now looking again at the adjacent structures
in the photo i have up on the screen
the adjacent structure on on diamond street is a one-story auto repair garage
that faces 2nd Street and will certainly not be impacted by this new structure.
Now regarding North Phillips Street, a new home was just built several lots away
that will serve to completely block the proposed structure on this property
from any of the two-story homes on North Phillips Street.
It is also important to note that the lot immediately to the north on Phillips Street,
one of these vacant areas around here, likely where this tree is, is owned by the land bank.
So when you consider the 12-foot yard that this application is providing, in addition to the
vacant land bank lot, our structure will sit back at least 24 feet from the next adjacent structure,
which is this new home you can see in the photograph. The proposal will not place undue
burden on public facilities or utilities, nor will it cause any environmental damage, pollution,
or erosion. The proposal will eliminate a 60-year blight and vacancy and further serve to revitalize
this area. We submit that the variance complies in full with the provisions of Section 1430380
of the Code, as is further detailed in my Memorandum of Law, submitted at Tab 11.
Now, with respect to the community, we met with NARS Square Community Alliance twice.
We had a preliminary meeting with their leadership and then a full community meeting last month.
Their letter is attached at tab 15, so I will bring that up for a moment to walk you through
Now, given that the letter is opposed to the development, I do need to briefly walk you
through it.
The community expressed its desire for a commercial use and only four residential units, which is less than the code allows for this particular lot.
As I've also argued in detail today, not only is a commercial use not viable, but it would directly conflict with the community's position that it has concerns for parking, which was actually somewhat discussed at the community meeting.
As I've also argued in detail today, not only is a commercial use not viable,
With no pedestrian traffic here, any commercial use in this location would have to be served by additional cars.
Now, we did discuss pricing of the units with the community, which it seemed at the meeting to accept were affordable pricing for the area.
However, it's now asking for less units, which would inherently be significantly larger given the size of this lot, and more expensive.
These are not small units that are proposed by any means.
The letter also makes mention of the demographics of the neighborhood, which is irrelevant to our request.
Also not relevant to the request is the community's request that they prefer single-family dwellings.
The lots are zoned CMX2 and specifically allow multifamily residential use.
Interestingly enough, if single-family homes were proposed, the developer would still need a variance for the lack of ground floor commercial use.
So it would seem the community is not necessarily opposed to no commercial, it's simply just
opposed to this development.
Finally, the community makes note of trash concerns, which I have described to the board
today in the exact same fashion that we described at the community meeting.
Not only is trash stored within a designated area within each unit, but it's then stored
internally within the building until it can be collected by a commercial provider.
I will also note that the vote count is somewhat confusing, as 23 people apparently attended,
but it only reflects that seven people voted in opposition.
The meeting was held via Zoom, so we were not there in person.
Now, we of course certainly respect the community's position, but I believe the case we have made
before the board today does establish that this is a case of true hardship in the way
that the property remained zoned.
The developer is proposing a modest development that will harmonize to the greatest extent possible with the character of this changing neighborhood.
The final point I will make before concluding is that in light of the confusing outcome of the RCO meeting,
my client went door-to-door on North 2nd Street and North Phillips Street, which are directly north of this property, to gauge the neighbor positions.
We did suspect that many of the most immediate neighbors did not attend the RCO meeting.
we were correct Adam would be happy to go into detail if the board desires
about his discussions with some of the near neighbors however I have
supplemented the packet that I originally submitted I sent an email
yesterday with some additional information but I have supplemented the
packet with signatures of eight near neighbors in support and as you can see
these are the immediate neighbors that live on Phillip and North 2nd Street
there were apparently some others who verbally expressed support but were unwilling to sign a
petition. So these eight signatures, in conjunction with the fact that only seven people voted in
opposition, I do believe reflects that there is a difference of opinion in the community
that was just not necessarily reflected at the official RCO meeting.
now at this time i i would like adam just to adopt my testimony before before the board
board asks any questions uh adam perlman are you unmuted yeah i'm here adam have you heard all of
the testimony that i always sorry yeah go ahead please identify yourself name and address
uh adam perlman i'm the uh one of the owners of 203-209 diamond street address is 910 north
17th street uh 19130 we're gonna affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you thank you adam have you heard all the testimony and information that i've offered
before the board today yes and would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and
you adopt that testimony as if it were your own yes thank you thank you questions from the board
no no anyone wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand my vote was no
It wasn't a vote, he meant to say he has no questions.
Here we have Sloan Foulkes from the council person's office.
Thank you, Mr. Foulkes.
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco, ZBA Board. Sloan Folks, Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinonez Sanchez, Room 508 City Hall.
Good morning Chairman DiCicco's EBA board.
Sloan Foulkes.
I'm trying to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do, sir.
Please proceed.
Yes, the Council, our office received a letter of non-support from the, from the, our coordinating RCO.
Therefore, the Councilwoman is not offering her support for this various requests.
Folks, would you happen to know if the councilwoman and or yourself had seen the signatures on the petition that was circulated by the applicant?
No, sir.
We were at the original, I was at the original RCO meeting that evening on Zoom, but I had not seen the petition, sir.
