0012026 and roll call. Board member Paul Darling. Here. Board member Robert Hart. >> Here. Board member Hugh Flight Jr. Here. Board member David Armsdorf. Absent. Board member K- Kevin Cox. Absent. >> 2026 and roll call. Uh for staff Mike Lemieux. Present. Michael Redman. Present. Mary Penix. Present. Julia Harvey, present and Stephen Kakowski. Present. We have a quorum. All right, thank you. The first item on the agenda is public commentary. General, are there any on public commentary? >> [snorts] >> Uh the second item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the October 16th, 2025 meeting. Do we have any comments on those? A motion for approval. So moved. Second. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those are passed. Um appeals, actions and show cause hearing. We have one item on the agenda today and
002that's uh BBA 26002 appeal for 1620 Hillridge Boulevard. And so I'm going to give a little summary of what the process is. The applicant will make the presentation. Well, first it will be the the staff will make their their staff report and the applicant can present their case. >> Sure. And then uh the the the board can ask questions of the applicant. We'll have a motion and then uh we'll take a vote and I think we'll need a majority of those present on this board, so we'll need two votes to have it pass. So um we'll start with the staff report. >> [snorts] >> Yeah. Um the uh appeal is for an accessory structure located at 1620 Hillridge Boulevard. Uh the structure was um constructed without permits and it was brought to the building department's
003attention through a complaint. The initial site visit was conducted 3 11 25. There was no compliance and a ticket was issued 6 12 25. The photos from the initial site visit confirmed non- non-prescriptive construction. An electrical permit has been applied for to add a circuit to the structure. Under normal circumstances, the design requirements would have been reviewed prior to construction beginning. Because of the elements included in the structure, it is not exempt from permits per section 105.2. Um and it's unable to be reviewed through prescriptive code. Plans from a design professional were required as allowed per section 106.1 and sections 301.1.3 of the 2015 Michigan Residential Code. Uh plans signed and sealed by David Armsdorf were submitted 12 11 25. Through review, a few additional pieces of documentation were required. The last documentation request was
004to verify the bolts used are rated and tested for the specific application at 1620 Hillridge and confirm that they can handle the imposed loads. Once document- documentation is submitted and reviewed and approved, a permit can be issued. Uh staff recommends this application be denied as it doesn't meet the standards for approval. The code has not been misinterpreted. The provisions of the code do apply and the building department is unable to conform confirm an equal or better form of construction has been provided. Uh the building de- the the building official's determination is based on the following sections of the um MRC. Section 301.1.3 engineered design. Where the building or portion thereof utilizes elements not conforming to the prescriptive provisions of the code, those elements shall be designed in accordance with the accepted engineering practices. Uh note,
005there are no prescriptive tables in MRC for attaching structures to living trees. Section 104.11 alternative uh materials, design and methods for construction. Section allows the building official to approve alternatives provided they are found to be satisfactory and comply with the intent of the provisions of the code. However, it explicitly states the building official shall require supporting data to assist in the approval. Section 106.1 submitted documents authorizes the building official to require construction documents prepared by a registered design professional when the complexity of the work warrants that's The basis for the requirement. A treehouse with stairs and electrical is an occupiable accessory structure, unlike a standard deck or shed. The foundation is dynamic. Failure of the prescriptive fastening, table 602.31. The prescriptive fastening schedules in the MRC are designed for wood-to-wood connections in a static environment.
