And when I show you the historical Sanborn map, you'll see why there's none for 419R, because it always functioned as part of the other properties.
These properties were previously zoned C2, C2 commercial, which is now CMX2.
You can hear 5A, you can see 415.
417, you can see C2, and that's 5B.
And then 5C, you can also see C2.
And these documents also confirm the permitted uses of those properties, 417 and then 415 as well.
Again, 415 presently is a vacant property.
The properties are presently zoning classified as RSA 5.
So here on this map, what's highlighted is the shorter 415.
Then you have the deeper and wider 417.
and then the wider, not quite as deep, 419 as 417, 419, and then 419R at the back.
Here's a close-up of those pictures of those lots.
I think it's safe to say that the lot sizes of these properties, given that they are RSA-5,
They far exceed the lot area that's required under the zoning code for RCA5, which is 1,440.
The total lot area of altogether is 13,736 square feet.
If these lots were still zoned CMX2, they would garner 28 residential dwelling units with no off-street parking required.
If they were RM1, they would get 29 units.
So the lot area would generate 29, up to 29 residential dwelling units with no off-street parking required.
My clients have owned these properties since 03.
They acquired, again, as father, son, or father and son.
They acquired 419 in 03, 417 in 04, 415 in 05, and then 419R in 17.
And the reason I bring that up is if you look at the Sanborns, again, to explain the history of the property,
You can see in the back area where 419R is in the back of 417, there was a garage that stored 20 cars back to the early 1920s.
You can see over the years then that back building became a cleaning and dying facility.
You can see the remnants of that building here, the aerials at tab, Sanborns were at tab four.
The aerials I have at tab 6, you can see the remnants of that building here at the back here at 419R and the back of 419 and 417.
back in 417. You can see in the arrows and then also in the photographs that I have of the subject
property and the surrounding properties on the 400 block of West Queen Lane, you can see there
are a lot of different types of properties, different sizes of properties. You can see
attached structures to extending to the right as you look at our property. There's a vacant lot
right next to us to the right as you look at our property, then attach structures.
To the right, as you look at our property, then attached structures, lower two stories.
You have some taller three stories across the street, a newer three story.
On McKean Avenue, you have a number of taller structures there.
You can see cars being stored.
And I have photographs of that.
You have some buildings that are up at the sidewalk, like 421.
Others that are set back from the sidewalk, like 423.
So you can see, and here in the photographs, again, at tab seven, this block has a large variety of styles, building types, and orientations to the street.
These are all pictures of my client's property in the rear.
And here you can see the abutting property to the left of us, 421, two-story up at the sidewalk, and then the views down to the left of us.
You can see cars being stored in open area.
You can see other lots that are vacant with metal corrugated steel fencing.
It looks like a state inspection garage, two-story building here at the bottom of page, let's see what page this is, page 11.
Here you can see a non-residential arrangement here with large parking area, vacant lot, chain link fence.
Again, two stories, vacant lots, some of them set back with little front yards.
And then across the street, vacant lots, you got some twins, those being utilized as multifamily dwellings.
Some newer three stories that are of a completely different architectural style and type.
These are the properties at McKean that are pretty tall, particularly given that they're raised.
And you'll see that even though we have a height refusal, our building is comparable in height to those, if not shorter, garages directly across the street from us, and then some two stories, three stories and two stories with front porches.
So our application is to demolish all of the existing structures on the lot to consolidate the lots, as was shown in the survey plan at tab 10, and then upon the consolidated lot to construct nine single family dwellings.
uh they will uh eight of those will have two car parking one of them will have one car
um the range in size from i think about 2100 square feet for units a through f interior space
g and h which are the two units behind are a little larger about 2200 and then i unit i which
is all the way at the rear is a little larger still at 2700 these buildings will be built on
graded slab. All this parking is being accessed by a single 18-foot wide curb cut that you can
see here to the right, shared drive. So we're getting a lot of cars off street for this
development project with minimal impact on street parking. In fact, if we were to develop these
properties by right with single family dwellings, not only would they not fit in because those
structures would be incredibly large and financially infeasible, I think it'd be pretty
clear to see that but uh by as a matter of right we wouldn't be able to get any parking off street
and we'd be putting cars on street and as you can see from the photos that i previously provided
there's uh on-street parking is at a premium on this block so um the uh the proposal is for each
of the buildings will be four stories tall uh there's going to be and you can see here on the
site plan, a walkout. The fourth floor is the master or the larger bedroom. They have decks
that walk out off of those bedrooms. You can see here for A through F, they face the shared drive
and then G and H and then I back in this area. There are not roof decks on top of the fourth
floor or a pilot house. Two of our refusals have to do with the fact that the parking, which is
stacked for, or shotgun as they call for A through F, extends into the side yard a little bit,
not much, but a little bit. And then the decks we have off the second floor, what is the rear of
the buildings, but is deemed a side yard, extend a little bit into the side yard on that side.
