ZBA Hearing - June 3, 2026

booth yes so we did have the fire marshal come by and we did uh correct a bunch of violations

regarding sprinkler and the hazardous material there and we are getting our hazardous material

license as well for the hazardous paint and anything flammable inside exactly because the

big problem with paint booths is about fire definitely yeah so there's a sprinkler already

in place on the booth that gets certified every year and then we do have to itemize all of our

barrels and our paint room with labels to and then there's also on the outside of the building

uh we have like a little chart to tell the fire department what is inside the building so that

they're aware before they enter the building exactly and there has to be like a fire rating

for the booth itself yeah and so if you don't meet that then you're gonna have to you know make some

other kind of arrangements to boost the fire rating yep all all in place with the fire marshal

and l and i is also on top of that as well all right um and so this this expansion of the use

is going to be for a body fender and spray painting is that what you're going to be doing

that's correct okay all right and uh i didn't see in the pictures there i mean i saw

i didn't see that many lifts but so what are you doing there now so there's two lifts in there for

now um again we kind of they really just do it's mainly a storage facility we use it for

and then they also work on cars as well um but they want to get into more body work so they did

get the auto license i mean the auto repair license uh all done by from the city and we have

the light for that so they're just starting the business up and then they wanted to expand

into getting the paint booth up and running to paint but l and i came and said we didn't have

a specific permit for that so that's why we're doing this to kind of expand the business

so this does this include uh because i'm not seeing anything here either do you do oil changes

Do you do a change in transmission fluid?

Do you do, I mean, what kind of things are you doing there now?

Because I'm not seeing any kind of, and maybe I'm missing it in the picture, but I'm not

seeing how you're disposing of any waste products now.

Are you talking about like the oil?

Yeah.

So we have oil bins.

Again, we get it regularly picked up on the block.

So there's oil bins that have been labeled oil that have to get picked up by a service and then get taken out

And then we get new ones back in. All right, because it's not it's not shown in the pictures

So again when we got the violations we pretty much cleared everything out in order to get

We wanted to make sure we were good with all of the departments before we got up and running again with anything hazardous

So we're kind of in the lull right now

okay and so how many how many cars do you think you're going to be um servicing at a time yeah

uh i mean you've got a pretty big space there yeah it's about 5 500 square feet

um i would say at a time they're probably working on 10 cars total okay all right thank you

okay all right thank you all the questions questions from our attorney

Other questions?

not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience i don't see any hints

at this time chair planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david effecto with the

city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the

i2 medium industrial zoning at this location the appellant has shown that the proposed personal

vehicle repair and maintenance facility and vehicle paint finishing shop will have no

detrimental impacts beyond what might reasonably be expected this is an industrial section of the

city with no adjacent residential development the city planning commission recommends the board

grant or propose special exceptions for personal vehicle repair and maintenance facility and a

vehicle paint finishing shop thank you mi 2025 007 184 73 50 to 52 wesson noeming street i vote yes

michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes tennetta graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams

my vote is yes taiwan my vote is yes thank you council thank you board i have nothing further to

Sure. Thank you very much. So number nine, MI2025-007-524-31-North 50th Street. Merthe Ferliger is the attorney. Good morning, counsel.

Good morning.

Could you please, when you get a chance, state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.

Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do.

Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?

I sure can. My client is Serge Maslenikov, and he is sitting right next to me.

I do see a letter of unanimous support with several provisors listed.

Our vice chair has a few questions for you.

Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?

Yes, I did.

Okay, and do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with the case. Great.

All right. Again, good morning, members of the board. The request before you today concerns 31 North 50th Street.

As always, you do have an exhibit packet in front of you that contains 17 exhibits.

Just to briefly summarize the basis of today's request, this application requests several variances to permit the reconstruction of a previously occupied four-unit dwelling on this lot, where the current zoning classification would only permit two units.

