Hold on a second.
Of a project he had done on Susquehanna Avenue.
And I have to find those.
But in any event, the idea here was to take this old building and to restore it, but with the original notice of refusal – oh, here, I'm sorry.
Here's the Susquehanna that I had showed you last time, that we had also taken to the board for variances, an older, nicer, older building, and he'd done an amazing job restoring the interior.
here. But the original notice of refusal had the refusal for utilizing this very large RSA 5
property for multifamily household living, the 12 units in the convent, the two units in the
four-story building where the garage was, the garage to get parking in at the ground floor to
Um, the garage, uh, to, to get parking in at the ground floor to reuse that, to have the parking
there where it was, um, off of that street, we came in a little bit higher at 42 feet, but we did
drop the parapet so that the overall, uh, envelope of the building, the skin of the building was
still at about the height of a by right building, which with a 38 foot roof and a 42 inch parapet
comes out to 41 feet, six inches. There was, with the original refusal, I had made comments to the
original examiner, or the examiner, that there should have been a refusal issued for having
multiple principal structures on the lot. That wasn't picked up prior to our prior hearing,
and we knew that we were going to, for some months now, we knew we were going to be
amending the application because we knew that the surface parking spaces, those 12 spaces,
were going to create some additional refusals. So in the new amended refusal, she did pick up
that refusal here. You can see here the multifamily, the height refusal, the multiple
principal structures. We have the two. So she picked that up that she'd missed on the original
refusal on this. And then we have two new refusals. One is parking in a side yard or any yard, front
or rear yard, is not permitted. Rear yard is permitted in certain exceptions, in certain
situations, but front yard and side yard, it's not permitted. So we do have that refusal. And then
the drive aisle that we have coming behind the East Madison Street properties is by right for
the number of units that are there, but the zoning code states that once you have more than 10 units
And whether it's the 14 that we have on our property, or even if you consider the 12 for the convent, which are really the only units that are going to be using the surface parking, and or if you take it in conjunction with the single family dwellings that the current drive currently serves, presently serves, you have more than 10 units.
And the zoning code says that once you have more than 10 units, your drive aisle width goes from, or your parking aisle goes from 12 feet to 18 feet.
And we're just simply reusing, we're simply reusing the existing drive aisle.
We didn't want to make that wider.
Then we'd be creating refusals for the by right East Madison Street properties.
So here you can see the 12-foot wide shared driveway.
It's a one-way driveway.
that comes here from Miller Street, you can see, and then extends down to Belgrade Street.
And we're able to pull into each of the 12 parking spaces, including the 1ADA space.
There will be an easement.
I submitted a draft of an easement agreement to L&I.
So even though they're all owned by the same entity, my client right now, ultimately, obviously,
the Madison Street properties will be sold off.
My client will retain the convent property as a rental property for now, and there will be an easement agreement between them.
As mentioned, these plans are stamped by the Planning Commission.
There was an extensive review regarding landscaping required for the parking between our use and the abutting uses, both the church to the one side and the single families to the other.
Again, there were certain – there are a lot of – there's some restrictions to the property.
Zoning code calls for screening between parking and the abutting residential uses.
We obviously can't do that here because that would completely block off the shared drive.
So there were some waivers that are granted and there will be a payment made in lieu by my client for the waivers that were requested and that were granted by the Planning Commission for the landscaping.
So essentially, you know, we presented the project at the last hearing.
The reason for the amendment to the application is solely to accommodate the one request that the community have had in order to provide their support.
We feel that those variances are the additional variances don't impact the neighbors and actually only impact our own properties in terms of the use of the single family dwellings and our own parking spaces.
This has been reviewed by the streets department in terms of the required turning radiuses into the parking spaces.
They were already approved for the single-family dwellings fronting on East Madison, but also for the parking spaces on our property on the 3230.
So the width, we don't believe, is an issue, particularly here, given that it's one way and the way that it's going to be used.
And again, these additional refusals are solely due to the requests of the community group.
And then obviously locating it in the side yard, that's only impacting our single family dwellings.
And then obviously locating it in the side yard, that's only impacting our single-family dwellings on the other side.
And it's not as if there's a yard right there.
It's their own driveway and then parking, getting into the parking at the backs of those properties.
So for those reasons, we feel both the reasons that were stated and the basis that were stated at the last hearing for the granting of the variances cited in the original notice of refusal,
as well as what I've stated today regarding the additional notices of refusal,
we respectfully request that the board grant the variances for those
so that we may proceed with this really impressive project.
Questions from the board?
And I do have my client and the architect here to adopt me.
I'll get there in a minute.
