mr. badner normally renders great variance decisions. the key argument is three of the 1,172 lots are under 1,000. that is not really relevant. the variance criteria does not ask the question how many lots are similar to your proposed lot. what the question is whether there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existing today. it says applying to the property involved, meaning today, that would justify the variance. it is under that question that mr. bad ner citeded three out of 1,172. if the question stated would issuing the variance create an exceptional circumstance, then mr. badner would have been correct. only three to 10 have such a small size. the real question is exception after circumstances. it is rare that two single family homes exist on one lot. we did a survey. we may be a few off, but we found on these nine blocks around here that the red arrows show there are only three. maybe there are six. it is hard to see. but it is a rare condition. now what is interesting is the other variances we put before you by mr. badn

mr. badner. two below 1,000 and one at 1,081. the conditions that we have offered about vertical expansions triggers variances even if they don't anyway, no horizontal, if you want after i speak, i can talk about how that can be enforceable. that takes into account a lot of the concerns. the condo law requires if they are going to do the automatic con do conversion, the manabats would have to kick out the tenants they have now, and they don't intend to. otherwise they have to get lottery tickets and have to wait the statistically 2-10 years. the statements by mr. sanchez that this is a self-createed hardship. the building went up that the hughes are in, in 1975. the hughes did not even reach high school in 1975. there is no self-imposed hardship here. their adding a floor in no way affected this lot split approved or denied. i've never seen in the last five years when the city has been enforcing its policy, i've never seen a variance denied because of a parking reason. the parking is not there now for the manabats. they couldn't

mr. badner, it was unique that he did not find any of the findings to be met, and it almost came across as one who was protesting too much and very strained. i think there was some overwhelming evidence particularly in finding 453 and other situations. i don't think rarely i have ever said abuse of discretion, but this was a very strained decision. moreover, common sense here, the out ward appearances, the way the neighbors view these two properties. in every form they have been two different properties, and it really is creating injury and harm to the family. i would be inclined to agree to an n.s.r. or something similar to assure the neighbors that there wouldn't be substantial development of this property following a reversal of the variance. >> my inclingation is to uphold the v.a.'s finding on the variance. five out of five is hard to knock down. i think that -- and for many of the reasons that vice president goh articulated, i feel the same way. the concerns of the family about financing and all that, that is part of the risk you take when you enter into a t.i.c. as someone who looke