There are several dimensional variances requested, as well as a parking refusal.

we do understand that the community sent a letter of support with a few conditions

some of which my client accepts some of which he does not and we'll address that during the

presentation sarge recently purchased this property uh at sheriff sale uh up on the screen

you can see exhibit three which is the evidence of his purchase and then we do also have tax

clearance shown at exhibit two as the board likely knows the sheriff's office has seen significant

delays so my client does not yet have his deed back but we did confirm with the zba administration

that this document was sufficient to establish serge's standing for this case

as you can see up on the screen here at exhibit nine

the property sits on north 50th street which is just about seven lots south from arch street

this block in general just in terms of overall context sits right in between market street and

arch street as you can see this is a traditional twin style block with a mostly uniform aesthetic

character if i flip down to exhibit 17 first this first photograph here that you'll see is

a historical photograph of the structure that used to sit on this lot as you can unfortunately see

a fire destroyed the structure back in 2018 2017 and was eventually demolished by the city however

you can see that when the structure was still standing it was an equal twin which is one of

the driving motivations for my client's proposal to return the structure to as close to the previous

character as possible now flipping through the way this touch screen is great

flipping through the way this touch screen is great now you can see that the lot sits uh as a

vacant lot from the photograph here i will also call to the board's attention the very mature

probably 100 year old sycamore tree that does sit directly in front of this lot flipping to

the next photograph that I have here. This is looking in the direction of Market Street. And

again, you'll see that this block here is relatively uniform. But I would highlight that from what you

can see in this photograph, that there are a complete lack of any curb cuts or any driveways

providing off-street parking to any of the existing structures that are on this block.

that condition as you can see here is replicated if you look in the opposite direction towards

arch street and then again just looking directly across the street from the property

so again this block itself is generally a mirror with front porches and bays and then we do also

I also have photographs of the zoning posters if I flip through a couple other goodness gracious there we go I did also include photographs of the zoning posters that Serge timely posted on this property.

If I flip now to the zoning map at Exhibit 8, you'll see that the property is zoned RTA 1, which is residential two-family attached one.

The proposal for 31 North 50th Street is shown on the zoning site plans at Exhibit 5.

This is the original plan that I have up now.

I'm going to flip to the updated plan, which has one very minor change that I will mention.

But as you can see here, this includes one new three-story structure on the lot.

The lot itself is just over 2,500 square feet.

The building itself will contain four bi-level, four dwelling units in total.

And in response to the RCO meeting, the proposal was updated to remove the roof deck,

and that is what generated the proviso plan that I have up on the screen here.

So the roof deck was removed. That was a disfavored aspect of the project. So Sarge was happy to remove that. So we did include a revised plan as well as a revised plan proviso form that I submitted to the board yesterday.

As I alluded to earlier, the overall goal with this proposal was to build a structure that would, to the maximum extent possible, harmonize with the character of this block and fill in the void that was left by the previous fire.

Let me zoom in on the site plan itself here.

There we go.

For example, you can see here that this proposed structure does meet the front setback of the

adjoining structures and does also include the front porch. There are a few dimensional variances

that this proposal triggered, all of which we do submit are de minimis in light of the lot and the

proposed design. First, RTA1 would limit occupied area to 50% of this lot, where this structure

occupies just about 53 percent second the required rear yard is 20 feet for a multi-family structure

where this proposal leaves a rear yard of 15 feet however you can see here that the total width of

the rear yard extends to just over 17 feet at certain points and then is further buffered by

an additional four foot wide rear alley so we do submit that that proposed 15 foot rear yard

meets the intent of the code in terms of separation from adjoining structures

i would also note that the rta1 code unusually has a different rear yard requirement for

single-family homes which would be allowed at the proposed 15 feet if this were a proposed

single family dwelling the rear yard will be fenced in with an enclosed trash storage

area in the back that can be easily accessed for disposal by all of the proposed tenants

finally a variance is also requested for the insufficient side yard which measures six feet

instead of the required eight feet however in this case a six foot wide side yard is entirely

However, in this case, a six foot wide side yard is entirely characteristic of the side yard measurements for the block, which generally speaking on this block have side yards of between four and six feet.

characteristic

In my rudimentary review just looking on Atlas, I was not able to find a single side yard on the

block that measures that full eight foot in width, with these structures all having been built

likely long before the inception of the modern zoning code. In terms of the lot itself, a side

yard of eight feet would leave only 15 feet of width available, creating an unnaturally narrow

condition in the interior of the units themselves as you can also see here from the site plan there

are a multitude of egress points from the front front porch side on the side here and then in the

rear as well as well as traditional egress wells from the lower level I will also note that there

is an error on these plans in terms of context as the two adjoining structures are not in single

FAMILY USE BUT ARE BOTH TRIPLEXES ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS AND THERE ARE RENTAL LICENSES ESTABLISHING THAT

FROM THE SIDE ELEVATION START ON THIS ONE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE REAR STEPS EGRESS DIRECTLY FROM