006They do not account for wind-induced stress, tree sway independently in high wind event. If the fastening system does not allow for differential movement, the fasteners will experience withdrawal or shear shear failure, potentially causing the entire structure to detach. Standard for lag standard lag bolts are not designed to handle the lever arm effect created by a treehouse beam that may sit several inches away from the tree trunk, allowing for growth. Um Life safety. Because the structure includes formal stairs and invites higher occupancy and frequent use, if the fasteners to the main platform fail, the stairs, which are likely anchored to the ground at the bottom and the tree at the top, will subject to massive tension forces, leading to to collapse um of the means of egress. Fire and electrical safety. The inclusion of electrical wiring
007necessitates a stable structure platform, and the fastening system is not engineered to handle the tree's growth and movement. The structure can shift and shear the electrical conduit, creating a hidden fire risk or an energized hot structure. Uh the building official finds that the proposed construction is non-prescriptive without a professional engineer's analysis of the fastener shear capacity and the specific hardware's ability to accommodate tree growth and movement. The structural integrity can't be verified, the safety of the occupants are at risk, and the project does not meet the minimum safety standards of the 2015 MRC. The applicant has submitted structural drawings and testing data from an IAS accredited laboratory. While IAS accredits the facility's ability to perform a test correctly, it does not provide an evaluation report that interprets those results for code compliance. The building official
008maintains that without a recognized evaluation report, the allowable load of these fasteners remains unverified. Uh under the 2015 MRC section 104.11, alternative materials must be approved by the building official. Section 202, approved means acceptable to the building official. 104.11.1, research reports, explicitly states that supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of the materials, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources. Uh safety factors. An IAS lab report might state that a bolt can bolt broke at a at 10,000 lb. However, an ICC-ES report does the engineering math to tell the inspector this bolt is safe to hold 2,000 lb in a living tree. Raw data from a lab does not establish the safety margin. Testing. IAS lab testing indicates Western red cedar and Douglas fir logs that were harvested within the state
009of Washington, which were selected for consistent diameter control and moisture content versus live trees of another species that were found on site. Independent verification. ICC-ES reports or similar ensure that the bolts being sold today are identical to the ones tested 3 years ago. A one-time lab test from IAS facility does not provide this quality assurance. For the treehouse, the fastener is subject to lateral shear and withdrawal forces simultaneously. Standard IAS testing often only covers one direction, and evaluation report specifically reviews the fastener's performance under complex loading described in the engineered drawings. That's all that I have. Okay, thank you. Yep. Oh, I actually skipped the risk of jurisdiction You want me to read that? Okay. Yeah, you you ended up ended with number four, the IAS testing, correct? Say that again. You ended with point
010four in the IAS testing, correct? Yes. Yes. Risk to jurisdiction. If the board of appeals allows fasteners based solely on lab data without a formal evaluation report, the board's essentially acting as the engineer of record for the fastener's performance. The building official cannot verify that the allowable stress used in the submitted drawings matches the actual performance of the hardware under the conditions of the 2015 MRC. Okay, thank you. All right. So, you can make your presentation, please. Yeah. Um first off, the reason I wanted to make sure that last sentence in your staff recommendation was read, because it states the board is essentially acting as engineer of record for the fastener's performance. Um that's I mean, I believe that to be false, because the engineer of record, who is not present today, was actually on
011this board, uh Mr. David Earnsdorfer, who's the stamped the uh the drawing set on uh the 1211 or 1212 submission. Um If I could just interrupt for a moment, I'm glad you object, because so do I. Yeah. You know, um this is the first time Just this is the first time that we've been presented with a comment that we would buy approving something based on what is accepted as an equal or better form of construction puts us in the position of being or acting as the engineer of record. I mean, that basically leaves us with absolutely no alternatives besides, you know, either saying the code was not applicable or that was misinterpreted or doesn't apply to this structure. We've never I've never seen this on any city presentation. And it's I mean, it's to me
012it's potentially problematic for the reason that this gentleman just explained. There is an engineer of record. They're taking responsibility for the engineering of the building or the accessory structure. So, I'm just would like to make that point that um this is the first time we've I've ever seen this, and I've been on the board now for 20 years. And I'm hoping that this is not going to be a repeat statement that's included in the city's packet as part of [clears throat] their report, because that to me that would be very difficult to function on this board if if that's the case. I just like to make that point. Sorry. Thank you. Um >> [sighs] >> yeah, so basically [clears throat] what this comes down to, I mean, this what I was I as I interpret
