we're looking at lots within 1,000 feett. hey are 219 lots. 49% are less than 4000 square feet. i think these are good arguments for or alot size variance. the question is, is this enough to justify this variants for this property? the neighbors have raised many interesting points about the history of the developments here. yesterday i looked at our historic maps, out which have the history of the development of these. i was surprised go back to the 1946 book and find out basically every single lot on this block was 25 by 1000. -- 25 by 100. in 1946, they had all 3 lots that make up this property under separate ownership. in 1952, the building was built. 1953 is what the subdivision merged the two lots. then in 1965, it shows that had been effectuate it. looking at more recent books, it was 50 feet wide, but the building was an adjacent 25-foot lot. it was further merged in 1978 to the current size. the rh-1d which instituted the requirement was 1961, and i was struck by how overtime, all of thelots -- all of the lots on the block had become conforming. the zoning was working, c