Why don't you bring your client on now?
i'm sorry what did you say bring your client one okay um bob hutton lock please
robert will be promoted to panelists i guess uh my one question is has anything changed about
that rear enclosure since we last looked at this you mean the area behind the convent
no the the only thing that's changed with this project since we were last year
is showing the parking spaces and the landscaping okay so yeah that that area let me go to the
renderings hold on and then did we maintain the same number of proposed parking spaces as before
because if i remember correctly last time there was a little bit of concern around circulation
path and then there was obviously uh there was no landscaping plan were you able to maintain the
same number of spaces once adding in the landscaping yeah i mean we we had we maintained
all 14 spaces that was the priority because of the community there were some variants or waivers
that were granted for nine trees um on the property i mean it's mainly once you put in
those parking spaces there just wasn't the room it's pretty tight on the property not only because
of the parking spaces on one side but as a condition for the grant or for the sale of the
property um we had to let me go back to the revised zoning plans this area on this side
budding the church is a is an easement all of it is an easement it's currently used as a driveway
in a loading area for the church so this this all is maintained and it's a paved area so we couldn't
utilize that area for the landscaping oops so we were really we were very basically limited to
this interior area in here which we packed pretty tightly maintaining the necessary or the required
separation distances between trees and bushes landscaping here and then we added some of the
trees that we because not only so there was apparently on the first review some landscaping
requirements were missed um obviously the park the landscaping that's required for the parking
spaces on this side of budding the east madison single families is new but when we reviewed with
the planning commission they determined that they by code they felt that there should have been a
screening requirement between our property and the church over here and um so there was there's
quite because when you have 135 feet of length on this side and i think it came to about 109 feet
on this side there were a lot of trees and shrubs that were required um and again we got everything
in that we could squeeze everything in maintaining the distances and we were short nine trees and
that's what the waiver was and we'll be making a payment in lieu for that that's reflected now on
the plans and there's an agreement with the there's a document with the uh with the planning
commission as well okay but there's still that rear access and stairwell at the back for the
some of the residential units yes all this area back here back to the rear and i can show you
that on the floor plans as well so filling in the ground floor above this existing upper floor
is still the same that's not changing and then making the enclosures over here
from the tower over into the the main portion of the upper floors is also going to be maintained
and that's not going to change at all it's really just landscaping in the parking spaces that
changed from the last plan that was presented to you and today okay david is your client on
i believe he was being uh promoted to panelists i'm on can you hear me yes we can could please
I'm on. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
state your name and spell for the stenographer
Robert Huttenlock, H-U-T-T-E-N-L-O-C-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told you nothing but the truth?
David?
Bob, did you hear my statements that I made to the board today?
And they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
And once again, as stated at the last proceeding, you are the sole member of Best Choice Ventures, LLC?
Correct.
Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions from my client. And I do have the architect as well.
Questions from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I'm sorry. The amended refusal is dated August 5th, 2025.
Correct.
questions or comments from the virtual audience relative to today's testimony
i see no hands planning commission thank you chairman and board members good morning david
fecto with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the rsa 5 residential single family zoning at this location the zoning in this part
of the neighborhood dates to 1970 this building sits on the campus of the former nativity bvm
church campus the plan proposes reusing buildings for residential use approximating the density
of surrounding row house blocks the comprehensive plan recommends supporting conversion of vacant
religious properties into new uses the city planning commission recommends of the board
grant or proposed use parking and dimensional variances. MI 2024 002 617 3230 Belgrade Street
I vote yes per amended refusal dated 8-5-25. Michael Johns my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes with proviso.
And Wynn my vote is yes with proviso.
thank you david okay thank you that includes my business may be excused
yes thank you six is done seven is done eight is done
number nine mi2025 000 989 6227 cal hill street vito canuso is the attorney
Vito, V-I-T-O, Canuso, C-A-N-U-S-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth?
Nothing but the truth, Mr. Canuso.
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Would you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Yuval, Y-U-V-A-L, A-T-T-O-U-N, trustee of Callow Hill Trust, owner of 6227 Callow Hill.
You're breaking up, Vito.
I'm sorry.
That was Yuval.
Y-U-V-A-L.
Is that better, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, it is, sir.
ATON, A-T-T-O-U-N,
trustee of
Callow Hill Trust,
owner of
62.7 Callow Hill Street,
which is on the corner of
Callow Hill Street.
You're fading again, Vita. I think you've got to face
forward. I'm sorry.
No, you don't have to be sorry.
board member, Tanetta Graham, has a few
questions for you, sir.
Hi, good afternoon. Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay, thank you. You may share your screen and proceed.
Counsel, just to, this is the, you're not looking to increase, you're going down, right?
You're going from three to two units, is that right?
Correct.
OK, please proceed. Yes. Here's the application information. We're proceeding with the refusal application of appeal.
We don't see it. You're not up yet with your screen.
Thank you.
is that is that uh acceptable now no we can't see your screen counsel
why don't we do this we have i think one or so
more. Why don't you figure out if you can get that, and we'll come right back to you, okay?
Very good. We'll be back in, I hope, 15 minutes.
Number 11, MI-2025-001-082-4501
North Howard Street. Michael McElhaney is the attorney.
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
michael mcelhenney m-i-c-h-a-e-l m-c-i-l-h-i-n-n-e-y
you swear or affirm that tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do could you identify your client and relationship to the property
My client is a tenant, Calabra Snack and Vape Inc.
And the member is Amar Mohamed.
Tenetta Graham, one of our board members, has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you.
You may share your screen and proceed.
excellent on my pre-marked exhibit packet we see your package excellent the just i'll go i know
we're late here so i'll go through quickly uh exhibit we're not late we're we're fine we're
not late okay excellent at exhibit eight is our a copy of our zba appeal at exhibit nine