013the language, um I mean, the building code is full of language of reasonable equivalents. I mean, it has to be to be able to get anything done, and it's up to this board to mediate differing inter- differing interpretations. Um I view the building official having more of a principled interpretation of the code, and I'm kind of approaching it from what I believe is a more pragmatic interpretation of the building code. Um so, in the in getting to the demonstrating equivalent or better, um I when I originally submitted these plans on the on October 30th, um they were not stamped by Mr. Earnsdorfer Earnsdorfer. Um and there was some concern that these attachment bolts might be a little bit of a unique challenge. So, as an extra precaution, I specified um four additional uh steel posts
014on footings, which will bear the brunt of the weight of the structure. Uh I don't know if you guys have a set of plans in front of you. That's on the sheet uh A2.01 foundation plan. Um Yeah, so that I mean, that combination with these attachment bolts, which have been like they said, independently tested by this this IAC or I IES laboratory, which is the age- like you said, is the agency that does all the ICC testing. Um and my Okay. My objection to that to that uh the level of documentation they were asking for is I have never seen I mean, there's been lots of certifications for building hardware for any any number of things, but I've never seen a request for a site-specific certification for building hardware, and that's basically what the building
015official first asked me for here. Um and so, I I I believe that the the the given the huge safety factors in the design, I mean, the uh I mean, the the the largest point load on the structure is like four is it's got like a like a safety factor of four to one um from the rated test data. Um and if you go in by failure strength, it's it's And there's actually a a load table on page um 2.01, and it is just static loads, and I mean, I do acknowledge that. And [snorts] one of the benefit benefits of this being a pre-built structure, having having not done the permitting process properly, is you're actually able to measure And And by the design of the structure having three points of contact, I mean, you
016can actually measure the loads with the load cell, and that's what we did in in doing this. Excuse me one more time. I'm sorry. I I didn't catch who you are, exactly. >> homeowner. You're the I'm the homeowner. I'm the Oh, you're the homeowner. Homeowner, builder, contractor, designer, whole whole works. Okay. >> Except for David, who who didn't who who stamped the drawings. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. Um Yeah, so I mean, based on the fact that this hardware is rated for at least a 4:1 safety factor in the worst case scenario, um and the the presence of the post which back that up even more, I mean, I think I think we're well within any kind of margin of safety. Um and the other big concern I have with uh the process here is through
017through up for ever since the second stamp submission from uh from that David stamped, the building department has maintained that this design does not allow for dynamic and independent movement of the trees and the structure. And they actually just restated that again in the basis for the requirement um paragraph in that. That's entirely false. I mean, it said on the plans three different versions of the plans that were submitted in six different locations on those plans, this is a dynamic structure. It has provisions for movement um plus 2 in in every direction. Um so, I don't know I don't I don't know how how we we argue about just definitional differences of what like a static and dynamic uh movement is. Um and I actually brought one just so we're having the context of what
018we're talking about here. I have the attached hardware which is also referred to as in the second bullet point of sentence one basis requirement was referred to as a standard lag bolt, which is that is definitely not a standard lag bolt. Um and so, that's a piece of hardware. I mean, you don't have to be an engineer engineer to see that that's rated to hold more than 2,000 lb. Is that the tab that you propose to use in the building? Those those are in there now cuz it's a built it's a built structure. >> Is it a standard or heavy duty tab? Uh this this company makes a standard and a heavy duty line. This is a standard one. Um there are other um other manufacturers who make make these things as well. I believe
019there's a manufacturer out of Pennsylvania that does their and these guys the standard version of theirs is more robust and more expensive than the standard version of anyone else. Um and actually to address the standard lag bolts and handling the lever arm effect and we're getting into dynamic movement here. This carrying case is a functionally equivalent with the beam is and there's this uh captive device here and the beam sit on there and so, it's got plenty of free movement. It's a little loose right now because the real one has a has a plastic slip plate. I just took that off for demonstration purposes cuz it's easier to uh easier to move around. But yeah, you can you can see the dynamic movement of it and it has moved before. I can I can tell
020you that. I've been I've been had it up there for a couple years. Um and then the final thing there is I didn't bring it with me. There is an eye bolt that goes in there that screws to this for a cable backup. Um which and this cable by itself is rated for 5,000 lb. This cable and turnbuckle is lift lift rated for that. Um and that pretty well covers the lever arm effect in that sentence uh because yeah, I mean, there's this got support on both ends. So, that kind of rules out the definition of a lever arm. Um And yeah, all this stuff what I'm stating was outlined pretty clearly in the details on A301. Um There is one location where it does not have the provisions for the the backup cable going
021vertically. Uh it doesn't have the room for that. So, I've got to put in a a strut that comes down that functionally does the same thing. Um In addition to the support posts that are there to to also support the substantial weight of the structure. Um and the posts actually have a provision for being adjustable to um to balance the load if if necessary. Um And let's see, what else? So, going down the list here um safety factors, I think we covered that. Testing Yeah, it's we're we're basically arguing over an acronym here. We're arguing over IAS versus ICC and we're arguing over the is it necessary to have site specific test testing uh testing results and I believe it's not. Um Specific application lateral shear forces, I think we've covered most of that with
