this is the time of the place for the meeting of the board of appeals for the city of holland we are here to consider applications for variances and or special exceptions this board must try to interpret each application as it relates to the ordinance this board is not empowered to and take any action that could be considered rezoning applications need to meet a number of crucial tests in order to be granted those of you who are here and have already answered those questions your application will be going through them again tonight there is a procedure guide available we ask that you come to the microphone to speak in that you state your name the address when you do so we typically hear the applicant first and then anyone supporting the application followed by those  enough position at that point we typically close the public hearing and begin deliberations you're welcome to stay for the deliberations but there is no opportunity for further public comment if avenue seventeen point sixteen the michelle area is requesting a variance to construct a six foot high fence in the front yard of her property at went to dartmouth avenue where there is a maximum of three feet tall fence that is that there's something unique about your property to let you bend the rules here my property is my backyard is inside of my yard which is also considered a front yard is along the street right because it was built as it was a front yard which is the person right behind me right right you're split off from that and so now my back yard is facing my neighbor's front carrier and  what we are wanting to do was to least be able to take a portion of our yard because obviously a big chunk of it is if you look where we're not allowed to build the technically first text but it is it is it's a good portion and we want to put like a playground and a shot and stuff so that we have our own private area so  dan what type of front yard be they need to keep on heat street i don't know that we'd be able to we're going to have the legs get a variance here but if they could only do a three foot bombed out on their garage or something that would only buy three feet here that's great well yeah exactly they want to increase the  size of the building and then go to that it's still going to be limited to an additional three feet right  know my only question is though when we were obviously i leave from the corner every single day now if you put the stop sign you even because i when measured out and stuff and i talked with the builders for the  even instead of going all the way up the sidewalk i could even do and actually feel and if not even more if it were allowed just to be able to give us that little bit of extra  e per part of our challenge here is you know we've got to follow the rules as well and ok that it's boxing us in a little bit r we're thirty three feet there today  any other questions from other members of the board any impact to the surrounding neighborhood from your friends know the questions from the board anything else you want to say ok thanks think you know anyone else to speak in favor of the dan what is the what is permitted within the existing ordinance pretty a three foot stance that is correct you're allowed to do a three foot fence between the house and the street you have the same along with dartmouth side they could go to the front of the garage but they couldn't go any further than that that's correct in we cannot rezone and we have to follow the tests that were given regardless of whether or not it makes sense and that first test seems to be the most i don't know that that's where any of us want to be personally to help someone out but that's not really our job  of planning commission to change the rules would be the place to go sorry what's next five forty one state street seventeen point seventeen the josh was trudging is requesting a special exception handler of variance to construct a second floor over is existing home and to build an additional long in within the existing house setbacks setback line two feet three nine dash for all five hundred joshua trudgeon five forty one state street ok of in my home at five forty one state street on the back of the house has two flat roof sections that extend over the lower section of the home i've had them replaced twice in the ten years of owning the home professionally both times they continue to leak it looks like my neighbors have the same style of home are not the dutch colonial style but the same flat roof issue some years but before i own the home state they have done the same thing and extended the upper portion of the home over top of that flat roof section and that's kind of where i'm at with that that portion of the project i figured i was doing it i have always wanted three seasons room on the back of the house on time so i'm turning the back of the house off if i was granted this  figured i would do that at the same time ok so the addition is intended to be a story or story and after all it would be the second level i guess that of the home right now currently ok no i'm sorry the three season room oh you know it only be one the second level and only deal with right already the second floor is going to be longer within the existing side yards correct if you're using the building for a residential use yes and forming to that are one district ok i believe so i'm not sure what our district is but you know it's for single family home just yet otoh family if it's of residence your your good that's great in character with existing neighborhood yes actually it's going to look like my i took up it's not in your documents but you have a picture before i left today on my cellphone and it would match kind of like what my neighbors did to their house to the south of me where their extended it past and it matches in with the sighting i'll be reciting as well and also rebirthing at the same time because of the renovation involved some contractors really going to like you yeah i've got a five got them lined up where  