Do you know, would you happen to know why there were 23 people in attendance, but they only have seven voting in opposition?
uh generally the historically north square uh invites the entire community to the zba meetings
they only request votes from near neighbors so what they do is they take the ads they only take
the addresses of the people who would have been affected uh from the mailing uh to be included
in the vote. Okay, thank you for clearing that up. So therein lies for me a little bit of a dilemma
that according to the petition, there were eight people who are near neighbors who signed in favor
and then there were seven opposed. So it seems to be it's pretty much even. All right. Anyone else
have any questions? This is Adam Perlman. I would also just like to add that all the local residents
that we spoke to two days ago when we went door to door they were within two blocks of the property
nobody had any issues whatsoever we got eight signatures but spoke to over 20 people
a lot of people didn't want to sign they didn't want their name or address associated with
supporting this even though they're fine with the project i think it's a tight community and
And some people didn't want their name being recorded, supported in this.
Anyone else?
We have a banner.
You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
You have to unmute yourself.
please state your name
is this oh no this is uh ben reese
sorry are you testifying in this case uh yes i'm i'm one of the owners along with adam perlman
oh okay uh do you have anything new and different to add uh no apologies this kind of it clicked
me through okay no problem okay okay uh oh god anyone else anyone out there who wishes to testify
please raise your hand no chair you can proceed okay planning commission
this is paula brumbalo burns with the planning commission this property is indicated for
commercial use on the comprehensive plan we believe that the applicant has shown why the
required commercial use would not be successful at this location accordingly
we have no objection to the applicant not providing commercial on the first
floor thank you MI-2020-000047 203-209 Diamond Street my vote is yes my vote is
yes my vote is yes good luck thank you one more thing there is another case that i was supposed
to have today that i realized was not continued earlier uh before i go i just want to make sure
that tanya i sent you two emails on this one it's and i have everything we need okay thank you
you're welcome did we already announce they would be continued tanya i know i have everything when
we get to it i'll i'll announce it okay thank you thank you if i'm not mistaken it's the next case
2458 yes okay continue hold on confessor seven uh case page seven and eight are continued no page
nine seven and eight are continued to have been continued now we'll go to page nine
i believe this is the one meredith is talking about yes mi 2020 that's 000866
2450 ingersoll street request for continuance
2450 Ingersoll Street.
Request for continuance?
Thank you.
So we'll go to page 10,
confessor.
And this is Sharon again, and can I say
that I have no record of having received
any exhibits on the
case listed as number 10?
Okay, you want to call her up
is Baditsa Khadijo, calendar number
MI2020
000461.
is there anyone okay let's continue okay uh if the applicant or attorney is here for that they
can come forward for edgemont anyone here regarding 2610 edgemont street
no one no thank you we'll go to number uh page 12
okay calendar i'm sorry professor i keep interrupting you um i want to say on number
12 we received a request from the applicant's um attorney to withdraw the appeal
so i guess we could just if we could just read it into the record and announce
it is withdrawn i'm sorry i was muted i had mi-2020-000250-3415 hamilton street is withdrawn
we now go to page 14. uh how about uh page 11 uh pete price street that was continued i believe
okay let's continue i apologize page 14 calendar number mi 2020-000256 4827 north 7th street
and this is sharon again again i have no record of having received
continue okay is there anyone or attorney or applicant out there regarding 4827 north 7th street
no thank you so mi-2020-000256-4827 north 7th street is continued
number 15
okay calendar number mi 2020-000259
Rubicam Street
William Boni
William Boni
are you the
an attorney or applicant for this case
I'm the owner of the property at 5206
Rubicam Street
this application
is a permit for a
use for an unnecessary surface parking with three parking spaces size and location as per plan
sir uh do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth
uh yes i do okay have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days
an event of this year yes have you also met with the rco and have a letter yeah i submitted the
letter too thank you please identify yourself for the record uh my name is uh william boney
i live uh address is 5206 rubicon street bill apa 19144 and your last name is spelled b-o-n-e-y
that is correct thank you you're welcome okay please proceed sir um this particular property
i live by the street from the property uh before it was a lot it was a home and a home corner fire
and we had the um the apartment put the fire out once the fire was put out the property become
to a wilderness and i took care of the property for 20 years kept it clean kept up the park
and now the kids that play there uh had a garden area as well though uh this went on for many many
years and then the drug uh dealers started coming there and they want to put the folding chairs up
there and start doing drugs out which took a lot so me and the neighbors got together and we put
our car there to stop that and it did stop that they went away all together with that though you
know so i continue on parking the cars there for support of the neighborhood as well though
So I continue on parking the cars there for support of the neighborhood as well, though.
The neighbors that supported me with the car parking, they died.
I'm the only one left in this situation that continue on parking there and continue on with the garden and keep it clean up the park.
For 20 years, I did this.
You know what I mean?
And I'm saying I did all I could do, you know, taking the trash, the dead dogs, the cats, the rats, when the snow and everything like that.
I did all I could do to maintain that property all in many years, though, you know, and I'm just asking the board, you know, to grant me the zoning to continue on to have a safe area for our neighborhood as well.
I've been supported by the RCOs here.
I have a letter of support there.
I've been supported by another RCOs on Jackson and Wayne Avenue who support me.
The neighbors support me.
I mean, the whole neighborhood knows what I've been doing for 20 years.
And they and my point all the way, though, you know, so I give my heart to what I'm doing.
I like to continue on with what I'm doing as well.
and just make the neighborhood safe and as possible can.
We have a lot of crime in the neighborhood so far as shooting, dope,
and stuff like that in the neighborhood.
And I am one advocate that's trying to support the neighborhood
to say this won't go on.
So we need the children to play and have a safe haven for everyone
in the area as well.
Mr. Boney, you don't own this property, correct?
I own the property, yes, I do.
You do own it.
I own it, and I went to the share of sale, and I bidded on it, and I paid for it.