022the the demonstration. Um Nope, actually. I think I skipped a whole page here. I'm sorry. I did. Oh, the life safety. Um the structure does have stairs. It is not intended to be an occupied structure. Uh we go out there and play video play video games and do tree kid treehouse stuff. Um The stairs are not anchored in both locations. They're stairs are also as a spiral staircase which does conform to all the uh What is it? The code provisions of the spiral staircase uh are 311.7 with the the winder I forget the terms. I don't do it very often. Um The walk walk line. Yeah, they the the the spiral staircase does conform to the walk line requirements and the railing requirements. And it is actually not anchored to the ground. It does have
023a slip plane. Uh basically two pieces of plastic that can slip independently. So, when it when the tree and the staircase unit moves, um it can't and it's only the whole thing is only 6 ft off the ground. Um the platform height. So, in terms of uh Yeah, in terms of egress and emergency, I mean, we all lived through a tornado here a couple days ago and I can tell you right now if there's something like that coming, I'm not going to be in a tree. I mean, we're going to be in the basement. Um And then the fire electrical safety, I mean, yeah, it doesn't [clears throat] necessarily a stable structural platform, but that's what flex conduit is made for. Um I I can either hook it up as a flex conduit like a
024half inch flex conduit or I can even do what you would typically see in like a like an RV trailer park with like a with like a a standard um plug plug receptacle and then a cord that you can you can plug in. So, that would be more than sufficient for the loads and we've got a single circuit to run a TV out there for playing video games. Um and it's Yeah, [gasps] and we'll see what else. Um Yeah, and so, I mean, we're down to like the engineer of record thing and I'm my my my statement is I mean, we have an engineer of record who signed off on this and the request for the sites the additional request for the site specific um testing data for the hardware is just just unreasonable. I've
025never seen that. I've never seen that done for for any any other project. Certainly not a project of of this small a scope. And I think that's pretty much all I have. Um Okay, thank you. The board have any questions for the applicant? Yeah. What was the original nature of the complaint that that brought these guys here? Was it because the drawings Like was it because the building was being built and somebody saw it and they didn't like it? Or was it was there a like a setback problem or I I where I'm going with this is that if we approve this, does that take care of the complaint or is is that still outstanding? The complaint came in as work without permits. Work without permit? Mhm. Okay. And I I would have I can
026kind of speculate on that. Um it came in about the time that um they were going going through my neighborhood and marking all the the site uneven sidewalk slabs um for for kind of going to a grinding down which I'm surprised I actually didn't get a bill for that cuz a lot of jurisdictions charge you for that. So, potentially it's someone with the city walking through who had like [clears throat] trees and growth on the mind cuz they were working on sidewalks and they saw this um and thought we got to do something about this. Okay. Um and actually at the time it did not it there could have been a life safety issue because at the time it did not have an approved railing on it and that railing has since been installed. Um
027so, the photographs you see um without a railing have have been replaced and there's a code code approved railing. Um I'll say something else to that effect. Um Yeah, but but other than that, as far as I know, it's uh it's an anonymous complaint. In terms of um setback and zoning and lot coverage, passed all that with flying colors. No problem there. There is a um a data communications line, but no blind voltage stuff nearby. Um and we all know how much those guys don't really care about where their stuff is running. Um Are you still proposing to put in those supplemental supports? Uh absolutely. Absolutely. And then do you have a sense of to what degree the um >> [clears throat] >> the loading would be redistributed on that platform if the supplemental supports
028are put in? Oh god, I mean, it was I mean, that that point load on like I said, I when I measured it with a hydraulic jack and put it up and do the pressure and the math and the way it's really kind of convenient for a starter starter build. Yeah, the pressure on that point load um P1 was 2960. Um which was a 4:1 safety factor and that would it would take substantial off of that cuz that's most most of the weight of the structure is towards that end of the structure. Um so, any of these attachments to the trees would be at most 1,000 lb. Once the posts are there. Um and we could even balance cuz the posts have the the adjustment provisions for the post in the in uh detail um
029detail two, actually. were designed to allow for a for a a load cell to be put under the posts if you really wanted to get fancy with it and actually balance the loads on the posts as well. Uh which which might And I did that also because it might become necessary because we can't go to full footing depth typically with this because of the trees. So, that's why I proposed a grade beam and significant adjustability uh in it to uh to accommodate for any kind of differential settlement. Okay. Um And how are the stairs supported? I Obviously more on the ground, but when they get up to the platform >> Yeah, it's You know, I don't have a detail of that. It's um It's a custom like welded steel bracket that wind winds around there.