we're also in the area of the electrical wires are going to back that we just petition the entire block to go underground and that's also being done this summer too which will be cool nice for the whole area yeah any negative impact to the neighborhood doing this i only see positive and questions from the board a long war within the existing set backs on the sideline to conforming use it's in character with the neighborhood and it appears the addition would have a positive impact yes maybe yes motion approved and you know the sign that we're looking at working on the faces are very old and they're ugly the changeable copy no longer works he can't keep letters and they blow off they get her kid so the science very ineffective and it's kind of an eyesore and you know his his thought is you know he's he's shit he's overshadowed by the energy park and but yet he's being considered in a zone as you know downtown we're right now l a these aren't allowed but right next door to holland imports it is right and then right across the street which i don't i believe is holland township is russ's which has a and you know as you drive in that kind of has a flavor of a of not necessarily downtown yet you know right until you cross i think it's lincoln  and so what their what their objective is is just to improve upon the sign and to make it more effective so n l e d they're not looking to get a color l e d and they're not looking to flash anything they're not looking to be distracting at all they just want to put up there to improve traffic flow into the business and their bottom line is want to put up specials are having in the different things that are going on right they don't they they want to try to it's best they can to adhere to you know a lot of what what is going on downtown the they don't object to that but they just feel that it was kind of extended out a little too far ok to affect them  personally i've got no objection i think it's a wonderful thing unfortunately we're going to ruffle my statement in the opening here where years old see three right now and one of the aspects of c three is no electronic signs and so what we've got to find in order to grant you this is that the building structure or land cannot be reasonably used for any permitted purpose without the sign the electronic side and so that's that's going to be an incredibly high standard in order to  state the standard changeable copies quote and equate it right and they are excuse me there they are a retail entity with a lot of different product and we were doing the same thing at their plainfield location which i know it doesn't neither here nor there with but they're trying to improve their business you don't try to to to bring up oh yeah it's either i go in there myself i'm well aware of it i'd like it  but as far as them being pulled into that zone you know they if they feel like it's somewhat unfair that they're drawn into that and i mean is there something that they can do jack would like to know sure  alternate is to get the property rezoned to like a c two with like your neighbors ok because of the way that this is developed it's really developed more like seed two and in fact that's how it probably was developed and so it was caught kind when a c three was redevelop right down this road so i would have you contact the planning department about discussing it with the planning commission ok all right well good all right all right like i said i've got no objection to what you're trying to do i just don't know that we're going to going to be able to get it for you ok you know this helps ok i'll get a hold of that church thank you thank you anyone else to speak in favor of the application vendor yes most of the night planning commission five sixty four west end drive seventeen point one nine hundred c e greg england and behalf of john enjoys been guard are requesting a special exception to construct a home that exceeds twenty five hundred square feet in the central park neighborhood thirty nine dash when ninety nine i do have a letter here that i'm supposed to read into the minutes it came from mark vanderpool the planner he says that he just talked to barbara meyer who resides at thirteen fifteen a view and she wanted to let us know that she and her husband dave are in favor of the residential in field review being approved along with especially exception requests that is going to be going before the zeevi a pleas baumgardner who are the owners of the property at five sixty four west and mr mrs baumgardner here with me this evening and also with me this evening is craig england from forty two north custom homes is the builder of the home here and they'd be happy to answer any questions if i am not able to see evening is indicated we are here tonight seeking your approval for a special exception to allow construction of a home greater than twenty five hundred square feet in the central park neighborhood area  application that we submitted included the plans and elevation drawings so we have an idea of the home that's being proposed the home is thirty four hundred and seventy square feet when twenty five hundred would be the maximum allowed as a matter of right  greater than twenty five hundred to be allowed as a special exception a couple of items just in terms of general background the home complies with all applicable setbacks and the height regulations there's no variances that are needed the only issue here this evening is the special exception approval in terms of the size issue there's a couple of factors that are driving that i think are just kind of important to have as background information the first is the home is situated along the shores of lake mack a ta and because of its proximity to the lake they're not able to construct a home with a basement that means that any storage and that sort of thing has to be built at or above grade and therefore would count towards a square footage limitations which creates a little bit of the situation driving the need for some storage