The side yard requirement is five feet. Again, as indicated in notice of refusal that I'll show you in a minute, they said that we don't have a side yard for A through F. I think the examiner was looking at the distance. We had communications back and forth about this by email. We do have a seven, seven, over seven foot wide.
We do have a seven, seven, over seven foot wide side yard is just that the deck and the parking encroach into it.
We have a side yard refusal down the back here at the side of I, RSA 5.
You're not required to have side yards, but if you do, they have to be five feet.
As indicated, we're more than that for A through F and a little bit more than that through G and H.
You can see that here.
The dimensions are in the back.
But here for I, on the one side, it's only three feet.
You see in our revised drawings in the plans that this allowed and the renderings that this allowed access here to get from the rear yards,
the yards behind I, both out to the shared drive this way or to get out along this way through the backyards of all the properties leading out to West Queen Lane.
We did make some changes to the design originally.
Let me go show you the renderings because I think that'll be helpful.
As originally designed, originally presented, we've had three community group meetings with the 12th Ward Democratic Committee and solo Germantown over the last several months.
After the first meeting, it's my opinion that most of the commentary focused on the design of the building, not on the zoning refusals or the zoning aspects.
But as you can see, this was the original design we submitted to them, the rendering at our first meeting back in April.
And you can see, even though we have a height refusal in comparison to the buildings across the street, the ones that run onto McKean that were the same height or lower, we do have lower buildings to either side of us, the left and the right, but those are obviously built far below the dimensional, the permitted heights for RSA 5 properties.
So even though it looks like we're taller or even tower over them, it's because those buildings are so much shorter.
But you can see this was the original design that we had.
We came back after their first meeting.
We thought that they didn't like the lighter color brick.
There was talk about a bay to match the bays across the street, making it look more, that it fit in a little more than Germantown.
We added, you can see up here at the top, the fourth floor that I said is the bedroom, the larger bedroom, with the deck that walked out.
You can see here, we modified that to a mansard to give it a more historical look.
added a darker color brick, detailing at the cornice.
There was a desire for some greening at the street,
so we created a recess and a planting area.
We got some feedback at that meeting in May,
and this is where we are right now.
And the plans, I think, from a zoning standpoint
and the revised plans, things like moving the doorway
for the end unit, Unit A, from facing the share drive to facing West Queen to get more interaction
with the street. We changed, we added angled bays like you have across the street here,
which also need to be reflected. Again, we continued with the mansard roof at the fourth
floor. We angled the bays going back away from West Queen Lane. So some minor changes that are
reflected in the zoning plan. Nothing material. We still the same number of units, still the same
height, still the same footprint. The shared drive and then plantings along the property,
along the wall or the property line to the left of us. Street trees along West Queen Lane. The
wall for the rear yard will be masonry, brick, same type of materials, the front facade. In West
in the letter from the 12th War Democratic Committee, they made comments about the color
of the brick pointing to a property down the street. We've tried our best to reflect that
in the rendering. My client, which you'll hear who you'll hear from in a minute, lives in the
neighborhood, is a longstanding resident, has interactions with the community and the members
and community group before this project, and we'll continue to do so, and we'll continue to discuss
and get the color of the brick right, the bays, what were discussed, and the other things, let's
see, that were discussed in the letter from the 12th Ward. Oops, let me just move to that.
We did show on the rendering the Wissahick and Schist at the ground floor, even though I don't
Florida, the end unit, unit A, although that was not, you don't see that on a lot, if any, of the other.
Although that was not, you don't see that on a lot, if any, of the other properties on the block, that was something that was requested.
I did talk about the brick and then the bay windows being angled.
We showed all that in the revised renderings that we're presenting to you today.
