Generally speaking though staff doesn't see in terms of the site itself. This is a a large lot. It's a regular shape. Um in this case the existing building is again already over those allowed lot cover in a maximum impous amounts. Um we did not see that um practical difficulty standard met in this case.

So, the reality is that because they're at 60% they're literally they would have to go for a variance even if they went to 62%. Correct. Any additional again please let me finish. I mean so 7% so that's what we're arguing about here is a 7% additional coverage once they scaled back the project.

Yes, you you can consider uh the the the shape of the existing building. Um, I think that happens most of off often when you see maybe a variance being granted because an existing home was built 2 foot 9 in to a property line. Something, you know, we we'll take into account. It's kind of similar in a situation such as this. Um, we are taking into account the building. Um, while there's nothing necessarily unique to the property, the building exists and provides some constraints on the site.

But due to the shape of our building with its split level entrances, lack of accessibility, and outdated security features, it's just becoming increasingly problematic for our church and for other groups to use the space.

Usually variances, uh, and I've heard a lot just going with the shape of the land or topo. Uh, but really variances also consider kind of the unique situations of the building itself. And since the church bought an existing church, they have to kind of deal with how that church was cited onto the to the property.

My wife and I both have parents who have had strokes in the past few years which has kept them from being uh able to participate in our community... Additionally, uh I have a 4-year-old son which he went into the hall now, but he is uh handicapped and is in a wheelchair. He absolutely loves attending our services... but because he's disabled, he cannot participate fully um without the constant help of an adult.

The building as stands is already over... we believe the church can and should make its building ADA compliant within its current building footprint. Uh there are no unique circumstances to the property. The property simply does not support the current size of the building nor support increasing the building with with a 1,275 foot addition.

I think the age of the building, the location of where it's plotted and it's its uh configuration not being squared up and it's being an L creates uh circumstance issues. uh the additions, timing, and everything else. I think that adds some stuff to it. The design is unique because there's a a worship area on the first floor, which I think is a unique uh design feature of the property.

My two notes are the exceptions go with the property and once granted, the request wouldn't confirm that they'd be used to aid accessibility, just that they would have this ability to improve the footprint. um and over the next hundred years. Um we don't know how that would look. And so I didn't see anything uh with the property itself. The biggest argument does seem to be that the the church is already large. And I don't think the church already being large is worthy of the first finding to grant more space.