you is there anybody here to speak in support of this application please please come up and state your name and address mer and i currently just moved in with joel hefley at three now you know me well i had to sell my house or am currently selling my house and  i think i don't know if he addressed this house is like a foot away from the garage so when you're going to go into the back yard there's only a flat space if i was to go in there will a lot more i'd have to go through the ground that was another thing i thought was a little strange about the property because you cannot get a  full size one or three there are a wheelbarrow or anything so virtually if we were to put shot in the backyard we would not be able to store the things that we need to store in there is there anybody else here who would like to speak in support of us application is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition of th did you want to put any dimensions on that what you allow and the setback to be to the to what was applied as a five for yes yes ok hendershot yes white men yes souter yes davis yes motion passes everyone's reading your motion to approve we have support yes findings of fact it is in the side or regard it's on the west side of the ard it is keeping in character with the existing neighborhood and will not be a detriment to the adjoining properties or neighborhood and they are there with the stipulation is that they will comply with the building codes construction building codes for the city well that gets into yes  doesn't seem like that would be an environmental circumstance but the fact that they purchased the property in a state that was what it was and you know i too would agree that i'm struggling with what number one was but if they purchased it in the state that it is with that directly mean that you know that was the previous property owner which is test number two the need to request a variance is not due to the result of actions of to the north of the property do you know if there's a vacated alley ther i do not know i do not have to say which one are you looking i'm just actually looking at google maps and if you look at the non satellite version it appears as though there was a vacated alley there i believe that it was there few years ago actually in terms of usage yeah and we have vacated a few alleys and past few years i don't i just can't remember if that's one of anybody who's willing to make a motion i would i would at least support the notion that the size of the lot makes it somewhat unique when you look at some of the the lots on seventeenth street that are full depth compared to what this particular p you i think that the applicant has been demonstrated that there is some uniqueness in terms of size relative to adjacent properties thus making it unique i don't believe that the size dictating the need for the variance here or the placement of the shed was self created rather due to the way the locks were designed maybe some one hundred years ago i do believe strict compliance would make it somewhat unnecessarily burdensome upon the applicant considering that the the the size of the lot and the encroachment on green space which happens to be a premium in this community right now would make it burdensome and i do believe that this is the minimum  variance necessary to do substantial justice and i do not believe it would have an adverse impact on this community no henderson yes white man yes davis yes motion passes share any conflict maybe you have with this meeting we were told th i have a small all those in favor say bye bye