030They're supported on the top end of the platform and um the tail of the of a of the beam actually comes down and supports them kind of the midpoint. And they're actually There's a There's actually a um a strut as well. So, is it supported by the tree or by the platform? They're supported by the tree or no, by by the platform. By the platform. >> Yes. So, it moves with the platform. And there's a little landing platform and that's the one um [clears throat] It's like a little landing about the size of this table. That's the one where there's a slip plane of two pieces of plastic that can slip independently. And then finally, the drawings that were included [clears throat] in our packet had a lot of um bubbled notations with in red
031with supplemental information. Um What are those that appear to be putting information >> So, you probably received the um the submission set that went with the went well those They came in with the uh with the field submission. And that was my attempt to draw attention to the like this is said this is a dynamic attachment. This is said this is a dynamic attachment the last three times you you guys have seen this. They saw it, but Right. Is it So, So, when it What's the chronology on those drawings relative to the comments in the packet? Are Did you see You saw all those notations on the drawings? Who accounts for those? That accounts for They well, they came in those came in with the Those came in with the submittal um and they were
032just there to draw attention to this fact that uh the the notation of a dynamic um attachment that can allow for movement has been brought up on the past two prior submissions and even in emailing with um Mr. uh Who's Was it Freeman reviewed this? Um He he like in the response to the January 2 Well, the this response to the December 12th submission um came back on January 12th. Um He said he responded since that trees are dynamic and how they move to grow, we need to see documentation how this was accounted for. And I'm like, well, it says on there this is a accounted for moving in this direction two two or three inches in either direction. And I And I responded back to that in writing to like to to draw atten-
033his attention to it. Um This is yeah, the specific hardware is marketed as like dynamic uplift arresters and there are several notes about the dynamic connection and range of movement range of independent movement versus structure movement in the installation details on both the 1030 and the 1211 submissions. So, I did everything I could to flag that for these for these guys. And so, the the the the the bubbles you're seeing are just like the the next version of that. I mean, I'm drawing attention to that. So, so were those bubble drawings reviewed or So, they were I guess I guess what I'm getting at is >> Those were reviewed as part of the application package. >> They were. As part of the application >> the application. Okay. And and in that review, that still generated
034the disapproval. So, because uh uh unper- or non-prescriptive fasteners being used, all we're looking for is the report on that specific fastener. Which is this fastener shown in the drawing? Correct. And just uh um reiterate when uh when I spoke about lag bolts, those are those were I was talking about what is in the prescriptive code. Not that, but what the limitations of prescriptive coded attachments would be. And I just can't understand how the diff- the definitional differences between static and dynamic how that just keeps happening over and over here. That's That's kind of what why I brought in [clears throat] show and tell just because it just seems like that something is being missed there. Um And those things are like $300 a piece, too. They're not cheap. I have a question for staff.