Again, from a zoning standpoint, I've gone through those things that needed to be reflected in the zoning drawings,
And they are set forth along with the revised proviso plan form at tab three.
But again, going back to the refusals, the side yard refusals, other than the one being incorrect, I think are de minimis.
And they address some concerns and desires of the neighborhood getting cars off the street.
We were able to get two cars off the street for A through G.
And for A through F, that was by, again, having carports with a bit of the back car extending into the side yard.
Let's see if this goes over.
There we go.
The height, we are a little bit taller than the permitted height.
We don't have a parapet around the top of the fourth floor.
So, again, by right, as you know, would be 38 feet plus a 42-inch parapet, which would be 41.6.
We are taller even than the 41.6 at 44 feet, but a large portion of that, or that's largely due to the need to have the off-street parking at the ground floor that pushes the upper floors up.
And again, L&I views, I don't agree with the wording of this refusal necessarily. They view this as a multifamily dwelling. Again, this is not an apartment building.
You're going to hear from my client in a minute that that is not what he wants.
These are going to be for sale units.
The idea is given the lot size and given the number of units, the finances of this project,
they're going to be much more affordable than they would be for members of the community
and otherwise than if they were built as a matter of right.
But you can see that they are each going to be, and it was included in the application,
They're going to be separately building permitted.
There'll be a separate building permit for each unit.
They are nine single-family homes.
It is not a multifamily dwelling.
I've suggested that they write the refusal as either multiple principal uses or multiple principal structures,
particularly since that's how they, being L&I, view it at the building permit stage.
But anyway, it's how they write it.
It's not an apartment building.
It's nine single-family dwellings.
um copy of the deed um in my client's names for the subject properties the two deeds
are attached to tab 17 tab 18 again has the uh showing the documentation showing the zero tax
balance for the properties a copy of our hearing notice is at tab a for today's hearing along with
the posting of those notices
in each of the properties.
It's a little hard to post 419R
because it's landlocked in the rear,
which is a pretty unique condition
for that property.
It makes developing it very difficult,
but we just posted twice
at the front of 419.
And then the 14303 notices,
here you have the email.
This is a tab 20,
the email designating the 12th Ward Democratic Committee as a coordinating RCO, but also
Solo Germantown, that they're both co-RCOs or coordinating RCOs.
The 12th Ward conducted the meeting, but the Solo Germantown was there.
The list of addresses we sent the notices to three times.
Well, there were two times, actually, we sent the notices.
The third time we were ready to send it for the meeting on 6-5, but actually the 12th Ward Democratic Committee sent notices to those people that were at the 5-18 meeting.
We were prepared to send out the notice, but did not send it.
So with that, I'm going to rest as far as submitting any more exhibits.
I would ask that they be moved into evidence.
I would ask that my client, Nicholas Holman, be promoted to panelists to not only adopt my statements, but also to make any quick statements he'd like to make to the Zoning Board.
Please, Bernard, speak.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Nicholas?
good afternoon everybody chairman members of the board david
could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
my name is nicholas holman n-i-c-h-o-l-a-s
My name is Nicholas Holman, N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S, last name Holman, H-O-L-M-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nicholas, what is your role or position with the owner of the properties 415 to 419 W Queen Lane, LLC?
i'm the sole member and owner of of the llc for those properties that all right nicholas and um
you heard the statements that i made to the board today yes i did and are they true and correct to
the best of your knowledge information and absolutely absolutely and would you adopt them
as your own yes i would yes i did a quick couple quick questions uh how long have you lived in the
neighborhood, Nicholas? Since 2003. Okay. And before you even started this project or when
this project was first starting, you made the decision to be involved in the neighborhood and
actually interact with the neighbors and see what they, the neighbors, those people living on the
block wanted to see it disaddressed. Is that correct? That is correct, David. And what is it
that you learned that they wanted to have, they'd like to see developed at this property?
Oh, even issues that I was always having. They wanted to see more off-street parking, single-family residents occupying homes. Part of the reason they stressed the RSA 5 zoning classification is they want the single-family home ownership in the neighborhood. So I continued to speak with them, and we came up with this design plan, and I presented it to you and Stephen, and it looks great.
Stephen's the architect, correct?
That is correct.
And then during the course of this project, you can see at, let's just tab 1C, there are a number of support letters from neighbors.