THE LOWER LEVEL WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY FIVE FEET ABOVE GRADE WITH EIGHT FOOT CEILING HEIGHTS

I DO WANT TO SKIP THE FLOOR PLANS FOR JUST A MOMENT AND BRING UP THE RENDERING AT EXHIBIT

7. ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, MY CLIENT HAS TRULY STRIVED TO MATCH THE

HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THIS BLOCK, WHICH THE RCO DID APPRECIATE, BUT MY CLIENT DID ALSO

share that a design such as this one does have added costs that would not be imposed by a buy

right less historically sensitive option on this lot just by way of example the architect did render

what a buy right option could look like here with just two units and the required garage space

now obviously this is a completely rudimentary rendering but the point is just that with only

two units there would be no realistic justification to incur the cost of that third story which is a

critical aesthetic consideration to ensure that the character of the block can be maintained

turning back to the floor plans zoom out a little bit here

So the floor plans themselves are shown here at Exhibit 6, and as I mentioned, all of these units are bi-level.

So Unit 1 is a 1,078 square foot, one-bedroom, two-bath unit with office.

The front entrance, which is not in view here, the front entrance is a private entrance to this unit from the front, from that front porch area.

And then unit two is a 1,138 square foot unit that is in the back that has a private stair

entrance from the lower level that egresses directly into the rear yard. And you can see

that indicated here. At the first floor rear, there is a large window that will overlook the

back this unit also has a private entrance from the side which you can see here there is a private

door entrance to unit two also from the side here is the entrance to the two upper level units and

you can see the stairs that go up and then if i flip to the next page here you can see the layout

of units three and four three and four these are also bi-level units unit three is a two bedroom

one and a half bath unit of 971 square feet and unit four is just over 1300 square feet

all of the units that you've seen have have interior washer dryers ventilated trash storage

areas and ample living space a secured package storage area will also be added to the front porch

storage for common storage by the tenants.

As you can also glean from the floor plans, the requested dimensional variances are not

relative to the density that's proposed, but is truly de minimis in nature to facilitate

a less narrow layout.

For example, with an eight-foot side yard, the interior of these units would only be

For example, with an eight-foot side yard, the interior of these units would only be around 13 feet wide instead of the more standard 15 feet in width.

around

Adding an additional five feet in the rear yard would foreclose the possibility of second bedrooms for those upper-level units and would shrink critical living space.

Now, having addressed the dimensional variances, I can briefly address the remaining two variances.

I do believe that some additional context will be helpful here if I bring up exhibit 10

you can see that this lot dating all the way back to the 1950s has no known

recent history of either single family or two family use having been used first as a three

family dwelling back in the 50s and then at some point although i wasn't able to find a date on

these permits at some point uh at least before 1972 was converted into a four dwelling unit

i believe that was probably done sometime around the 60s just based on this permit

and then as you can see from the rental licenses at exhibit 11

it was maintained as a four unit dwelling from essentially that point up until the fire that

occurred in 2017 or 18. With the rental licenses having evidence of being active all the way back

to 1998. As a point of interest and relevant to the hardship here, the zoning code would actually

have allowed the reconstruction and recommencement of that four unit use had it been done within

three years of the 2018 demolition. Of course, my client just purchased the property at Sheriff's

Sale last year, so he was certainly not in a position to control that fateful lack of action.

Furthermore, although this block is zoned RTA1, much of the block is not used in accordance with

that zoning classification, with the use of structures fairly evenly split on the block

between duplexes single family and triplexes as well as a few uh higher density uh examples that

you can see here indicated with the blue dots that are four units and then the green dot which is a

six unit these all exist within the older existing structures where this proposal contemplates large

large, high-quality units that directly contribute to the maintenance of the character of this

block in supporting a more traditional design.

The property itself is bordered on both sides by a triplex, so the proposed density here

is entirely consistent with the block, immediate neighbors, and most importantly, the historical

use of this lot.

Now aside from the density, the RTA1 zoning district requires parking at the rate of one

per unit not only is there no precedent of any off-street parking on this block but this structure

never had any off-street parking to support the historical four units that existed in this location

most critically providing parking in this location would require the tragic destruction of that

100 plus year old native tree that is in a uniform line up and down this block

unfortunately there is no feasible way to provide parking here and not result in the destruction of

the tree i would also point out that adding a garage in front would foreclose the front porch

design and would be impossible on a 20 foot 23 foot wide lot to have space for a driveway leading

to the rear this if if parking were provided here it would be the only curb cut on the block