The Holland City Board of Appeals denied a variance request for an addition at 554 Elm Drive, finding the proposed reduction in setback was self‑created by the owner’s proposal and that alternative design solutions had not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Architect Gordon Julius described an 8×8 mud/utility addition that would reduce a corner setback to 5 7/8 inches from the south property line where a 7‑foot setback is required. Julius said the home, built in 1921 on a lot split decades earlier, sits on an irregular lot and that the addition is intended to accommodate HVAC and water‑heater equipment with minimal alteration to the house’s historic character. "We can push that," he said in response to board questioning about moving the addition a few inches, noting however that internal circulation and the existing easement constrain design changes.

Owner Lisa Robory told the board she owns both adjacent properties and said she is "committed to keeping the historic nature of the structures" and that the addition was the most efficient way to house utilities. Board members questioned roof eaves and potential overhangs, building‑code firewall and opening requirements for walls close to property lines, and whether the requested 5.875‑inch setback represented the minimum necessary relief. Several members pointed to design solutions—jogging the wall, shifting the addition slightly north, or pursuing a special‑exception review—that could avoid deeper encroachment.

After deliberation, one board member moved to deny the variance on the grounds the need for relief was created by the proposed addition and that the minimum necessary standard was not met. The motion was seconded and passed on roll call.

The board noted applicants may reapply, pursue alternative design options, or seek a different permit standard (special exception) that carries different criteria. The meeting closed after the vote; the board scheduled its next meeting for January 22.