the other and perhaps more important factor is the fact that mr or mrs baumgardner elderly and in particular that mr baumgartner diagnosed with parkinson's disease and that's created some special needs for them so as they've designed this home it's designed for them to age in place and to meet their current needs an supported needs moving forward that means the home has wider hallways wider doorways large open spaces it includes an elevator that allowed mr baumgartner to go up and down the various levels and it's also designed with the potential for a caregiver to reside on the third floor if needed although the home is design of the third floor if you look at the plans it's actually included within the roof line it's trying to get tucked in there and therefore it still meets with the height requirements as a special exception under section thirty nine one ninety nine it's not a long list of requirements there's only really two questions that we have to answer the ceiling the first is whether or not infill approval has taken place and as you're well aware from the multiple copies that you've received earlier it has in fact been approved from infill plenty department reviewed it in doing so they looked at the character of the home relative to the mass and sizing and other homes in the neighborhood concluded that it meets with those criteria and approved it from an infill standpoint the remaining question for you then the c v is really whether or not this property or this home if allowed would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood we are not aware of any adverse effect that would have on adjoining properties in fact a number of neighbors have been consulted the baumgardner as have been talking to their neighbors and i think you've seen letters of support that are in the file i'm i'm aware of letters of approval from the owners of properties at thirteen fifteen bayview five seventy one west and five seventy five five fifty eight ramona and thirteen zero seven sell sure i mean we're not aware of any concerns or objections from any of the neighbors they all seem to be very favorable and positive towards us on the envelop so i would appreciate your consideration that this evening and be happy to answer any questions you have any questions or right thank you anyone else to speak in favor the location antibody to speak in opposition review process prior to this meeting and should be a positive effect on the neighborhood ok we have what we need room we do next up is unfinished business  requested to withdraw the application and request but need to be taken from the table fresh right you know motion right from the table that a motion to write yeah i got separate i don't know if we needed her to now deal ok so i've been looking for a motion to remove all in favor say aye aye aye aye ok anybody opposed all right now i'm looking for a motion to approve the withdrawal of the five ninety two vertically i move with with draw the five ninety two right anybody opposed right myrtle's gone ninety seven east twenty third street i get a motion to remove that one from the table i move remove it from the table i think it's your turn no assur same sewer the ordinance allows relief from these requirements of the board concludes that the applicant has met the standards for the variance twenty nine dash thirty eight twenty nine forty six s we have somebody here to talk to this want to go before you again and as you know with our project we have a kind of project that is planned to go on a piece of property that's been purchased from a property that was a previously developed as a kind of project doug would like to build his comment golding's when this was originally developed the plan was for twelve units to be put in the single building on the street and now we're planning on buildings so what what doug is requesting is to use an existing senator lateral that was stopped out or the twelve unit building and to serve all three of the buildings stands out there for everyone is what is unique about this property what what makes a unique why is it is so much a case where we should be allowed to use the existing to enter a lateral the complicated thing here is that lateral in the story is more shallow than normal it's only about nine feet deep and in between his property there in that sanitary lateral there's building so if you were to put in two new laterals he has to he will likely have to open the road because he is running very close to where that water main what is in the ground so it's not something he would have to open got the road and put these extra laterals that's out that they can be put in but it's a more complicated process than normal to add to that belongs to the church so the other problem here is we can't just run across country and get away from the road the private road because there's someone else's property in between ours and theirs is like  we're coming very close to coming across somebody who's property here this is somebody that this is someone else's kind of pride and their pride their road and again we're looking at tearing up somebody else's private road on their property or coming across to someone else here so we're just we're running through a lot of very tight circumstances it's not that it's impossible but it's more board there was also a question about capacity did you i'm sure it's or less i was talking to you right past me all right the other question is on capacity and everyone looks and says ok an eight inch pipe will carry more than a six inch pipe that's a better situation that that's what we hear that's true an eight inch will carry more than a six inch pipe but in this case if you put in an eight inch pipe at a half percent grade that we are required to it will carry about three hundred fifty gallons per minute if you put in a six inch pipe at two percent grade so just slightly steeper it was kerry three hundred fifty gallons per minute the upside of a six inch pipe is that the water will flow faster through it and so