situation I'm not trying to pry in any means we're just trying to see you may be more in compliance than you realize no quisiera ser um imprudente in mis preguntas personales solo quisiera poder tener un mejor entendimiento de la configuration de como stand actualmente our zoning ordinance recently changed and one of the good things is that it acknowledged more clearly that families come in all different forms las ordenanzas municipales actualmente everyone everyone in the household based on the testimony you've prescribed has enough of a common link that under the new definitions in the code they could be considered one single household which would be permitted to occupy one single dwelling unit could you please repeat that and break it into the new code the configuration of people currently living in the household there's enough commonality that could be considered one single family formula de una sola familia at the moment you said you're only using one kitchen correct the como se unifamiliar legal usados disponible para usar pero solo una using one kitchen even though there are three available three available kitchens for us to use is that out of a preference just all come together and share meals as a family solo unirse todos y compartil do you generally maintain common food and do common grocery shopping so in look in una compra de comida y cosinan juntos at the moment yes but if we were to get approved to be a three uh three family home they would want to use their separate kitchens so the your main hope in making this application is to be able to keep three separate kitchens so everyone can have their own complete or so every cluster in the house could have their own complete kitchen.

Yes exactly okay and the only reason why I wanted to follow that line of questioning and this is also for for attorney fleisch benefit is just to be able to determine right now there are no definitional issues with respect to family presented by this application this frankly frankly and is an aside is one of the things I really like about this code if the main and there's no need necessarily with this living arrangement to bring anything in the compliance much beyond potentially disconnect or removing some stoves if the main intent though is to be able to keep all three kitchens three dwelling units would need to be legitimized but in the event that this proposal weren't need to be approved the only thing that would need to be done for compliance in this case the way I see it would be to would be to remove some of the stoves and ensure that there aren't separate locks on the units and I can break that down into smaller pieces I apologize for rambling.

No.

And thank you for indulging me there.

The main intent was just to confirm that the appeal was necessary and even that a permit was necessary and that the adoption of the new code hadn't made the matter move.

Can I ask a couple of questions of Mr.

Hansel?

Okay.

Mike first thank you for the explanation regarding the new code and the and the household compliance.

I do agree.

I do agree that's an upgrade from the existing code with regards to larger blended families like this.

What I gathered from your testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong, that as it currently exists, if this family were to use the second floor kitchen.

It's not in zoning compliance.

If this family were to use the second floor kitchen, I read the definition of dwelling unit in the new code book here, and it would not be it would not be in compliance, or it's the presence of eating and cooking facilities in the form of a stove and sink or the or the rough ends.

So if it were a if it were a kitchenette type scenario, if there was a if there was a sink and a microwave to be able to reheat food or carry food from the main kitchen, that would be acceptable.

But three separate kitchens plus three separate bathrooms still would would need to be legitimized as one dwelling unity.

Right, and that would defeat the definition of a household use, right?

Correct.

That would make it uh that would make it a multi-family from the perspective of the from the perspective of the zoning office, though the client does have a little bit of a fallback room in that in that the configuration of individuals there's enough of a relation that they that they all would be considered as comprising a single housekeeping unit based on the pattern of use that's been testified to.

And in addition to the the rough ends or the you the appliances within the existing second and third floor kitchen that are not presently used, the locks on the doorways to the third floor as well as access to the second floor bedrooms is also a non-compliance issue.

And that's generally been the attitude that's been taken by the building department, so that would that would be best to confirm with them.

But in general, if there have been if there have been any kind of heavy duty locks that would prevent prevent quick entry by first responders or that might require a door to be broken down to gain access rather than the standard kind of tumbler lock that might have the little pin above the above the door frame that you can never quite get right.

Okay, so you're you you're I showed you the photographs of the second floor door, the first floor door, and the third floor door.

Those don't appear to be those tumbler pen over the doorway locks, do they?

They appear to be a lock and key.

Yes, I do see locked and key type blocks, some more if it were a question, some more physical inspection of the lock might be needed to be able to determine compliance, but we are probably looking at a simple home depot hour hour and a half during a playoff game fix right there.

Especially if it's a game not worth watching like the one on Sunday.

Um if and I'm not supposing that you did the pre-sale inspection or the post sale inspection of this property, but if it were inspected and a certificate of occupancy were granted to this owner, it says a non-compliant structure as it currently sets.

And that would be a question best directed to the building department.

The board probably gets a little sick to hearing me say I'm not a building code official on in certain circumstances.

But you're as the zoning officer, there are certain zoning pieces that are required uh for it to be compliant, and the locks on the doors indicating not free access for a single family and perhaps the extra kitchens may under the new code or even the old code is imply to you that it's a non-compliant home from a zoning permit perspective.

Yes, that's correct.

The the locks in the kitchens were always custom and interpretation by our office previously.

The car or the kitchens were codified more clearly into the new ordinance and tried to revise dwelling unit.

I do imagine that the lock test still will be used a little bit in inspections.

We haven't yet seen one under the under the new code, so this is a little bit new territory here.

Okay.

And the this is under the old ordinance and the new ordinance.

There's not a section for residential conversion of I guess this is a or this would most likely be considered.

This would most likely be considered a town row house.

And as testimony has been going on, I have been referencing what I've been hearing against the new code book to confirm that to confirm that the solution for zone compliance wouldn't just be a wouldn't just be a fresh application because this application is right, or if this were if this application were presented fresh against the new code today, there would be an insufficiently insufficiency with respect to lot width for a small general, so I couldn't go there.

But there would be some interpretive gray land that we'd need to live in slightly to make a determination.

And as a small general, it also requires some distance but uh side yard setback that we wouldn't comply with either.

It just more complies with the the the pound row would be the closest compliant and compliant building type, and that would still only permit the permit the one dwelling unit.

So we can you and I can dive into the fun of interpreting the new ordinance later.

That's correct.

There also could be some possibility depending on the relationship, since everyone is related for one principal plus one accessory dwelling unit within within this building.

Once again, that could be a that could be a possibility since there is a since there is a single housekeeping unit present.

So one way or another, and I suppose this is a bit for the benefit of the board and the in the record, it's a proposal exactly like this.

The that this new code is meant to provide a little bit more nuanced and fine-grained look at, even if it's not necessarily an automatic buy right approval in every circumstance.

It at least provides provides some more caveats to discern between your your standard chopped up residential conversion situation and some kind of familial living situation that's not the 2.34 kids in white picket fence and Buick in the driveway scenario.

Does Buick even make cars anymore?

I believe they do.

So uh one more question about parking, because Ms.

McLean asked about parking.

I think it's important.

As a six-bedroom single-family home, what's the parking requirement?

Or if it's single family dwelling, it would at this point under the old code, it would have been two cars, and would have needed two cars per dwelling unit under the current code since you're in an N2 zone, it would only be one single car per dwelling unit.

If it were one single dwelling unit, three dwelling units under the new code would require would require three cars under the current code and would have been or with the three units it would have and would have been one and a half per.

Okay.