035Are there other tree houses in town in the city and how do those get you know, this has come up before in this So, if the structure meets the um uh exemption for requiring permits, they're not an issue. If it's a play play structure, if it doesn't have a deck, you know, under uh 120 square feet, not within 3 feet of a structure, um not more than 30 inches above grade. So, those things don't require permits, so they don't become an issue. Um there have been other structures in the city that have exceeded the 120 square feet or the 200 square feet um and that have required permits. Um similar situations where because it's not prescriptive, engineering was required for the um uh the structural stability and elements used to um uh make the structure
036safe. So, for contrast, I mean, I do have I don't know if it's worth sharing a screen here. Um some photographs. And there there are a lot of other tree houses in Ann Arbor. I mean, this is Tree City USA. Um I actually went out around my neighborhood this morning. I took some photographs of several tree houses that were clearly visible from the public right-of-way within a within a mile of my house. Um And I don't know if it's worth sharing the photos that are not because I've got them on my computer, but it basically shows all of these things and uh that um they're just attached with like a 2 by 10 and a lag bolt. Um there is one that I'm looking at here that kind of has a provision for movement, but
037not really, but it's certainly not nearly as substantial as that. Um I don't know if you guys need to see those or not. I don't think so. Maybe they need to see it, but I mean, [laughter] I actually I I printed these out and left them on the printer. Um So, but I've got them right here. But yeah, this is I mean, this is all stuff There's a lot of these out there and they're all visible from the public right-of-way. So, how many square feet is it? It was kind of a square footage issue or the size issue. This is what How many square feet? This interior part of structure is like one What did I put on here? Um and then like a a deck 79 square foot deck. And it's kind of an
038unusual shape. So, the deck height With the height of the ground It is what makes it not meet the exception for permits. Well, I mean, all all these ones I'm showing photos of that I or that I have photos of every single one of them 6 feet off the ground. 6 feet off the ground. Um And this has passed zoning This is going through zoning review or whatever or not? You applied for the setback and stuff. Passed zoning on 11/6. Um Zoning did make a markup on the plans. Said accessory structure would not exceed 21 feet in height and that's the biggest change um between the first and second second set of the plans is I I flipped to the elevations so I could actually have room to put a dimension to say this is
039not This is only 17 foot 10 inches. And I clouded of course I clouded that. Um Okay. Yeah. And if anyone is interested in um what the different revisions were between the plan sets. I do have a an overlay of the plans where where like the older oldest ones are in red and then blue for the next ones and then green for the next ones and it's a really nice way to see what's um changed between submissions because of course anything that hasn't changed basically just shows up black. Um so, that I have that if anyone would like would like to see that, but I don't think it's going to tell you much more of a story than I've already told you. Is it possible to >> [clears throat] >> lengthen the grade beam and
040bring um the secondary supports closer to uh the tree where Sure. that's at the apex of the Sure. Much cantilever Yeah. Yeah. You could do that. I probably would add a third post in there. Or we're going to kind of space them What are they? 6 foot spacing? 7 foot spacing? Yeah, I'd probably add that third post there and use that spacing a bit for three divided by three instead of divided by two. Do these posts provide any type of lateral load stability or is how how is the lateral load taken care of between the Uh there's not provisions for lateral. I mean it's they're 2-in um 2-in hollow steel tube with a 1/4-in base plate. Um So the tree takes lateral load still but then then that's the dynamic component of the posts. Well,
041yeah, I guess I mean how it technically it can't take a dynamic load cuz there's not a there's not a fixed I don't it can't take a static lateral load cuz there's not a fixed attachment. Um but we can certainly put some cross bracing in on the uh on the posts if that's of of a concern. And you said the structural engineer thinks that's necessary I guess is the question. Who's the engineer of record and like what's needed there? There's only one engineer of record and that's the guy who's sealing the drawings as far as I'm concerned. And if you include that comment I will establish who the engineer of record is. Is that okay? What is the electrical connection now? Does it come out of a conduit and then goes into the bottom underside
042of the structure? >> Yeah, there was an existing um like 110 V landscaping circuit there and I just tapped into that. Uh-huh. And then it's it's hard conduit to the structure or does it have a flexible connection now? It's flexible right now. Okay, so it's flexible now. Yeah. Okay. And I mean we could I mean we could go as far as putting a putting a receptacle and a plug in like they do in an RV park cuz technically that counts as a disconnect. Uh but it's got to it does have a local disconnect now as well. Does that meet the electrical code or do you still need a variance for that? And it would be the electrical connection. I'd have to look at it through that Okay. lens. Any other questions for the board? I
043one last detail. On your plan, which way is What What is the compass direction? Oh, north arrow is in the um on the site plan actually. The north arrow is built into where it says site map in the bottom bottom right. Yeah, I know. And the elevations say obviously north, east, southwest. Is it That's right. That's all right. You do the north north and offset and then that's east. There is the middle of the site and then it's northwest corner. Is that the case with that the [clears throat] the the tree that's by the stair? Is that the north? The tree that's by the stair would be the e- west. West. Yeah. Westish I guess. More more west than north I guess. Who's the site planner? Yeah, it actually shows it in the site plan.