in this case it's a good thing to go with the six inch pipe because the water will flow faster to supply and clean out any clouds if you were to upsize to an eight inch pipe you're decreasing increasing the chance of clogging ok ok so from an engineering standpoint six is better than eight in this case but yeah there's only eight where only expecting about eighteen residents ok total you know there's nine homes approximately two people per home and at most the peak flow rate we would design for on that is by the half gallons per minute and a pipe that can carry three hundred twenty so we don't really need the larger pipe for this case because it is a situation the city or b p w would require the eight inch pipe mean that's the requirement but if it's a separate lateral you you'd be looking at three six inches correct which are also three pipes that are right over there somewhere we're looking at three sixes or one so would you consider it unique that in this instance doing a single six inch pipe is actually preferable than following the public main connection with an eight inch pipe in terms of flow and i guess the ability to minimize clogs back ups what have you ye that so it's an equation you have x number inflow and if you divide it by three six you reduce that pressure or what have you and or if you increase the diameter so the uniqueness is you know we just don't have a lot a lot of it goes under the jurisdiction of the board either through an easement or through their own ownership i'm just looking at the long ladder on the private street and once it crosses our property line onto the private street it would be presumably you've got to use property so if we do that really long two hundred fifty foot lateral we're  also increasing potential maintenance for the b t w just as an aside by the law these long laterals are they're not a good situation for anyone  all these residents are playing to be part of a condominium association all of the same condo association is something also ticket to consider is i recall reading some language on some of the other developments in this property and i think the board of public works last approval of the last variants stated that if these properties are sold separately like if you broke off or integrated entity that they would be then divided the sewers be divided up at that time ok right any problems with that and no problems with it ok all right thank you much thank you anyone else to speak in favor of the separation anybody to speak in opposition all right close the public hearing what's the pleasure the board now dan do you think that d p w would i mean we're not hearing from them now the only thing we have is something in writing through an e mail that was given to you do you think that their position has changed in any way i find that they they are i mean they've approved the other one across the street from this one was in the cell the same sort of guys involved i don't know that their opinion has necessarily changed but i think that they do recognize that this board has the ability to vary that to this as long as there are special circumstances they would object to do it in that general citywide basis is there any liability to the city if we were to approve this no i think it's actually probably the opposite it puts more of this the responsibility of the owners in the condo association i think also with the with the two manholes it kind of helps alleviate problems because it shortens the length in which you have to were to approve this that the owners of the condominium should be notified or should we should it be in a deed somebody's written so that and so the prospective buyers would be aware of this responsibility i think the variant should be recorded with a registered deed so that it appears in that chain a title for the owners of the condos or future buyers of the condos to be aware of  i'm looking at a an exceedingly long run that has a number of factors in its way we've got a water  nice proposed solution while not meeting the letter of the law mates the spirit of the law ok i will take that recorded with the key and you know it it's good so long as the all these condos are in the  right yeah i was also thinking just because we don't want to have this test apply to other would be situations that more is better than less with regard to unique circumstances  and along those lines i was thinking that also the connection to a public main in this instance requiring that eight inch would actually be less effective and potentially more problematic  the i think to be p w recommended that they all fall under the same so she can and will not be separated i think what you're trying to say is that the kind of any i'm associated for these candidates would would be in control of the the sewer line private sewer line is part of the common elements and that if units are sold out separately that they would be i have a separate lateral yeah i feel like i said those exact words know the spirit so those are those are the conditions and then the findings of fact would be that the exceedingly long run would have to navigate a water main the grade is an issue and then also there is a unrelated property line that would also create a problematic situation adding to that  condominium association that would attest necessitate the terror of the existing road and that in this case it's unique that to hook up to the public main would require an eight inch pipe which is potentially more problematic and less effective than the proposed six inch and the totality of those create a unique circumstance sounds good ok we've got a meeting minutes to approve i presume everybody's read the minutes of course i would be entertaining a motion to approve the lives of our last any support i'll support support by van der and all in favor say aye aye aye aye anybody opposed a next up i'd be looking for emotional improved him a second special meeting trade motion by then we're in support supported by libby all in favor say bye bye bye bye