The Holland City Board of Appeals denied an application to allow an addition to a historic house at 554 Elm Drive that would place the structure inches from the property line, ruling the variance request failed to meet the board’s findings of fact.

Architect Gordon Julius told the board the owner, Lisa Rivori, seeks an 8‑by‑8 mud/utility addition and that lot splits and historic platting left the home unusually close to the property line. ‘‘We’re just running the wall… we’re already way out of whack when it comes to the zoning requirement,’’ Julius said, explaining the addition would extend an existing wall and partially screen a back porch.

Board members debated alternatives — jogging the wall, shifting the addition a few inches, or pursuing a special‑exception process with different standards — and focused on whether the condition was self‑created. One member said the addition itself created the need for a variance and called that a disqualifying factor under the variance standard.

After discussion the board moved to deny the application. In roll call the motion to deny passed (yes votes recorded from Benitez, Paulson, Lambers, Peaks, Loughrey and Chair Bedard). Board members said they were open to the applicant returning with amended designs, including a request under the special‑exception ("along and within") standard that carries a different set of review questions and lower legal hurdles.

The decision is final from the Board of Appeals; applicants may refile, amend the application, or pursue administrative or special‑exception review if they choose to revise the design.