044Barely. I don't know if you guys are you guys looking at 11 by 17 or No, we're looking at an 8 by 8 and 1/2 Oh, it's even worse to see it. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I have a larger one if you guys want to look look at it. I mean No, it's okay. So it looks like the whole total thing is less than without the stairways there's less than 200 square feet, 79 and 118. It's the height above grade maybe and stuff. And like I said that could have very well been part of the original um complaint is that it it did not have a railing at the time. I'm glad the complaint wasn't from the neighbor. Yeah, well, [clears throat] you know, I mean everybody who walks cuz it's actually a very high traffic
045It's in a very high tri-traffic location. There's a sidewalk um on the I guess it would be the southern east property line that cuts through to like lines and Forsyth Elementary. So there's 100 people a day walk by. Now, the reason for asking is that just to establish that this wasn't just an arbitrary >> I don't think so. you know, complaint but it it was a base based on the fact that what Something. I mean I if if there is a neighbor out there who complained I've never heard it because [clears throat] everybody says it's great when they walk by. We have a motion. Any more comments? Any questions? I'll make a motion. I move that in case BBA 26-0002 the appeal of the building official's decision at 1620 Hillridge Boulevard is granted relief from
046section R104.11, R106.1, and R301.1.3 of the 2015 Michigan Residential Code. The Building Board of Appeals reverses the building official's decision for the reasons that the Building Board of Appeals accepts what is proposed as an equal or better form of construction with the following provisions. The applicant has provided additional supportive data on the plans including providing additional tree/timber appropriate fasteners and secondary supports. Two, the applicant will extend secondary grade beams with additional supports to alleviate the load on the western tree adjacent to the curved stair. Three, the applicant will demonstrate flexibility of electrical conduit connection to structure to handle movement. And four, the applicant will provide anchorage of stair to platform to ensure its stability. And finally, in granting this appeal the board understands that the applicant and its engineer of record have performed due diligence
047in the design and engineering of the accessory structure. Any questions or comments from the board on the motion? Why is that sufficient for the board of for for the engineer of record to be the one stamping them? Which I think it is. Yeah, so I guess I'll need to get a re-stamp from him with the third post. Okay. >> Yeah, we'll revise that. Okay. Do I hear a second on the motion? >> I'll second. Those in favor? I. Those opposed? Nine. So that motion passes. All right. Well, thank you, gentlemen. So we'll get our staff report from at some point our staff report but our response from the building department with the status of the variance. We'll follow up with something in in writing for that. Okay, thank you. Are they going to need these
048chicken scratches for Probably so. Yeah, they'll need your original Could Could I get a Well, actually never mind. I it's in here. Yeah, photograph of it. Take a picture of your motion and then That's not going to help you. [laughter] It may help you though. I can rewrite it. Okay. I Okay, then we're all set. All right. Great. Thank you. Do you need to do like a journey or anything like that kind of stuff or I think we're seeing We have old business. Is that the something I saw that was like a fire hydrant? You want to wait till John Bob can mark that up and then we can continue. >> [clears throat] [laughter] >> Yeah. It's a long long time. Okay. Thank you. Give me a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to
049adjourn. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Are there any variances for next month that you've seen coming in?